Why the need for fancy names?

[anotheoldgit]

The Met. have recently launched such operations as:

'Operation Trident', (investigating black gun crime).

'Operation Blunt 2', (investigating knife crime).

'Operation Connect', (crack down on violence driven by gang culture).

Is there any need for all of these or should the Met get on with their general fight against London's crime without the need for giving them fancy names?

[Answerprancer]

It makes them feel 'potent' and effective.

[Jonathan-Joe]

I suppose they need names that don't reveal the objective of the operation.
Some explanation here - http://news.bbc.co.uk.../magazine/7288489.stm

[Wrongn3mber]

They already have a long list for future operations and I've heard that they're chosen at random, do you think they all sit at a table with pens and pads seeing who can come up with the most interesting/fancy operation names for weeks on end whilst crime goes undealt on the street level? Incorrect.

[Jonathan-Joe]

This was asked a while ago - http://www.theanswerb...2.html#answer-6087557

[seadogg]

The military use names for operations to make them unique and avoid possible confusion. Guess the Met adopted this.

[Gromit]

As usual, it is something we have copied from the US.

The same reason we have pointless police helicopters. The British have 23 helicopters in Afhanistan, a vast mountainous country. The police have 33 helicopters in England and Wales. Helicopters are very very expensive to operate.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// The same reason we have pointless police helicopters.///

I don't think you could say that they are pointless, they do valuable work.

They can get to an incident in a fraction of time that it would take any other response vehicle, often in areas where other vehicle can not reach.

What I must agree with you though is the small number of helicopters deployed in Afghanistan, compared to the number in England & Wales, taking into consideration that the land area of Afghanistan is four times greater than England & Wales.

But then that is yet another matter.

[MarkRae]

If this is the biggest problem you face today, you are truly blessed...

[Gromit]

AOG

Police helicopters rarely land at an incident (perhaps you are thinking of the air ambulance?). At best, the police helicopter is a spport function. At worse, a very expensive cctv camera.

[Kromovaracun]

@Gromit: the main use for police helicopters as I understand it, is to check where drugs are being grown through thermal imagery (if I remember right, growing marijuana requires very large amounts of heat/humidity which is very conspicuous with thermal imaging from the air). Of course you could respond by demonstrating the pointlessness of that particular drugs war (and I'd agree), but that's a whole other argument....

[Kromovaracun]

(also, I'm writing from my netbook - which is quite slow, so my apologies for the inevitably badly-written post).

[anotheoldgit]

Who said anything about landing?

They can convey very valuable surveillance information from their lofty position.

[Gromit]

// They can convey very valuable surveillance information from their lofty position. //

That is what I said. They are a very expensive CCTV camera.

[sandyRoe]

There should be no expense spared in the fight against crime.

[anotheoldgit]

Never heard of radio then Gromit?

[Gromit]

AOG

You may have noticed all the arrests of rioters from CCTV cameras. Haven't heard of any arrests from an helicopter pilots radio messages. Though they got some good video of burning furniture stores

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// You may have noticed all the arrests of rioters from CCTV cameras. Haven't heard of any arrests from an helicopter pilots radio messages. ///

There have been numerous other crime situations other than the recent riots, that needed the very valuable involvement of the police helicopters, be them gathering surveillance evidence by use of their camera or relaying vital messages via their radio.

Your argument on the non usefulness of police helicopters are now wearing a little thin, almost to the extent of getting rather silly.

[Gromit]

I just think £69,000,000 could be used more effectively on front line police on the ground. I do not believe they are cost effective for the number of criminals they catch. I believe, but it is only my opinion, that £69mill would buy very many beat officers who would deter many more crimes and catch many more criminals. But I forgot this Government are soft on crime.

[hc4361]

I know for sure that the West Midlands Police helicopter is used as an air ambulance when the air ambulance isn't available.

A helicopter can search a whole area's gardens in the dark more effectively and more quickly than 100 police on the ground.

A helicopter is the safest way of keeping track of an armed maniac in a speeding vehicle.

One helicopter can attend several major incidents and accidents across a very large area in one shift.

The police helicopter is second to none at finding cannabis factories.

As for operational names, it makes it very easy to convey lots of information across numerous forces and everyone be clear as to the reference. Sadly, criminals don't stay within a force area.