Rotherham Council mass resignation.....

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

Your view is that the "motivated offenders" will not travel to Rotherham to "hole fill" in any meaningful numbers, my view is that "motivated offenders" will travel out of their comfort zone, the numbers are unknown but need to be estimated and included within your model

Examples:

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/crime/internet-...

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/baby-faced...

http://www.prestwichandwhitefieldguide.co.uk/news/...

If profiling is permitted then add to that the likelihood of younger (existing) residents maturing into "motivated offenders", demographics: http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/jsna/downloads/file/85... , also the likelihood of a % of recently arrived immigrants becoming resident in Rotherham and then becoming "motivated offenders".

If the likelihood of arrest is high then the number of "motivated offenders" may be restricted, but how will you know if the likelihood for arrest is high if you don't know the ratio of arrests/offences? Also need to establish if it's a rare crime, "suitable targets" / victims. Can't achieve this without knowledge of the number of "suitable targets" and victims.

One scenario is that there are "motivated offenders" who (perhaps by chance) only target "suitable targets" who aren't known to the "capable guardians", therefore completely under the radar. Impossible to deal with, as happened in Rotherham.

The "Routine Activities Theory" probably works where victims (and potential victims) typically make themselves known to the authorities, my understanding is that doesn't generally occur with CSE (or the authorities ignore the complaints).

Re: Protect, prevent, pursue. The summary you posted refers to "universal education programme" and "identify, locate and protect children", so it must therefore be possible to identify the "suitable targets", which contradicts your view that engaging with unknown "suitable targets" is hard to achieve and not required anyway.

Re: scrap. The only detailed data for scrap theft over the period you refer to is copper cable theft from overground railways (unless you have additional data), therefore this must form the basis of any analysis. Trends in copper cable theft will typically align with trends in other metal thefts, provided that the market prices for copper and general metal scrap align, which they generally do:



Go back to the copper cable theft graph, there is an overall increase in theft up to July 2011, ACPO were reporting estimates for scrap metal theft in 2010.

Offenders will move and displace, but let's remember the context. You said they were practically infinite and would move to fill the void of effective enforcement which is why it wasn't possible for the model to work.

V8 Fettler said:

Your "Routine Activity Theory" triangle doesn't apply in Rotherham: the number of "motivated offenders" is unknown and infinite (for all intents and purposes) because arrested "motivated offenders" will be replaced by new "motivated offenders" from outside of Rotherham. These new "motivated offenders" will continue to arrive in Rotherham as long as the "suitable targets" are present in numbers.

I said you're relying on the highly improbable to dismiss something that means we need not estimate the 'unknown to services' number in order to be effective, or resource properly. Finding a couple of examples does not mean the model will fail.

I also see we've had a subtle change from,

V8 Fettler said:

Your "Routine Activity Theory" triangle doesn't apply in Rotherham: the number of "motivated offenders" is unknown and infinite

to,

V8 Fettler said:

If the likelihood of arrest is high then the number of "motivated offenders" may be restricted

The rest depends on the quality of information you have about the offenders. It's not to hard to get a rich intelligence picture about offenders. Naturally this crosses-over around victims, and other aspects, but it's perfectly possible to map-out offenders / gangs with little more information than who is doing what.

The aim to provide education and engage in no way contradicts that it's hard to engage with people who are being / have been groomed. There's a significant preventive aspect to to the first strand to prevent children starting to be groomed, as oppose to "protect" which is there to rescue those who are somewhere within the abusive process.

V8 Fettler said:

The "Routine Activities Theory" probably works where victims (and potential victims) typically make themselves known to the authorities, my understanding is that doesn't generally occur with CSE (or the authorities ignore the complaints).

No, it works where you can effectively deal with one or more strands. If you keep putting offenders in prison, there are fewer offenders, there are fewer offences and there are fewer victims. CSE isn't some magic crime-type, devoid of the fundamental principles of criminology and the behaviour of offenders.

The whole picture is desirable, of that there's no doubt. Prevention is better than latter parts within the process and all need to be focused upon. But we're not talking about that. The route of this is you saying they can't resource without knowing a specific area of data, which of course turned into can't "meaningfully" resource. I'm quite confident that having a strong data picture of just the offenders only (which won't be the case, they'll know much more), would be highly effective in reducing a significant number of offences.

I know there are recorded crimes in scrap-metal. It is a crime that generally that, on a commercial basis (railways, communication infrastructure etc) can be quite accurate in terms of recording as they will have reporting policies and accurate internal data. The scope was well beyond the railways. I have described the unknowns I was talking about and how they didn't prevent effective resourcing when the problem was becoming a problem. The police would be aware railways were suffering an increase as there'd likely be a consistency in reporting.

La Liga said:

The point about scrap metal, was the scale and speed in which is became of a large scale. The unknowns were "who is doing what?", "who is travelling where?", "which yards are buying from whom?", "which yards are involved in the crime?", and many, many more. Recorded crime increased, but recorded crime never captures the full extent of a crime type (albeit it gets close with very serious things like murder). The figures you produced of 60,000 - 80,000 (IIRC) show this to be the case. There were intelligence and data-gaps all over the place. Starting from a position of identifying who was doing what and what gangs there were resulted in recorded reductions prior to any accurate, national estimates.

[carinaman]

RobinOakapple said:

Who categorised her as mentally unwell? I believe there is a strict process to go through before that can happen, so suggesting it was done for convenience is bks.

Don't know do we as the mainstream media haven't been reporting it.

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/latest-new...

So someone that may deservedly have issues having been abused while in care in Notts. was held on remand for three months?

Didn't some at her trial late last year also think the Judge may have directed the jury? You can call testicles again if you like, and one possible response would be to direct you to the Court in Nottingham where you can check the notes taken during the trial for yourself.


When we have Deputy Chief Constables taking to Twitter to say it's unacceptable to have mentally ill teenagers in police station cells, I think it's perfectly acceptable to wonder why Melanie Shaw, Operation Daybreak whistle blower is back in HMP Peterborough again, a place that reportedly denied her treatment for a leg ulcer last autumn.

Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 17th February 09:29

[RobinOakapple]

Derek Smith said:

RobinOakapple said:

Who categorised her as mentally unwell? I believe there is a strict process to go through before that can happen, so suggesting it was done for convenience is bks.

Whilst I'm not supporting a suggestion of conspiracy, I think you might be mistaking the rigorous 'sectioning' under the Mental Health Act with just the generic classification of having a mental illness. The latter term is very general and can get any number of people in its net.

Even if she has a problem, that doesn't mean she telling lies or that her view on what went on in her youth is undependable.

Not saying it does, just asking who did the categorisation.

[carinaman]

RobinOakapple said:

Not saying it does, just asking who did the categorisation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPayhZblsNo

3 minutes, 30 seconds in, with a reference to the report about her mental health at 10 minutes in.

It sounds like Notts. police may have been hassling her this year. I'm not sure how that compares to the offence of intimidating witnesses given her speaking out about child sexual abuse in care homes in Notts.?

As already stated like PCC Shaun Wright in South Yorks., the Notts. PCC was previously involved in Social Work in Notts.

Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 17th February 10:09

[RobinOakapple]

carinaman said:

RobinOakapple said:

Not saying it does, just asking who did the categorisation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPayhZblsNo

3 minutes, 30 seconds in, with a reference to the report about her mental health at 10 minutes in.

I can't watch youtube at work, does it say who did the categorisation and if so, who was it?

[carinaman]

RobinOakapple said:

I can't watch youtube at work, does it say who did the categorisation and if so, who was it?

It doesn't, it was brought out without any prior warning during her trial.

Is it the sort of thing that would have been done while she was held on remand in HMP Peterborough?

But then after the verdict was reached they have to wait for psychiatric reports, despite some report about her mental health being produced during her trial.

I note your previous comments about 'girls' that have been groomed not wanting to come forward as they don't like the police, or have a problem with them, but in this case someone that's been a victim of abuse within the care system speaks out and then it seems the authorities become rather keen to shut her up?

In the bent Copper comes unstuck after driving his Ferrari 458 to work tale there was mention of two other chaps, one of whom has the same name as a chap at a Trojan Horse school in Birmingham that had allegedly been caught with downloading child porn. Given the nationwide coverage of Trojan Horse schools when Gove and Theresa May's SPAD were bickering about them it's odd that a chap at a Trojan Horse school caught with child porn didn't get more coverage than just a local newspaper website in Birmingham, and that could be comparable with child sexual abuse being a rather hot potato nationally but not enough for the media to pick up on the Melanie Shaw and Operation Daybreak case about the sexual abuse of kids in care homes in Notts.?

[RobinOakapple]

carinaman said:

It doesn't, it was brought out without any prior warning during her trial.

Well you said someone said it, so need to say who said it or people will think you are making stuff up, if they don't already.

[carinaman]

RobinOakapple said:

Well you said someone said it, so need to say who said it or people will think you are making stuff up, if they don't already.

I've had the police make up stuff about me, so I am not too bothered about what PHers think.

I've given you the youtube link you can check it when you get home if you like.

Nice ad hominem BTW.

[RobinOakapple]

carinaman said:

RobinOakapple said:

Well you said someone said it, so need to say who said it or people will think you are making stuff up, if they don't already.

I've had the police make up stuff about me, so I am not too bothered about what PHers think.

I've given you the youtube link you can check it when you get home if you like.

Nice ad hominem BTW.

No, I can't be bothered, if you've got proof for what you say, then produce it, otherwise then you can't be surprised if people think you are making stuff up, in an effort to justify all the random connections your brain seems to make where other people dont. Note how I managed to avoid making another ad hom there.

[anonymous-user]

RobinOakapple said:

carinaman said:

RobinOakapple said:

Not saying it does, just asking who did the categorisation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPayhZblsNo

3 minutes, 30 seconds in, with a reference to the report about her mental health at 10 minutes in.

I can't watch youtube at work, does it say who did the categorisation and if so, who was it?

Brilliant, that clip is surely influenced by Brass Eye, "Here is a picture of the Nottingham Crown court building".

The 10:00 mental health reporting is good. They make it should like the prosecution have just pulled out a psychiatric report out of the blue. No consideration for the rules of disclosure, of course

[carinaman]

I'll leave it there. I think any further differences of opinion may undermine the case that law courts can be replaced by eBay resolution panels.

[carinaman]

La Liga said:

Brilliant, that clip is surely influenced by Brass Eye, "Here is a picture of the Nottingham Crown court building".

The 10:00 mental health reporting is good. They make it should like the prosecution have just pulled out a psychiatric report out of the blue. No consideration for the rules of disclosure, of course

Judge Pert reportedly said Melanie Shaw is a bit strange. That's only because he hasn't met me.

[anonymous-user]

As Derek suggests, they aren't mutually exclusive things.

She can have mental health issues and be a criminal, but have raised legitimate things. The key is to critically sift through it all.

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

Your view is that the "motivated offenders" will not travel to Rotherham to "hole fill" in any meaningful numbers, my view is that "motivated offenders" will travel out of their comfort zone, the numbers are unknown but need to be estimated and included within your model

Examples:

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/crime/internet-...

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/baby-faced...

http://www.prestwichandwhitefieldguide.co.uk/news/...

If profiling is permitted then add to that the likelihood of younger (existing) residents maturing into "motivated offenders", demographics: http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/jsna/downloads/file/85... , also the likelihood of a % of recently arrived immigrants becoming resident in Rotherham and then becoming "motivated offenders".

If the likelihood of arrest is high then the number of "motivated offenders" may be restricted, but how will you know if the likelihood for arrest is high if you don't know the ratio of arrests/offences? Also need to establish if it's a rare crime, "suitable targets" / victims. Can't achieve this without knowledge of the number of "suitable targets" and victims.

One scenario is that there are "motivated offenders" who (perhaps by chance) only target "suitable targets" who aren't known to the "capable guardians", therefore completely under the radar. Impossible to deal with, as happened in Rotherham.

The "Routine Activities Theory" probably works where victims (and potential victims) typically make themselves known to the authorities, my understanding is that doesn't generally occur with CSE (or the authorities ignore the complaints).

Re: Protect, prevent, pursue. The summary you posted refers to "universal education programme" and "identify, locate and protect children", so it must therefore be possible to identify the "suitable targets", which contradicts your view that engaging with unknown "suitable targets" is hard to achieve and not required anyway.

Re: scrap. The only detailed data for scrap theft over the period you refer to is copper cable theft from overground railways (unless you have additional data), therefore this must form the basis of any analysis. Trends in copper cable theft will typically align with trends in other metal thefts, provided that the market prices for copper and general metal scrap align, which they generally do:



Go back to the copper cable theft graph, there is an overall increase in theft up to July 2011, ACPO were reporting estimates for scrap metal theft in 2010.

Offenders will move and displace, but let's remember the context. You said they were practically infinite and would move to fill the void of effective enforcement which is why it wasn't possible for the model to work.

V8 Fettler said:

Your "Routine Activity Theory" triangle doesn't apply in Rotherham: the number of "motivated offenders" is unknown and infinite (for all intents and purposes) because arrested "motivated offenders" will be replaced by new "motivated offenders" from outside of Rotherham. These new "motivated offenders" will continue to arrive in Rotherham as long as the "suitable targets" are present in numbers.

I said you're relying on the highly improbable to dismiss something that means we need not estimate the 'unknown to services' number in order to be effective, or resource properly. Finding a couple of examples does not mean the model will fail.

I also see we've had a subtle change from,

V8 Fettler said:

Your "Routine Activity Theory" triangle doesn't apply in Rotherham: the number of "motivated offenders" is unknown and infinite

to,

V8 Fettler said:

If the likelihood of arrest is high then the number of "motivated offenders" may be restricted

The rest depends on the quality of information you have about the offenders. It's not to hard to get a rich intelligence picture about offenders. Naturally this crosses-over around victims, and other aspects, but it's perfectly possible to map-out offenders / gangs with little more information than who is doing what.

The aim to provide education and engage in no way contradicts that it's hard to engage with people who are being / have been groomed. There's a significant preventive aspect to to the first strand to prevent children starting to be groomed, as oppose to "protect" which is there to rescue those who are somewhere within the abusive process.

V8 Fettler said:

The "Routine Activities Theory" probably works where victims (and potential victims) typically make themselves known to the authorities, my understanding is that doesn't generally occur with CSE (or the authorities ignore the complaints).

No, it works where you can effectively deal with one or more strands. If you keep putting offenders in prison, there are fewer offenders, there are fewer offences and there are fewer victims. CSE isn't some magic crime-type, devoid of the fundamental principles of criminology and the behaviour of offenders.

The whole picture is desirable, of that there's no doubt. Prevention is better than latter parts within the process and all need to be focused upon. But we're not talking about that. The route of this is you saying they can't resource without knowing a specific area of data, which of course turned into can't "meaningfully" resource. I'm quite confident that having a strong data picture of just the offenders only (which won't be the case, they'll know much more), would be highly effective in reducing a significant number of offences.

I know there are recorded crimes in scrap-metal. It is a crime that generally that, on a commercial basis (railways, communication infrastructure etc) can be quite accurate in terms of recording as they will have reporting policies and accurate internal data. The scope was well beyond the railways. I have described the unknowns I was talking about and how they didn't prevent effective resourcing when the problem was becoming a problem. The police would be aware railways were suffering an increase as there'd likely be a consistency in reporting.

La Liga said:

The point about scrap metal, was the scale and speed in which is became of a large scale. The unknowns were "who is doing what?", "who is travelling where?", "which yards are buying from whom?", "which yards are involved in the crime?", and many, many more. Recorded crime increased, but recorded crime never captures the full extent of a crime type (albeit it gets close with very serious things like murder). The figures you produced of 60,000 - 80,000 (IIRC) show this to be the case. There were intelligence and data-gaps all over the place. Starting from a position of identifying who was doing what and what gangs there were resulted in recorded reductions prior to any accurate, national estimates.

I see you're at it again with your post dissection. Isn't it obvious that such an activity leads to muddled thinking, prevarication and going round in circles?

I shall cut through your smokescreen.

We are agreed that "hole filling" will occur. On the basis that the potential numbers of "hole fillers" are effectively infinite then the number of "hole fillers" is effectively infinite unless effective prevention is absolute (or as near to absolute as makes no difference), which certainly didn't occur in Rotherham. We cannot determine the level of effective prevention unless we have an idea of the scale of the number of "suitable targets" and the the number of victims.

How do you get a "rich" intelligence picture about offenders if you don't know who the victims are? That was (and probably still is) one of the primary issues in Rotherham: the victims typically don't complain to the "authorities".

Subtle change? Not particularly, merely considering various scenarios for your model, one of which is the concept of a high arrest ratio when the scale of the number of offences, victims and "suitable targets" is unknown (it's an impossible calculation).

Compared to many crimes, CSE is unusual in that the victims are typically unlikely to complain, particularly in areas where the "authorities" aren't trusted by a large % of the population.

Whoever authored "prevent, protect, pursue" has correctly specified the essential need to identify "suitable targets" to provide education and protection. If it's not essential then why waste my tax money on such a task? Are you a higher authority than the author? Is it the National Crime Agency?

I've posted accurate data re: scrap metal theft varying according to the market price (can't see a dip due to police activity prior to ACPO undertaking their estimates). Do you have another graph from a reliable source to contradict this?

I think that covers everything.

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

We are agreed that "hole filling" will occur. On the basis that the potential numbers of "hole fillers" are effectively infinite then the number of "hole fillers" is effectively infinite unless effective prevention is absolute (or as near to absolute as makes no difference), which certainly didn't occur in Rotherham. We cannot determine the level of effective prevention unless we have an idea of the scale of the number of "suitable targets" and the the number of victims.

No they're not, there is a finite number of offenders.

Do you think sexual offending is driven by a lack of other people doing it? That there are people waiting in the wings and when they see that someone has gone to prison in a high-profile prosecution, they think, "excellent, now my turn?"

V8 Fettler said:

How do you get a "rich" intelligence picture about offenders if you don't know who the victims are? That was (and probably still is) one of the primary issues in Rotherham: the victims typically don't complain to the "authorities".

Lots of victims do come forward to services. 'Services' goes well beyond ones framed as 'authorities'. Intelligence comes from many sources without it being from a known victims:

- Associates of offenders,
- The family of the offenders,
- Rival gangs,
- Sanatised information from the third sector,
- Criminals in other crime areas who see 'tipping' the police about sex crimes as legitimate,
- Discoveries from other crime types i.e. gangs that commit other crime types and that investigation undercovers CSE offending,
- Victims who engage at any level - the finite pool will be committing crime against the unknowns,
- Crimestoppers and similar,
- Prison intelligence,
- Family of victims,
- Associates of victims,
- Other agency investigations i.e. information from education and social services,
- Police developed intelligence,
- High-tech development (phones / computers etc).

Etc, etc.

How do you think gangs of burglars who target high-powered vehicles are mapped out? Do you think their victims can identify them? A different example, but the point being you don't need victim-led information to develop highly accurate profiles on your offenders. So where does the information come from? Magic?

What about counter-terrorism? Isn't that effectively resourced? Or do you think the intelligence services know about everyone?

V8 Fettler said:

Compared to many crimes, CSE is unusual in that the victims are typically unlikely to complain, particularly in areas where the "authorities" aren't trusted by a large % of the population.

Sexual offending in general is very unreported. Where's the evidence the under-reporting was any worse here than elsewhere?

V8 Fettler said:

Whoever authored "prevent, protect, pursue" has correctly specified the essential need to identify "suitable targets" to provide education and protection. If it's not essential then why waste my tax money on such a task? Are you a higher authority than the author? Is it the National Crime Agency?

Knowing everything about everything to do with the crime area you're working in is desirable. There are grades of importance to have an effective strategy. Not everything needs to be essential. 'Essential' is contextual. In terms of fulfilling the overall balanced strategy, then each aspect is equally important.

But that's not the context, as you well know. The context is how "essential" knowing the people not known to services is to accurately resource the problem. I know you like to get away from this point, but that's what you stated without really understanding how crime problem-solving can and does work.

V8 Fettler said:

But - as Jay stated - there is no data available concerning CSE where the victim is not known to any agency. Without this data there is no means to accurately identify trends (are we winning?), or to plan resource (do we have enough to continue to win?).

This isn't true. If you can effectively tackle one of the three areas from the model, there is no crime. You can look for ways to work around it by pretending there are unlimited criminals, but this isn't true.

V8 Fettler said:

I've posted accurate data re: scrap metal theft varying according to the market price (can't see a dip due to police activity prior to ACPO undertaking their estimates). Do you have another graph from a reliable source to contradict this?

The data doesn't cover the point I made about acting effectively with unknowns. Limited recorded data from the railway doesn't negate this.

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

We are agreed that "hole filling" will occur. On the basis that the potential numbers of "hole fillers" are effectively infinite then the number of "hole fillers" is effectively infinite unless effective prevention is absolute (or as near to absolute as makes no difference), which certainly didn't occur in Rotherham. We cannot determine the level of effective prevention unless we have an idea of the scale of the number of "suitable targets" and the the number of victims.

No they're not, there is a finite number of offenders.

Do you think sexual offending is driven by a lack of other people doing it? That there are people waiting in the wings and when they see that someone has gone to prison in a high-profile prosecution, they think, "excellent, now my turn?"

V8 Fettler said:

How do you get a "rich" intelligence picture about offenders if you don't know who the victims are? That was (and probably still is) one of the primary issues in Rotherham: the victims typically don't complain to the "authorities".

Lots of victims do come forward to services. 'Services' goes well beyond ones framed as 'authorities'. Intelligence comes from many sources without it being from a known victims:

- Associates of offenders,
- The family of the offenders,
- Rival gangs,
- Sanatised information from the third sector,
- Criminals in other crime areas who see 'tipping' the police about sex crimes as legitimate,
- Discoveries from other crime types i.e. gangs that commit other crime types and that investigation undercovers CSE offending,
- Victims who engage at any level - the finite pool will be committing crime against the unknowns,
- Crimestoppers and similar,
- Prison intelligence,
- Family of victims,
- Associates of victims,
- Other agency investigations i.e. information from education and social services,
- Police developed intelligence,
- High-tech development (phones / computers etc).

Etc, etc.

How do you think gangs of burglars who target high-powered vehicles are mapped out? Do you think their victims can identify them? A different example, but the point being you don't need victim-led information to develop highly accurate profiles on your offenders. So where does the information come from? Magic?

What about counter-terrorism? Isn't that effectively resourced? Or do you think the intelligence services know about everyone?

V8 Fettler said:

Compared to many crimes, CSE is unusual in that the victims are typically unlikely to complain, particularly in areas where the "authorities" aren't trusted by a large % of the population.

Sexual offending in general is very unreported. Where's the evidence the under-reporting was any worse here than elsewhere?

V8 Fettler said:

Whoever authored "prevent, protect, pursue" has correctly specified the essential need to identify "suitable targets" to provide education and protection. If it's not essential then why waste my tax money on such a task? Are you a higher authority than the author? Is it the National Crime Agency?

Knowing everything about everything to do with the crime area you're working in is desirable. There are grades of importance to have an effective strategy. Not everything needs to be essential. 'Essential' is contextual. In terms of fulfilling the overall balanced strategy, then each aspect is equally important.

But that's not the context, as you well know. The context is how "essential" knowing the people not known to services is to accurately resource the problem. I know you like to get away from this point, but that's what you stated without really understanding how crime problem-solving can and does work.

V8 Fettler said:

But - as Jay stated - there is no data available concerning CSE where the victim is not known to any agency. Without this data there is no means to accurately identify trends (are we winning?), or to plan resource (do we have enough to continue to win?).

This isn't true. If you can effectively tackle one of the three areas from the model, there is no crime. You can look for ways to work around it by pretending there are unlimited criminals, but this isn't true.

V8 Fettler said:

I've posted accurate data re: scrap metal theft varying according to the market price (can't see a dip due to police activity prior to ACPO undertaking their estimates). Do you have another graph from a reliable source to contradict this?

The data doesn't cover the point I made about acting effectively with unknowns. Limited recorded data from the railway doesn't negate this.

Effectively infinite (in this context) = a very large number. I don't know how large in terms of scale, and neither do the authorities. If you know the scale then please tell me what it is.

There would be a finite number of offenders if the offenders were restricted to a group from within the population of existing residents, but that's not the case. Finite = a smaller number, the scale of which can be identified.

CSE probably follows the usual rules of supply and demand, with the authorities throttling the process. If the supply of "suitable targets" (there must be a better description than this! Potential victims perhaps?) is high with little throttling by the authorities then the number of "motivated offenders" will also be high. The authorities may well pick off a number of "offenders", but - without knowledge of the scale of the number of "targets" and the scale of the number of "offenders" - you cannot measure success or failure. General success or tip of the iceberg?

High profile prosecutions dissuading "offenders"? If the rewards are high then a number of "offenders" will offend regardless of the fate of others, see drugs crime as an example.

Victims coming forwards to "services"? What does "services" mean? You may well build a picture of some "offenders", but you still don't know the scale. Is the picture 95% complete or just the tip of the iceberg?

This thread is about Rotherham, but you continually flail around with irrelevant analogies and drag the thread away from Rotherham. The victims of motor theft will generally complain to the police, therefore the police have a good idea of the scale of the issue: where, when, how etc. The offenders have to sell the cars somewhere in the UK, or ship them abroad, all activities where the offender is at risk of detection. Potential targets are known. Trackers, CCTV of the vehicle, all providing info which isn't there for CSE. Incidentally, for OBD2-related thefts, the primary deterrent has been design changes, which effectively removes the target.

Counter-terrorism? Do we have reliable data regarding the scale of the threat in the UK? I haven't seen any reliable data. Another thread perhaps.

Re: reporting of CSE in Rotherham, the victims were faced with a combination of an incompetent police force and an incompetent local authority, either one of which could have resolved the problem at an early date. Jay reports that the children's complaints were effectively ignored by the police, is it any wonder that reporting of CSE was relatively low? There may be many locations where CSE occurs but - hopefully - it is controlled more effectively because either/both the police and the LA are competent.

You state that I have no real understanding of how crime solving can and does work. I don't understand the detail, I pay substantial amounts of tax money each year for the authorities to get that bit right. However, I do understand when it doesn't work, and - on a wider scale - that the strategy of attempting to resolve a problem without the relevant information is fraught with difficulties.

Who authored "prevent, protect, pursue"?

You haven't posted anything to contradict my graph re: scrap metal theft. Shall we now draw a veil over the scrap metal analogy?

You've posted various tenuous analogies, try this simple one:

You have 100 marbles, someone steals 10, you know the scale of the problem, you can apply the correct level of resource to resolve. If the theft is repeated then you can "learn lessons" and apply greater resource. If the theft isn't repeated then you've resolved the problem.

You have an unknown number marbles, someone steals an unknown number, you don't know the scale of the problem, you might not even be aware of the problem, you might not believe someone who has information about the marble theft (because you don't know if the problem exists), you can't apply the correct level of resource to resolve, you don't know if the theft is repeated, you're going round in circles.

Edited by V8 Fettler on Thursday 19th February 07:50

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

Effectively infinite (in this context) = a very large number. I don't know how large in terms of scale, and neither do the authorities. If you know the scale then please tell me what it is.

How do you know the authorities don't have a good idea of the offender / gang numbers? It's could be very well mapped out.

V8 Fettler said:

There would be a finite number of offenders if the offenders were restricted to a group from within the population of existing residents, but that's not the case. Finite = a smaller number, the scale of which can be identified.

It's by definition finite. 'Context' doesn't wholly change the definition of a word. It's restricted to the pool of offenders and people being at-risk of turning into offenders.

Sex-offending isn't a void that gets filled because others disappear. It's deep psychological offending. The external boundaries (i.e. effective prosecutions) are one thing that can deter people with lesser-offending 'needs'.

Offenders moving from one area to another isn't that big-a-deal. Systems in place (post-Bichard enquiry) make information sharing on people there is intelligence upon easy between forces.

V8 Fettler said:

CSE probably follows the usual rules of supply and demand, with the authorities throttling the process. If the supply of "suitable targets" (there must be a better description than this! Potential victims perhaps?) is high with little throttling by the authorities then the number of "motivated offenders" will also be high. The authorities may well pick off a number of "offenders", but - without knowledge of the scale of the number of "targets" and the scale of the number of "offenders" - you cannot measure success or failure. General success or tip of the iceberg?

But they will know the scale of the offenders. That's the point of the problem-solving model.

You are linking, absolutely, the necessity of knowing every victim and potential victim with the ability to reduce the crime through targeted the offenders.

This is a fallacy. You do not need to know everyone to be effective. You do not need to know everyone who is at risk of radicalisation to effective manage terrorism or effectively resource it.

V8 Fettler said:

High profile prosecutions dissuading "offenders"? If the rewards are high then a number of "offenders" will offend regardless of the fate of others, see drugs crime as an example.

The probability of being caught features heavily in offending behaviour. Offenders make crude assessments of risk. If Rotherham were to invert itself and become to beacon of prosecuting CSE offenders, then displacement is discouraged because it would be the place not to go.

V8 Fettler said:

Victims coming forwards to "services"? What does "services" mean? You may well build a picture of some "offenders", but you still don't know the scale. Is the picture 95% complete or just the tip of the iceberg?

You may not know the scale of offending, but you may know the scale of offenders.

V8 Fettler said:

This thread is about Rotherham, but you continually flail around with irrelevant analogies and drag the thread away from Rotherham.

They are completely relevant as a basis for showing how the police can map offender profiles effectively without knowing every victim, and that the model you dismiss without evidence works.

V8 Fettler said:

Counter-terrorism? Do we have reliable data regarding the scale of the threat in the UK? I haven't seen any reliable data. Another thread perhaps.

That's the point... That it's hard to measure all the unknowns and people of risk, yet the authorities manage to resource it effectively, completely undermining your assertion that one can't effectively resource without knowing all the unknowns.

V8 Fettler said:

Re: reporting of CSE in Rotherham, the victims were faced with a combination of an incompetent police force and an incompetent local authority, either one of which could have resolved the problem at an early date. Jay reports that the children's complaints were effectively ignored by the police, is it any wonder that reporting of CSE was relatively low? There may be many locations where CSE occurs but - hopefully - it is controlled more effectively because either/both the police and the LA are competent.

I'm not sure if reporting were any lower than other areas.

V8 Fettler said:

You state that I have no real understanding of how crime solving can and does work. I don't understand the detail, I pay substantial amounts of tax money each year for the authorities to get that bit right. However, I do understand when it doesn't work, and - on a wider scale - that the strategy of attempting to resolve a problem without the relevant information is fraught with difficulties.

It's not necessarily the understanding per se, it's the lack of considering alternative approaches and solutions. I've never said having all the information isn't the best place to be, I am saying one can still be effective just by targeting one strand of the necessary factors for crime to occur.

I think you've backed yourself so tightly into a corner by saying, essentially, that the issues can't be effectively managed / resourced because of an area of unknown data, you can't consider that may not be the case.

V8 Fettler said:

Who authored "prevent, protect, pursue"?

It's the LA's strategy so I imagine it'll be multi-author and have 'ownership' by someone senior. The PPP is a nicer-sounding version of the RAT model.

V8 Fettler said:

You haven't posted anything to contradict my graph re: scrap metal theft. Shall we now draw a veil over the scrap metal analogy?

The graph that showed the estimate to be 60k or 80k, which was done to put the final piece of the puzzle shows how uncertain the data was. Imagine what it was like at the start. How would there be graphs to represent the unknowns I described? Where do you think graphs exist for who the gangs were? Or who the bent scrap yards were?

Do you think the information were victim-led? That identifying the offenders came from the railways? Resourcing from recorded volume (of just the railway) is clearly not sufficient. If you had 500 gangs committing the crimes, you'd treat that differently from 50, regardless of the number of offences.

V8 Fettler said:

You have 100 marbles, someone steals 10, you know the scale of the problem, you can apply the correct level of resource to resolve. If the theft is repeated then you can "learn lessons" and apply greater resource. If the theft isn't repeated then you've resolved the problem.

You have an unknown number marbles, someone steals an unknown number, you don't know the scale of the problem, you might not even be aware of the problem, you might not believe someone who has information about the marble theft (because you don't know if the problem exists), you can't apply the correct level of resource to resolve, you don't know if the theft is repeated, you're going round in circles.

If you identify who is stealing the marbles and take them out of the equation, then no marbles can be stolen. It's not necessary to know how many they stole in the first place in order to do that.

If we fundamentally disagree on the route of this discussion then that's fine. The only "circles" becomes one another putting our sides across which is probably not a great use of time. We're unlikely to change the mind of the other.

You think it's essential to know the children who aren't known to services to effectively tackle and resource the issue. I don't because I know that without offenders there can't be crime and that a top-down approach can be effective. If that's the position we both wish to remain to I don't think we have any more to discuss on the matter.

[carinaman]

So how do they do the encircled point without the Diversity alarms going straight to Defcon 3?

They'd be booked onto a Diversity refresher course before they had left the building if they'd mentioned a specific ethnic or cultural type.

So they need to educate all of the kids in Rotherham of the potential threats? But when was it identified that taxi drivers were part of the problem and when did they review or change the licencing of taxi drivers to address that?

It could seem it's being made about the kids and the victims rather than the perps that are breaking the law by having sex with minors. The school uniforms weren't a bit of a giveaway?

Edited by carinaman on Thursday 19th February 17:19

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

Effectively infinite (in this context) = a very large number. I don't know how large in terms of scale, and neither do the authorities. If you know the scale then please tell me what it is.

How do you know the authorities don't have a good idea of the offender / gang numbers? It's could be very well mapped out.

V8 Fettler said:

There would be a finite number of offenders if the offenders were restricted to a group from within the population of existing residents, but that's not the case. Finite = a smaller number, the scale of which can be identified.

It's by definition finite. 'Context' doesn't wholly change the definition of a word. It's restricted to the pool of offenders and people being at-risk of turning into offenders.

Sex-offending isn't a void that gets filled because others disappear. It's deep psychological offending. The external boundaries (i.e. effective prosecutions) are one thing that can deter people with lesser-offending 'needs'.

Offenders moving from one area to another isn't that big-a-deal. Systems in place (post-Bichard enquiry) make information sharing on people there is intelligence upon easy between forces.

V8 Fettler said:

CSE probably follows the usual rules of supply and demand, with the authorities throttling the process. If the supply of "suitable targets" (there must be a better description than this! Potential victims perhaps?) is high with little throttling by the authorities then the number of "motivated offenders" will also be high. The authorities may well pick off a number of "offenders", but - without knowledge of the scale of the number of "targets" and the scale of the number of "offenders" - you cannot measure success or failure. General success or tip of the iceberg?

But they will know the scale of the offenders. That's the point of the problem-solving model.

You are linking, absolutely, the necessity of knowing every victim and potential victim with the ability to reduce the crime through targeted the offenders.

This is a fallacy. You do not need to know everyone to be effective. You do not need to know everyone who is at risk of radicalisation to effective manage terrorism or effectively resource it.

V8 Fettler said:

High profile prosecutions dissuading "offenders"? If the rewards are high then a number of "offenders" will offend regardless of the fate of others, see drugs crime as an example.

The probability of being caught features heavily in offending behaviour. Offenders make crude assessments of risk. If Rotherham were to invert itself and become to beacon of prosecuting CSE offenders, then displacement is discouraged because it would be the place not to go.

V8 Fettler said:

Victims coming forwards to "services"? What does "services" mean? You may well build a picture of some "offenders", but you still don't know the scale. Is the picture 95% complete or just the tip of the iceberg?

You may not know the scale of offending, but you may know the scale of offenders.

V8 Fettler said:

This thread is about Rotherham, but you continually flail around with irrelevant analogies and drag the thread away from Rotherham.

They are completely relevant as a basis for showing how the police can map offender profiles effectively without knowing every victim, and that the model you dismiss without evidence works.

V8 Fettler said:

Counter-terrorism? Do we have reliable data regarding the scale of the threat in the UK? I haven't seen any reliable data. Another thread perhaps.

That's the point... That it's hard to measure all the unknowns and people of risk, yet the authorities manage to resource it effectively, completely undermining your assertion that one can't effectively resource without knowing all the unknowns.

V8 Fettler said:

Re: reporting of CSE in Rotherham, the victims were faced with a combination of an incompetent police force and an incompetent local authority, either one of which could have resolved the problem at an early date. Jay reports that the children's complaints were effectively ignored by the police, is it any wonder that reporting of CSE was relatively low? There may be many locations where CSE occurs but - hopefully - it is controlled more effectively because either/both the police and the LA are competent.

I'm not sure if reporting were any lower than other areas.

V8 Fettler said:

You state that I have no real understanding of how crime solving can and does work. I don't understand the detail, I pay substantial amounts of tax money each year for the authorities to get that bit right. However, I do understand when it doesn't work, and - on a wider scale - that the strategy of attempting to resolve a problem without the relevant information is fraught with difficulties.

It's not necessarily the understanding per se, it's the lack of considering alternative approaches and solutions. I've never said having all the information isn't the best place to be, I am saying one can still be effective just by targeting one strand of the necessary factors for crime to occur.

I think you've backed yourself so tightly into a corner by saying, essentially, that the issues can't be effectively managed / resourced because of an area of unknown data, you can't consider that may not be the case.

V8 Fettler said:

Who authored "prevent, protect, pursue"?

It's the LA's strategy so I imagine it'll be multi-author and have 'ownership' by someone senior. The PPP is a nicer-sounding version of the RAT model.

V8 Fettler said:

You haven't posted anything to contradict my graph re: scrap metal theft. Shall we now draw a veil over the scrap metal analogy?

The graph that showed the estimate to be 60k or 80k, which was done to put the final piece of the puzzle shows how uncertain the data was. Imagine what it was like at the start. How would there be graphs to represent the unknowns I described? Where do you think graphs exist for who the gangs were? Or who the bent scrap yards were?

Do you think the information were victim-led? That identifying the offenders came from the railways? Resourcing from recorded volume (of just the railway) is clearly not sufficient. If you had 500 gangs committing the crimes, you'd treat that differently from 50, regardless of the number of offences.

V8 Fettler said:

You have 100 marbles, someone steals 10, you know the scale of the problem, you can apply the correct level of resource to resolve. If the theft is repeated then you can "learn lessons" and apply greater resource. If the theft isn't repeated then you've resolved the problem.

You have an unknown number marbles, someone steals an unknown number, you don't know the scale of the problem, you might not even be aware of the problem, you might not believe someone who has information about the marble theft (because you don't know if the problem exists), you can't apply the correct level of resource to resolve, you don't know if the theft is repeated, you're going round in circles.

If you identify who is stealing the marbles and take them out of the equation, then no marbles can be stolen. It's not necessary to know how many they stole in the first place in order to do that.

If we fundamentally disagree on the route of this discussion then that's fine. The only "circles" becomes one another putting our sides across which is probably not a great use of time. We're unlikely to change the mind of the other.

You think it's essential to know the children who aren't known to services to effectively tackle and resource the issue. I don't because I know that without offenders there can't be crime and that a top-down approach can be effective. If that's the position we both wish to remain to I don't think we have any more to discuss on the matter.

For Rotherham (which this thread is about), the mapping of offender/gang numbers was not very effective. And if the scale of the CSE isn't known, who is going to justify the budget for extensive mapping where CSE may be low?

if sex-offending is gang-related then the usual rules of gang culture will prevail: e.g. control of geographical areas. Take a gang away then another gang will take its place unless the number of "targets" is reduced or the police disrupt the process. See also previous examples of solitary offenders being prepared to travel substantial distances in the UK to offend, also offenders prepared to travel around the world.

"Deep psychological offending", I've never heard of that phrase, but I can make a best guess/assessment. All crimes probably vary from casually opportunistic to "deeply psychological", CSE won't be any different

I doubt if the authorities are aware of the scale of the numbers of offenders travelling from area to area. Is there any data available?

In Rotherham, the scale of the offending was unknown, therefore the scale of the number of offenders was unknown. You may well detect some offenders via your "> Intelligence comes from many sources<" but clearly this didn't work in Rotherham, and you have no way of knowing if your efforts are successful until you can quantify the scale of continuing offences. A closed loop is required, or you're going round in circles.

Once again, you're subverting my argument that you need to know the scale of the number of victims and the scale of the number of offenders, you've repeatedly altered this to ">the necessity of knowing every victim and potential victim<". We don't need to know if one, two or three marbles have been stolen, but we need to know if it's one, ten or seventy.

If the inversion of Rotherham to a beacon of anti-CSE drives displacement to other geographical areas then - by definition - the current (or recent) situation must be an attraction to "out of town" offenders, i.e. travelling across boundaries. Therefore, offenders crossing boundaries is clearly an issue.

How can you know the scale of the number of offenders if there is a risk of an unknown number of offences being committed by unknown offenders on unknown victims? You cannot rely on your ">Intelligence comes from many sources<" list because you can't measure the effectiveness of your efforts. The information loop needs to be closed to close off the problem.

NSPCC said:

We don't know a great deal about who commits child sexual exploitation. Identifying abusers is difficult because ....

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-abuse-and-neglect/child-sexual-exploitation/what-is-child-sexual-exploitation/

The police will know of a large proportion of the victims of high-powered vehicle theft, this is a key variable compared to CSE.

Another thread for the effectiveness of counter-terrorism. There is a view that the real threat is not as high as the authorities declare.

One of the key drivers for low reporting of CSE in Rotherham is the lack of a response from the authorities, this is highlighted by Jay, are you saying that similar is occurring at other locations?

Backed into a corner? Not particularly. I have certainly considered your view that CSE can be controlled by targeting offenders and nothing else, but this cannot work unless you are certain of the scale of the number of offenders, which requires knowledge of the scale of the criminal acts. Otherwise you might be working on the basis of 10 marbles being stolen, find the culprit with 10 marbles in his possession and declare the problem resolved, when in fact another 50 marbles had been stolen by 17 unknown culprits.

The "Prevent, protect, pursue" concept certainly appears to be in widespread use, the NCA appear to be the highest authority following this. If the identification, education and protection of "suitable targets" isn't key then it needs to be removed from the shopping list, otherwise it's a waste of my tax money, no prevarication required.

The railway copper theft graph shows a trend, that trend can be extrapolated for all scrap metals provided that the market prices are similar, no prevarication required.

In the first marble scenario, where knowledge of the scale of the total number of marbles (100) and the scale of the total number of stolen marbles is known (10), and if you arrest one culprit with 10 marbles in his pocket then you'll know that you've solved the problem. Reduce the resource, but perhaps continue observing and protecting the 100 marbles to prevent future marble theft.

In the second marble scenario, where knowledge of the scale of the total number of marbles is unknown and the scale of the number of stolen marbles is unknown, and if you arrest one culprit with 10 marbles in his pocket then you'll have no idea if you've solved the problem. The theft of unknown numbers of marbles by an unknown number of marble thieves preying on an unknown total number of marbles will remain unknown and could well be continuing out of sight of the authorities.

Edited by V8 Fettler on Thursday 19th February 18:22

[RobinOakapple]

Are you two still at it? Got to admire the endurance.