Crime detection rates 19%
Discussion
The average detection rates across the country are 19%!
Apparently the government (I won't credit this lot with the capital G normally given to the word) has been defending its policy.
19%! That's NOT defensible!
I wonder whether that includes speeding offences? If it does, the figure for 'proper' crime must be even worse.
A 'crime manager' friend has recently been criticised in an HMIoP report for the poor detection rates on his force ... and they're a lot BETTER than 19%.
Streaky
Apparently the government (I won't credit this lot with the capital G normally given to the word) has been defending its policy.
19%! That's NOT defensible!
I wonder whether that includes speeding offences? If it does, the figure for 'proper' crime must be even worse.
A 'crime manager' friend has recently been criticised in an HMIoP report for the poor detection rates on his force ... and they're a lot BETTER than 19%.
Streaky
parrot of doom said:
I think those figures would be much higher if the police were allowed to concentrate their efforts on the minority of scum who perpetrate crime.
Agreed, especially if proper sentences were given.
parrot of doom said:
Also, they'd be higher if more people actually tried to help the police, rather than the "I'm no grass" attitude.
Which, I fear, will only worsen as more people are Scammed.
streaky said:
The average detection rates across the country are 19%!
Apparently the government (I won't credit this lot with the capital G normally given to the word) has been defending its policy.
19%! That's NOT defensible!
I wonder whether that includes speeding offences? If it does, the figure for 'proper' crime must be even worse.
A 'crime manager' friend has recently been criticised in an HMIoP report for the poor detection rates on his force ... and they're a lot BETTER than 19%.
Streaky
Probably they are significantly worse than that as this will include crap like admin. detections and the like.
Its for recordable crime which the majority of driving offences are not.
Bear in mind it covers everything. Even the stuff that there is never any chance of any offender being caught. As every complaint pretty much needs to be crimed.
National crime recording standards are responsible.
Look at it this way, its not necessarily the police at fault.. Joe calls police saying his car window was smashed overnight. No cctv, no forensics, no hope of catching the offender, thus 1 crime recorded and filed as undetected.
Even stuff such as word of one offences. You call police saying you saw fred smash my car window. Fred is arrested and interviewed, Says nope was not me. Dont know what your talking about.
No oter witnesses, no cctv or indipendant proof thus refused charhe, 1 crime recorded, 1 crime filed undetected.
And so on if i explained that well enough.
Gareth
>> Edited by ^Slider^ on Thursday 10th March 21:08
Bear in mind it covers everything. Even the stuff that there is never any chance of any offender being caught. As every complaint pretty much needs to be crimed.
National crime recording standards are responsible.
Look at it this way, its not necessarily the police at fault.. Joe calls police saying his car window was smashed overnight. No cctv, no forensics, no hope of catching the offender, thus 1 crime recorded and filed as undetected.
Even stuff such as word of one offences. You call police saying you saw fred smash my car window. Fred is arrested and interviewed, Says nope was not me. Dont know what your talking about.
No oter witnesses, no cctv or indipendant proof thus refused charhe, 1 crime recorded, 1 crime filed undetected.
And so on if i explained that well enough.
Gareth
>> Edited by ^Slider^ on Thursday 10th March 21:08
^Slider^ said:
Its for recordable crime which the majority of driving offences are not.
Bear in mind it covers everything. Even the stuff that there is never any chance of any offender being caught. As every complaint pretty much needs to be crimed.
National crime recording standards are responsible.
Look at it this way, its not necessarily the police at fault.. Joe calls police saying his car window was smashed overnight. No cctv, no forensics, no hope of catching the offender, thus 1 crime recorded and filed as undetected.
Even stuff such as word of one offences. You call police saying you saw fred smash my car window. Fred is arrested and interviewed, Says nope was not me. Dont know what your talking about.
No oter witnesses, no cctv or indipendant proof thus refused charhe, 1 crime recorded, 1 crime filed undetected.
And so on if i explained that well enough.
Gareth
>> Edited by ^Slider^ on Thursday 10th March 21:08
Compare that to:
"I saw Fred speeding down my road. No other witnesses, no cctv or independent proof. Police send warning letter to Fred stating that further instances of speeding will result in prosecution".
That's not far off what happens as a result of the neighbourhood vigilantes, is it? Strange -- and that's for non-recordable crime. I wonder what would happen if the police were allowed to do the same to the 20% of criminals who do 80% of the real crime?
Difference being speeding is an absolute offence.
As i have previously stated why the detection rate percentages are so low, i dint propose to go into them again unless there are any specific questions relating to crime recording standards.
Someone has to jump in with the speeding thing which is not relavent to this debate whatsoever.
As i have previously stated why the detection rate percentages are so low, i dint propose to go into them again unless there are any specific questions relating to crime recording standards.
Someone has to jump in with the speeding thing which is not relavent to this debate whatsoever.
- StreakyIf the plod weren't trying to sting up for £60 all the time people would feel more inclined to help them. Same for the government.
Don't know if this would increase the detection rate but it would at least make us feel "at one" with the plod who are supposed to be working on our behalf, the legal, sensible, generally law abiding public.
That would help to marginalise the scroats whereas at the moment it's the plod who are marginalised and the scroats use that to their advantage and it encourages them to misbehave.
Don't know if this would increase the detection rate but it would at least make us feel "at one" with the plod who are supposed to be working on our behalf, the legal, sensible, generally law abiding public.
That would help to marginalise the scroats whereas at the moment it's the plod who are marginalised and the scroats use that to their advantage and it encourages them to misbehave.
^Slider^ said:
Difference being speeding is an absolute offence.
As i have previously stated why the detection rate percentages are so low, i dint propose to go into them again unless there are any specific questions relating to crime recording standards.
Someone has to jump in with the speeding thing which is not relavent to this debate whatsoever.
"Calm down, dear."
Speeding is the one criminal activity that almost the whole population indulges in. How many people understand that speeding is not recordable and that the 19% figure only relates to recordable offences? Which of the media will provide that clarification? The Sun? The Daily Sport? The Mail? So you're left with a perception in the general populace that "the police" get 100% of speeding convictions and so the percentage solved in the remainder must be even smaller than 19%.
Of course us enlightened ones
on PH understand more, but even then perhaps not fully. But even so, you might realise that there's a slight level of "unhappiness" that "the police" focus on the easily prosecutable crime of speeding, while the things that affect the silent majority are often handled simply by doling out a crime number. While parliament debates the removal of basic rights on the whim of a minister -- with the Home Secretary supported by vocal CCs, so let's not pretend the police are not involved -- similar rights have been taken away about the right to silence, the right to innocence until proven guilty, etc in the case of motoring offences. And as we've seen on another current thread about parking, even when the law's requirements have not been adhered to, the law will still be upheld by the authorities against the motorist.
Is this a minority view? Am I on my own? I don't think so. I want to support the police in their duty of care to the general population. I still get out of the way of police cars on a mission. I would be a witness if necessary. But I can understand -- if not support -- those who feel things have gone too far against the motorist and who think that something must be done. Human nature hardly ever finds the balance point, and the pendulum will swing back the other way in time. I'll wait for the move; others will make it happen.
^Slider^ said:
Difference being speeding is an absolute offence.
As i have previously stated why the detection rate percentages are so low, i dint propose to go into them again unless there are any specific questions relating to crime recording standards.
Someone has to jump in with the speeding thing which is not relavent to this debate whatsoever.
The public perceive it as relevant though because, while driving their car, that's usually the only time they come into contact with the police and it's usually to pay a fine for driving quite safely but above a stupidly low speed limit. People see the police as one organisation, whether traffic or crime detection and they have an opinion as to what the priorities should be.
^Slider^ said:I'd venture that keying a car / smashing a window / etc. are pretty absolute as well...it's not like you can just stray over the car-keying limit by accident, now is it?!?
Difference being speeding is an absolute offence.
What it boils down to is resources - our police are stretched thinner than cheap toilet paper, and have been handed even more forms to fill in so the government can keep tabs on what they're doing. Add to that the continued budget cuts, all in the name of Joe Public paying lower taxes and John Prescott having a bigger fiefdom to play with...and you DON'T get any form of effective policing.
This has now become a vicious spiral, as the scrotes have discovered how much they can get away with...yet when an ordinary MoP goes vigilante, the scrotes know where he lives and he's an easy prosecution for the CPS...well they've got to get their numbers from somewhere, haven't they???
Christ, never thought I'd prefer Texas to the UK...but at least their justice system is simple:-
"He was on your land Bubba?"
"Yep, that's why I shot him Billy-Bob."
"OK then."
havoc said:
Difference being speeding is an absolute offence.
I'd venture that keying a car / smashing a window / etc. are pretty absolute as well...it's not like you can just stray over the car-keying limit by accident, now is it?!?
What it boils down to is resources - our police are stretched thinner than cheap toilet paper, and have been handed even more forms to fill in so the government can keep tabs on what they're doing. Add to that the continued budget cuts, all in the name of Joe Public paying lower taxes and John Prescott having a bigger fiefdom to play with...and you DON'T get any form of effective policing.
This has now become a vicious spiral, as the scrotes have discovered how much they can get away with...yet when an ordinary MoP goes vigilante, the scrotes know where he lives and he's an easy prosecution for the CPS...well they've got to get their numbers from somewhere, haven't they???
Christ, never thought I'd prefer Texas to the UK...but at least their justice system is simple:-
"He was on your land Bubba?"
"Yep, that's why I shot him Billy-Bob."
"OK then."
hehe,
well you see, if he was caught red handed so to speak then yeah its open and shut.
but what i mean by absolute offence is only the driver can commit the offence and if he/she was driving then thats it.
I see what the public percieve, its not necessarily about resources, its about how crime is recorded that is the problem.
^Slider^ said:
^Slider^ said:
Difference being speeding is an absolute offence.
I'd venture that keying a car / smashing a window / etc. are pretty absolute as well...it's not like you can just stray over the car-keying limit by accident, now is it?!?
What it boils down to is resources - our police are stretched thinner than cheap toilet paper, and have been handed even more forms to fill in so the government can keep tabs on what they're doing. Add to that the continued budget cuts, all in the name of Joe Public paying lower taxes and John Prescott having a bigger fiefdom to play with...and you DON'T get any form of effective policing.
This has now become a vicious spiral, as the scrotes have discovered how much they can get away with...yet when an ordinary MoP goes vigilante, the scrotes know where he lives and he's an easy prosecution for the CPS...well they've got to get their numbers from somewhere, haven't they???
Christ, never thought I'd prefer Texas to the UK...but at least their justice system is simple:-
"He was on your land Bubba?"
"Yep, that's why I shot him Billy-Bob."
"OK then."
hehe,
well you see, if he was caught red handed so to speak then yeah its open and shut.
but what i mean by absolute offence is only the driver can commit the offence and if he/she was driving then thats it.
Err not quite,if i carry out any other crime i dont have to say anything,the law has to prove it was me.A speeding offence requires me to incriminate myself.If i dont cough up the name of the driver the reg keeper cops the fine and points.
So you "mate" Fred above can get away with smashing my car to bits,but for doing 79mph on a motorway somebody will get a fine and points.
Its a great legal system
But that has nothing to do with crime recording standards which is what the detection rates reflect. Nothing to do with speeding.
Or the majority of road traffic offences.
I spose in comparison we can word it like this.
Fred smashes your car up. (we know that an offence has happened and who is likley to have commited it) Fred gets nicked and interviewed. either admits the offence or denies the offence therfore we need to prove his guilt.
Fred is speeding and gets nipped. (we know an offence has happened and who is likely to have commited it)
Fred fills in a form and either admits or denies it. Onyl difference the R/K has to prove he was not responsible (absolute offence)as the owner should know who was responsible for the vehicle at the material time.
Only difference is one we have to prove, the other you have to prove.
Or the majority of road traffic offences.
I spose in comparison we can word it like this.
Fred smashes your car up. (we know that an offence has happened and who is likley to have commited it) Fred gets nicked and interviewed. either admits the offence or denies the offence therfore we need to prove his guilt.
Fred is speeding and gets nipped. (we know an offence has happened and who is likely to have commited it)
Fred fills in a form and either admits or denies it. Onyl difference the R/K has to prove he was not responsible (absolute offence)as the owner should know who was responsible for the vehicle at the material time.
Only difference is one we have to prove, the other you have to prove.
^Slider^ said:
Only difference is one we have to prove, the other you have to prove.
And IMHO thats wrong, why should a reg keeper of a car need to log who was driving a car on every day
If speeding is to be policed properly then the BiB must stop the driver at the time of the offence.You dont randomly send out NiPs for insurance, etc unless you have stopped the driver.
Pies said:
You dont randomly send out NiPs for insurance, etc unless you have stopped the driver.
Now THERE's an idea...NiP for no insurance, NiP for no tax...the government could...make no money at all because these cheating, dishonest scrotes are usually the ones with no money in the first place!!!
^Slider^ said:
Again i thought this was about detection rates, not speeding or motoring offences.
Sorry
As for detection rates it might help if at least one BiB attended the scene of the crime instead of just issuing a crime number over the phone.I realise its not fault of the front line BiB, but somebody must realise if you dont investigate a crime you will NEVER solve it
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff