So,in short,they've created an police officer role to look after the offenders family. A gushy ACC Davison talks of innovation and maximisation of resources..in the same sentence as admitting his force is 'very poorly funded' Last I heard I thought our priorities were the victim's of crime and its impact on them and their families....I'm behind the times.

I am afraid you are behind the times. Imagine being woken at 5am , the police search your home and take every device , yours and your children's. The main earner for the family is removed leaving you financially alone. The impact upon the children both at home, in their community and at school. The now interaction with soc care to assess the safety of the children in your care. Fast forward six months when your partner is released and the police say to you that you need to risk assess whether your now ex partner should have access to the children as a result of new information but that because he is an offender rights and that you are not the 'direct' victim they cannot share that information with you. Yes, that's right, we are telling you there is increased risk but will not share the very information needed to do the very risk assessment your being asked to do. Soc Care are informed and get involved, we probably wont tell them either but even if we do they wont be able to share it either, eat , sleep repeat. It matters not which agency just throws some support out there and in fact (not suggesting for a minute that this officer is anything other than fully operational) its a great role for a non operational officer. Oh and did I mention that while your partner was offending in this way neither you or your kids knew anything about it yet you re left feeling guilty by association. How many adverse experiences do the children go through increasing their risk of vulnerability and the associated reduction of life chances. Policing is not (probably never was) as simple as your response infers

@Trebor Leep Still cant be swayed by your response.I cant agree that it is the job for police to allocate resources to mop up the familial mess left behind by someones offending. I'll just have to keep looking over my shoulder for that meteorite. It'll probably catch up with me eventually.

So while the police rightly complain that they are being run ragged by the day to day grind of dealing with crime etc. Lincolnshire can afford to use a Pc to hold the hands of the offenders families. Honestly do not care if the scrot has created carnage for his family if he has been downloading child porn etc then this is the consequence of his actions. If he is deemed to be a risk to his children and I would say having an unnatural attraction to child sex makes him a high risk then again not the police job to look after his family. Pass it onto the social services let them do their job.

I worked for quite a few years heading up these investigations and then spent several years working with the Lucy Faithfull Foundation who run courses for people affected in this way. Personally I don’t see it as a police officer role but instead a role for another agency or charity to pick up. An example of the thin blue line getting thinner?

Policing responses are not always simple, true. But as I’ve said previously, the entire police workforce make up less than 5% of the public sector, and are 24/7, unlike a lot of the rest of the public sector or volunteer organisations and charities. Police are run ragged by competing demands not just of the public, but other elements of the public sector. They have an incredibly broad remit. I’m not against the idea of the offender’s family being supported of course, as they in many cases are entirely innocent, but yet again it’s another responsibility that is being left to the police, whisky everybody else berates from the sideline

**whilst everybody

**whilst everybody