Superstar security

[geo0939]

So the Merseyside Police have promised added security for the houses of the mega- rich football stars. I was under the impression that it was the job of the police to keep everyone's house secure. So now the very rich get added security. Ask any average person who has had a break-in how much extra security they are promised. This is a very wrong message for police to put out regarding how they use their meagre resources. Anyone agree?

[naomi24]

I haven't seen this in the news - do you have a link? If it's true, then I do agree with you. If they want added security, they should pay for it.

[geo0939]

I've seen it on a number of TV newscasts today.

[naomi24]

I watched most of the news tonight, but I didn't see it. I'll check tomorrow's papers.

[susiespider]

It strikes me as a good idea for the police to go where they might actually catch burglars. Football stars have been targeted as it's public knowledge when they will be away from home so it makes sense. Bit pointless the police staking out houses unlikely to be targets. I know everyone can be burgled (I've been a victim myself) but some are much less at risk and they can't watch everywhere, too busy doing paperwork for that. So best to concentrate on most likely targets.

[naomi24]

So, susie, why don't these rich people pay for security, rather than burdening the taxpayer?

[susiespider]

They no doubt do pay for security themselves if they have any sense but the point I'm making is that by watching these houses, the police might have a chance of catching some of the burglars and stopping them from breaking into not only the footballers' houses but also other peoples' houses by putting them out of action. From an earlier thread, it sounds as if burglars have been making a point of targetting footballers' houses so seems a good idea to try and catch them. However, I may be misunderstanding what kind of security is being proposed. I am assuming it is manpower. I doubt if the police are providing alarms etc as they probably already have those.

[naomi24]

I do see your point Susie, and I know it's well-meant. Having twice been the victim of burglars I would like them to be caught too - but wouldn't private security firms, paid for by the homeowner, do exactly the same as the police - without draining public resources?

[susiespider]

Would a private security firm have powers to arrest criminals? I'm not sure if they would or not. I suspect they'd just send them packing - to go and burgle someone else.

[naomi24]

I can't imagine they'd send them packing. Wouldn't they hold the intruder and call the police?

[geo0939]

The point I was making was the fact that after this, the police will give added security for the footballers from already limited resources.
To put it simply, if there were 4 cops to watch over your house and a rich footballers house, would you be happy with one cop and give the footballer three?

[naomi24]

That's a hypothetical question, since that service wouldn't be offered to me. Unless the service could be offered to all, which it can't, then anyone requiring extra security of this nature should pay for it.

[Oneeyedvic]

To put it simply, if there were 4 cops to watch over your house and a rich footballers house, would you be happy with one cop and give the footballer three?

Well if the footballer was three times more likely to be a victim of crime then yes, I would be happy.

I live in town centre and there is a very high police presence especially at weekends with lots of PCs & PCSOs walking around - but that is because there is generally more crime in the town than there is in villages.

So to change your question slightly - are you happy with the fact that Nightclubs have more of a police presence than Local village pubs - or more simply if there were 4 police officers available would you be happy if 3 were outside the nightclub and 1 outside the village pub?

[naomi24]

Vic, Clearly a nightclub in a town centre warrants a greater police presence than a village pub, but in this instance we're talking about the private homes of the wealthy, and that's a different issue entirely.

[Pippa68]

Footballers are tax payers too ~ and I assume that they pay a fair whack of it.

I have been burgled twice. All the police did was come round and take a statement before putting me in touch with the Victim Support organisation.

There should be a good police presence full stop, whether rich or poor. It isn't all about money and belongings..the fact that someone has been in your house illegally is the hurtful thing.

[naomi24]

Pippa, I agree that it's not all about money, but having been burgled twice, I paid to have a security system installed in my house, and the police, although helpful, didn't promise me extra protection - so why should it be offered to the very wealthy - especially since they can well afford to pay for it? Yes, footballers do pay a lot of tax, but by comparison, so do we - but I wouldn't expect preferential treatment at the expense of the taxpayer.

[Quinlad]

Staking out a rish person's house isn't just providing a service to the homeowner though. It's providing a service to society, by increasing the chances of catching criminals.

If the police leave it up to a rich person to obtain security through a private firm, and that person decides not to bother (which they're well within their rights to), then we all lose out because criminals are going uncaught.

[Gromit]

We had this question yesterday. This is what I wrote then.

The job of the police is to catch criminals. Liverpool players have been targeted by burglars when they have been out of the country playing matches. Gerrard was the sixth incident. Previous incidents have been publicised. It does not seem like a waste of resources to divert routine patrols past vulnerable properties.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/ 7140110.stm

[ludwig]

To me It's self evidently wrong that the police should do this as a matter of routine. It amounts to preferential treatment for the already priveleged. The police acting as a free private security firm for the rich.

If, on the other hand they are talking about mounting some sort of special one off 'sting' operation to catch a particular gang - that's different. There is something to be said for allocating the resources for that purpose.

[anotheoldgit]

I cannot understand the logic behind some answers to this post. Of course the rich and famous get a better and more higher profile service from the police, and NO this is not at all fair.

If a Stately Home has a painting stolen (one item) and tall the stops are pulled out by the police, numourous police in vehicles and maybe a Helicopter at the scene within minutes.

If a Supermarket catches a shoplifter who has maybe pinched a small item, and once again an inappropriate number of police on the scene in minutes.

If a little old lady gets robbed of her valuble and irreplacable possessions they are not bothered. If a small shopkeeper has a shoplifter, the Police once again not bothered.

It is not only from the Police that the rich and famous seem to get preferential treatment, take some of the lenient sentences recently handed out to the rich and famous by our judicial system.

[geo0939]

Thanks for all your responses. The thing about the Liverpool players being targeted recently. These all made the national press, I wonder how many builders, shopworkers, office workers etc; were robbed during that time, and obviously didn't make even the local press. I still think we all deserve the same level of policing in a Democracy. It seems obvious to me that, with limited resources, if some have their security upgraded, then the rest of us must have ours downgraded.
Thans again all, most enlightening.