As I understand it, the evidence tends to show that police patrolling the streets is not that cost effective, but it's something people overwhelmingly want. I don't think it's unreasonable for people to want to see that the police are around - not only will it reassure them, and so create a greater sense of safety, but it will deter some wrong-doing. But if properly accountable, I'd be happy to accept CCTV monitoring and other ways of them letting us know what they are doing as alternatives.Robin Orton wrote:@BensonbyNot particularly, although I've often wondered whether any studies have been done to find out exactly how cost-effective an activity it is. Other things being equal, I think of police officers in the same way as I think of doctors - I'm glad they're there, but the less I see of them the happier I feel. (Perhaps I should make it clear that I number doctors and at least one policeman among my friends!)So, Robin, you are against police officers patrolling the streets?
I have a similarly broad understanding of who are 'the agents of the state" are, which is why, mosy, I do see a reasonable link to that other thread. The differences lie in what sort of accountability is appropriate.Robin Orton wrote:They work for various state organizations - central and local government, the NHS, police authorities etc - in order to enable those organizations to fulfil their statutory functions and meet the objectives that the various arms of government have set for them. These organizations are usually - and perhaps this is the point of your question - publicly accountable in the sense that they report, directly or indirectly, either to Ministers who report to Parliament or to elected local councils. But that doesn't mean that we, their ultimate customers, should not be able directly to challenge the way they do things if we believe they are being (for example) incompetent or oppressive.I'm also interested in who you think "agents of the state" are.... what do they do, why do they do it and who do they work for?
I'm sure that's right. My wife is a civil servant, and while she may have become one because it was a good job to get rather than any idealism about serving the public, there is no question that, in post, she aims to do a good job for the explicit purposes of the organisation, which is to serve the public. I think this will be true for most civil servants and local government officers - but sadly not all.Robin Orton wrote:I doubt whether one could give a simple answer to the question as to why people choose to work for the various agencies of the state. I hope a desire to serve the public will often be one reason; it certainly was in my case, as a civil servant. But, as I know from my own experience, it's all too easy to be captured by the corporate culture and start putting the (perceived)needs of the organization before those of the punters.
Re being "captured by the corporate culture and start putting the (perceived)needs of the organization before those of the punters" - I agree that this is also a danger. There's also what economists call 'regulatory capture', whereby regulators get so involved with those they are meant to regulate, that they start to see the world their way. Readers of Private Eye will suspect that this has happened with the current head of HMRC, David Hartnett.
I'm also interested by your use of american spelling in 'organization'. Are you loosening up in your old age?
Indeed.Robin Orton wrote:I agree that's an important issue.I'm rather more interested in, and concerned about, private corporations getting access to and utilising private information to be quite honest...
