New police scandal
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
Of course, the stats prove everything. Do you really believe that: 'More generally, crime seems to have managed very badly with police funding slashed.?'
Crime down by 10% or more in many regions? Yes, the police told ONS as much.Derek Smith said:
The stats prove nothing.
They show that in many police regions reported crime is down compared to PolFed shrieking about a Criminals' Christmas and other premature alarmism.Derek Smith said:
Do they prove that serious crime is being sleeved? That organised crime is being ignored? That endemic fraud can continue as the police have no resources to put behind it?
It depends on the type of crime that the reductions relate to, and from the ONS stats neither you nor I know, however if you know from other sources it would be interesting to see other stats, but if it's PolFed don't bother as unlike the Daily Mail we couldn't be sure they were using ONS stats, given their vested interest.Derek Smith said:
Let's be nice and simple.
Sure, why should you change old habits now - it's a bit early for New Year resolutions 
Derek Smith said:
People drive cars dangerously. To prove it we have all the stats from years ago. These are the police's own stats. Let's look at the figures now when there are very few foot patrols and the lowest rate of traffic patrols since the 70s. Accident rates tumble, prosecutions for, for instance, con and use offences plummet and all because the funding of the police has been slashed. It has nothing to do with the police working harder, although one assumes they must have to.
What was that all about? Why not post about the opposing KSI (SI element) stats from hospitals which show police over-egging road safety gains. Are there targets to meet?Derek Smith said:
Does it become clear now?
Still clear. Police funding cut, reported crime significantly down in many regions. That's win win and so far so good.Also it's still clear we can't spend beyond our means, police or NHS or whatever, but we can stop paying police to make unnecessary phone calls to people who express legitimate opinions on radio phone-ins.
Edited by turbobloke on Monday 31st December 14:45
So Police are providing accurate stats re crime reduction , but are providing false stats re KSIs. So which is it. One or the other. Are Police stats accurate or not ?
Or is it that you choose to search the Internet and read the Daily Mail (which seems to be the sum total of your knowledge) and choose which stats are acceptable to you and which are not. The ones that aren't are lies.
Cut away I say. In the next couple of years when the full impact of the cuts kicks in, it'll give you something else to preach about. You'll be able to regale us all again with tales of meeting somebody 20 years ago. It's very impressive.
Or is it that you choose to search the Internet and read the Daily Mail (which seems to be the sum total of your knowledge) and choose which stats are acceptable to you and which are not. The ones that aren't are lies.
Cut away I say. In the next couple of years when the full impact of the cuts kicks in, it'll give you something else to preach about. You'll be able to regale us all again with tales of meeting somebody 20 years ago. It's very impressive.
Elroy Blue said:
So Police are providing accurate stats re crime reduction , but are providing false stats re KSIs. So which is it. One or the other.
More binary nonsense. There are so many stats, some will be more accurate than others.Elroy Blue said:
Are Police stats accurate or not ?
Yes until they're found out.Elroy Blue said:
Or is it that you choose to search the Internet and read the Daily Mail (which seems to be the sum total of your knowledge)
No you miss the point here, I cite the Mail where they use official data and wait for some intellectually challenged individual to complain about the Mail rather than the source of the data. Usually it's a short wait.Data that's acceptable is accurate data.
Elroy Blue said:
Cut away I say. In the next couple of years when the full impact of the cuts kicks in, it'll give you something else to preach about. You'll be able to regale us all again with tales of meeting somebody 20 years ago.
Whatever happens, we cannot afford the unaffordable. What I said was, so far so good, go back and check.Tit for Tat in the Police v Government war, sponsored by the DM. Like journo's are are such a saintly crew. If the DM hadn't raised the issue not many of us would know of or notice any difference whatsoever in Policing. This second job malarky, its a minor issue best dealt with at local level.
crankedup said:
Tit for Tat in the Police v Government war, sponsored by the DM. Like journo's are are such a saintly crew. If the DM hadn't raised the issue not many of us would know of or notice any difference whatsoever in Policing. This second job malarky, its a minor issue best dealt with at local level.
Shining a light on the murkier aspects of police operations helps the police to maintain standards and hopefully improve, binning reports does nothing to help anyone.Having a vested interest in an employer, or colleagues, is a valid concern when police are required to investigate a (different) employer. It's bad enough when police investigate the police in complaints.
turbobloke said:
Stuff.
Why continue with this argument? You are not stupid. You must know the difference between reported crime, crime statistics and the number of crimes committed.If the police hierachy are judged on stats do you honestly think the stats will be honest? Do you wonder if the government will care as long as they show a downward trend?
My force was in the bottom three for police accidents (although the best in the country for deaths/serious injuries in pursuits) and this was pointed out by HMIC. It was given to me, i/c driving school, to sort out as it was deemed to be my fault.
I discovered that my force, almost uniquely (although in common with the two forces below us I reckon) recorded damaged windscreen as polaccs, as we did with accidents in police car parks and off road. Criminal damage to police vehicles where there was no offender was also a polacc.
When I pointed out that all we had to do was change the reporting system to get up amongst the 'best', a quicker mind than mine decided that it should be phased in over a period of three years. Whilst I did not see the final report, I am certain that the HMIC praised my force for its determination in changing the ethos of our drivers and the skills of our instructors, as proved by the improved statistics.
No one cares about figures as long as they show the government in a good light. The HMIC will not investigate the figures as long as they show things are improving. The HMIC cares though as if the figures go down they are in trouble.
Stats are a political statement. I feel certain that you must know this. So why do you argue that it shows police being more efficient? Do you not realise it makes it look as if you are naive?
Just to reinforce my preceding post, despite it not really requiring reinforcement: the
When I was in charge of the Brighton area control room I also had responsibility for the CCTV staff and their duties. Most were very keen and wanting to do as much as they could for the division. I tended to give them their head and then review their performance later with the intent to improve. They were the ones who were knowledgeable of the systems.
They were aware of the problem of assaults on foreign students so they decided on a little plan to follow faces around Brighton. They got quality stills of the usual suspects and focused on them.
The first I knew of how efficient they had been was when the Detective Chief Inspector came into my room and threw the quarters stats onto my desk in a temper. It seemed that robberies had more than trebled.
Unknown to me, and to most others, was that there was a significant reluctance of victims of these crimes to report to the police. This was encouraged by their supervisors. All of a sudden my CCTV staff were directing officers to the scenes of robberies, pointing out the victims as well as the offenders and hence the massive increase in robberies.
The DCI was inconsolable, and for perfectly valid reasons. This showed his department was ineffective because everybody depended on the stats. He was judged by the stats. Had I been aware of how successful the operation my CCTV guys were doing would be I could have set up a proper operation and everybody would have been praised. As it was he looked a fool, my supervision looked slack and the CCTV staff appeared to be a loose cannon.
What this shows of course is that stats are manufactured, massaged, and managed. It also showed the difference between reported robberies and the number of robberies. An initiative by CCTV staff increased the rates of robberies by nearly 3 times.
Anyone who believes the stats . . . surely nobody believes the stats. They are however a very effective weapon. They can be used to bludgeon or to praise. What they cannot be used for, and never could be used for, was to assess how effective the government or police are, except on the very limited extent of producing statistics which proved nothing.
Just to clarify my post, the error was mine. I had a great deal of respect for the DCI; he was intelligent, quick-witted and a bit of a workaholic. I regretted letting him down.
When I was in charge of the Brighton area control room I also had responsibility for the CCTV staff and their duties. Most were very keen and wanting to do as much as they could for the division. I tended to give them their head and then review their performance later with the intent to improve. They were the ones who were knowledgeable of the systems.
They were aware of the problem of assaults on foreign students so they decided on a little plan to follow faces around Brighton. They got quality stills of the usual suspects and focused on them.
The first I knew of how efficient they had been was when the Detective Chief Inspector came into my room and threw the quarters stats onto my desk in a temper. It seemed that robberies had more than trebled.
Unknown to me, and to most others, was that there was a significant reluctance of victims of these crimes to report to the police. This was encouraged by their supervisors. All of a sudden my CCTV staff were directing officers to the scenes of robberies, pointing out the victims as well as the offenders and hence the massive increase in robberies.
The DCI was inconsolable, and for perfectly valid reasons. This showed his department was ineffective because everybody depended on the stats. He was judged by the stats. Had I been aware of how successful the operation my CCTV guys were doing would be I could have set up a proper operation and everybody would have been praised. As it was he looked a fool, my supervision looked slack and the CCTV staff appeared to be a loose cannon.
What this shows of course is that stats are manufactured, massaged, and managed. It also showed the difference between reported robberies and the number of robberies. An initiative by CCTV staff increased the rates of robberies by nearly 3 times.
Anyone who believes the stats . . . surely nobody believes the stats. They are however a very effective weapon. They can be used to bludgeon or to praise. What they cannot be used for, and never could be used for, was to assess how effective the government or police are, except on the very limited extent of producing statistics which proved nothing.
Just to clarify my post, the error was mine. I had a great deal of respect for the DCI; he was intelligent, quick-witted and a bit of a workaholic. I regretted letting him down.
10 Pence Short said:
How is it then possible to reliably measure the Police output?
Well, that is the problem isn't it.The first question is what you want from your police force. We have tried with the government setting targets and this has been a total success. At least from the government's point of view because it shows that the government in setting targets is improving the efficiency of the police.
Indeed it is an effective way for the government to decide which chief constables to push into the HMIC or perhaps to make Commissioner of the Mets. If you as a person in charge of the Home Office was wondering which of three aspirants to promote as Commissioner then all you had to do was see whether or not they created any fuss with regards to targets.
We now have political appointees in charge of each individual force. One would assume that if they are inclined to do a good job then they will set the standards for their particular force. If this conflicts with government targets then the HMIC has a way of keeping them on the same hymn sheet.
There is a bigger problem though. The police needs reform. Cameron has not reformed the police, all he has done is reduce costs. Oh, and changed the conditions of service of police officers. This is not reform. He has put political appointees in charge of police forces but this too is not reform. It is a leap in the dark. No one knows what will happen with regards their input, apart from hugely increase costs of course.
I know what my form of reform would be but of course no one will ask me. The politicians will do what politicians always do and that's something political and based on self-interest.
The only way we can monitor how effective police are will require substantial reform.
There is much that is right with policing in this country. Despite the headlines, it is the envy of much of the world. However organisationally it needs major modifications.
Edited by Derek Smith on Monday 31st December 15:51
10 Pence Short said:
So putting it simply, who should set the targets and how should performance against those targets be measured?
The main problem is that targets which are assessed statistically are inherently flawed. There is little or no objective way of finding out the crime level of even a small area. So much of it is subjective.We could make a standard of three patrolling officers available at any one time in a particular area, two of whom should be mobile. If one is taken off the streets then they should be replaced within 30 mins. This is a target.
We have a requirement at the moment for the police to attend a certain level of emergency call within a set time. Again this is a subjective judgement.
Another way of judging the effectiveness of the police is to find out how satisfied the population is with their performance. Sounds great, but from my experience most of the public want the police to deal with dog mess, cyclists on the footway, and strange cars parking outside their house.
What level of staff should you assign to a murder? If one set targets for crimes then surely the only answer for a murder would be 100%. If one set a target of say 30% for robberies then the staff would have to come from major incidents such as rapes, armed robberies and serious assaults. So how do you judge the force that hits the target for burglaries but narrowly misses those for rapes?
Obviously, I could go on and on about the way targets are used currently. Go back to that DCI I mentioned, we called out to a murder on Palace Pier one morning and on his way to it a call came out from a PC who had attended a domestic dispute between two men at Black Rock. The PC stated that there was no cause for police action. The DCI, en route to a murder, came on the radio and demanded that it should be "resulted". That meant a tick in the box.
It was funny at the time but on reflection it is a very sad state of affairs. And that sort of sums up the way the police are judged at the moment.
For a more sensible way of deciding how effective the police are major reform is a requirement.
turbobloke said:
Shining a light on the murkier aspects of police operations helps the police to maintain standards and hopefully improve, binning reports does nothing to help anyone.
Having a vested interest in an employer, or colleagues, is a valid concern when police are required to investigate a (different) employer. It's bad enough when police investigate the police in complaints.
I don't see police staff reporting 'business interests' as particularly murky though. I'd be much more worried if they did not. More than half the staff numbers mentioned are not police officers. Of those, a good many will be part time workers ( the Home Office encourages part time working, and job sharing). Having a vested interest in an employer, or colleagues, is a valid concern when police are required to investigate a (different) employer. It's bad enough when police investigate the police in complaints.
Presumably Specials with full time jobs elsewhere are the murkiest of the murky...
This whole issue is a complete non story, neither news nor a scandal. Above all, never believe what you read in the Mail!
XCP said:
turbobloke said:
Shining a light on the murkier aspects of police operations helps the police to maintain standards and hopefully improve, binning reports does nothing to help anyone.
Having a vested interest in an employer, or colleagues, is a valid concern when police are required to investigate a (different) employer. It's bad enough when police investigate the police in complaints.
I don't see police staff reporting 'business interests' as particularly murky though. I'd be much more worried if they did not.Having a vested interest in an employer, or colleagues, is a valid concern when police are required to investigate a (different) employer. It's bad enough when police investigate the police in complaints.
XCP said:
Above all, never believe what you read in the Mail!
That's as bad as always believing everything! Look at the primary source and make a judgement the credibility of that, bearing in mind the challenging need to check everything these days if possible and time is at hand etc.
Rovinghawk said:
And yet these exact same stats are used when it suits the police to do so.
Your point being?Remember that 75% of police are overweight. Or 50%, depending on which media outlet you believe. So the argument was on whether half or three quarters of the police were overweight rather than where the figures came from. A politically expedient lie. In Hants, the figure was 97%. Oh, wait, that was for perfectly fit officers. Which to believe? Difficult question. Or rather it is not. If you are writing a report and need to diminish the professionalism of the service in the eyes of the public then it is in fact easy. Let's use the 75%.
If you were 'the police' (whatever that means) you would pick the 3% less than fit. If you wanted to take up an anti-police stance you'd go for the 75%, although the 50% was available if you wanted to make out you are open-minded.
We are lied to by the government about everything. We have spin doctors at the right hand of PMs, or rather, PMs at the right hand of spin doctors. People make out they believe the statistics when it is expedient for them to do so, but they really know they are wrong. Why should 'the police' be different?
Derek Smith said:
We are lied to by the government about everything. We have spin doctors at the right hand of PMs, or rather, PMs at the right hand of spin doctors. People make out they believe the statistics when it is expedient for them to do so, but they really know they are wrong. Why should 'the police' be different?
Possibly because when we find out a politician is being deceitful, he loses his job at the next election, we can give them the heave ho, no such sanction exists for ousting anyone from the police.This means that it if the police are perceived as behaving no different to (say) MPs then as we can't oust them we just lose faith and stop supporting them.
Gene Vincent said:
Possibly because when we find out a politician is being deceitful, he loses his job at the next election, we can give them the heave ho, no such sanction exists for ousting anyone from the police.
I said I was out from arguing with you but this really dragged me back in. Are you being funny? A politician sacked for telling lies? Must have been asleep when all those happened. There's a few spare seats in parliament then. That is a surreal statement.And police are subject, unlike politicians, to discipline and so can be sacked for telling lies.
A classic! Well done, GV.
Derek Smith said:
Gene Vincent said:
Possibly because when we find out a politician is being deceitful, he loses his job at the next election, we can give them the heave ho, no such sanction exists for ousting anyone from the police.
I said I was out from arguing with you but this really dragged me back in. Are you being funny? A politician sacked for telling lies? Must have been asleep when all those happened. There's a few spare seats in parliament then. That is a surreal statement.And police are subject, unlike politicians, to discipline and so can be sacked for telling lies.
A classic! Well done, GV.
Politicians do have to lie or go back on a promise, circumstances change and objectives re-aligned, that is why they are politicians, we should expect no different from them, however... we don't expect the police to be as bad as our politicians, they don't have the same pressures forcing u-turns upon them.
It is the recent attempts of some officers to emulate the conniving of politicos that has dropped the entire force in the mire of public contempt.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff