Rotherham Council mass resignation.....
Discussion
V8 Fettler said:
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?
We're not talking about the past. It was also the acting upon information that wasn't good, not so much the information itself. V8 Fettler said:
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.
And see how information is shared across forces about offenders if there is displacement. The "rules" you've picked from are a little simplistic. Familiarity is often fundamental to gangs. V8 Fettler said:
"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
Not really. Take someone with no money, food or housing. Are they stealing because they're "built" that way, or because the external circumstances force them to do so? Think of it this way. Some people are born gay, some are born feeling they are the wrong gender. Some are born with the attraction to children.
There are, of course, 'nurture' factors within 'nature / nurture', but let's not make the mistake and categorise sexual offending of this nature as some casual opportunism that many many people are awaiting to fill to void.
V8 Fettler said:
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?
Why would they release their intelligence? V8 Fettler said:
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.
No, the scale of complete offending was unknown. Like every area, with every crime type. Again, what didn't work in Rotherham was primarily the acting upon information.
And even if it were a failure to gather, that's because it wasn't done right, not because it doesn't work when done right.
V8 Fettler said:
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.
It subverts it because it's true. No offenders = no crime. V8 Fettler said:
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.
But we're talking about if it is dealt with properly, not if it's broken. V8 Fettler said:
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.
You're never going to know everything. There are plenty of measurements available that'll form the base of a strong assessment as to whether measures are effective or not. Everything doesn't need to be known to make effective decisions. That's fundamental to a lot of risk environments.
V8 Fettler said:
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/V8 Fettler said:
The police will know of a large proportion of the victims of high-powered vehicle theft, this is a key variable compared to CSE.
But the victims won't help, nearly all of the time, to identify the offenders. That's the point. It's effectiveness is a top down approach to targeting offenders. V8 Fettler said:
Another thread for the effectiveness of counter-terrorism. There is a view that the real threat is not as high as the authorities declare.
People can speculate how they want, the fact is there have been regular serious plots over the years and very few incidents. The degree of seriousness is irrelevant to the point that they don't know everyone, yet manage to resource things well. V8 Fettler said:
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?
I expect other areas will have / have had similar issues. V8 Fettler said:
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.
I didn't say it was controlled solely by targeting offenders, I said you don't need to know everything in order to resource effectively. You said it wasn't possible to resource effectively without knowing those not known to services. A different thing entirely.
V8 Fettler said:
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.
Prevention is as important a any strand. But remember, this isn't about the overall strategy, it's about you saying you can't effectively resource without knowing the number of people not know to services. A different thing entirely.
V8 Fettler said:
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.
That assumes it's possible to know all the marbles stolen, or know within any reasonable degree of accuracy. V8 Fettler said:
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.
No, but you may have intelligence that that offender is the main marble thief and make some probabilistic assessment as to the impact of taking them out of the equation. Like nearly all crime types. 
4th paragraph from bottom 'Things have improved.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshi...
At least the BBC have done a bit of reporting on it now? I assume the Notts. Supt. was on the Today programme?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshi...
At least the BBC have done a bit of reporting on it now? I assume the Notts. Supt. was on the Today programme?
carinaman said:
4th paragraph from bottom 'Things have improved.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshi...
At least the BBC have done a bit of reporting on it now? I assume the Notts. Supt. was on the Today programme?
Someone needs to tell the Notts Supt that unless her team knows all the people who are unknown, they won't really be able to do anything. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshi...
At least the BBC have done a bit of reporting on it now? I assume the Notts. Supt. was on the Today programme?
La Liga said:
Someone needs to tell the Notts Supt that unless her team knows all the people who are unknown, they won't really be able to do anything.
But on the positive side, Melanie Shaw that may know a few names is under lock and key in HMP Peterborough, so they shouldn't find it too difficult to find her to ask her what she knows.And PCC Paddy Tipping was previously in Social Work in Notts. so he may know a few names too.
It would be possible to trace former employees by the NI contributions and pension if they're getting pension paid now?
Unless the person that hit 'delete' and lost 20,000 Stop & Search records at Police Scotland previously worked in IT in Notts. or has equally inept relatives working in Nottinghamshire in roles that involve access to computers.
Edited by carinaman on Friday 20th February 17:19
I am wondering if the person at Police Scotland that deleted 20,000 Stop & Search records, counted down from 20,000 or up from zero while they sat there repeatedly hitting:
They should have hidden that loss of data a bit longer really:
As they've admitted losing 20,000 Stop & Search records they'll be handing that certificate back?
Not having proper procedures in place to safeguard back ups is a Risky Business.
They should have hidden that loss of data a bit longer really:
As they've admitted losing 20,000 Stop & Search records they'll be handing that certificate back?
Not having proper procedures in place to safeguard back ups is a Risky Business.
Edited by carinaman on Friday 20th February 18:26
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
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?
We're not talking about the past. It was also the acting upon information that wasn't good, not so much the information itself. V8 Fettler said:
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.
And see how information is shared across forces about offenders if there is displacement. The "rules" you've picked from are a little simplistic. Familiarity is often fundamental to gangs. V8 Fettler said:
"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
Not really. Take someone with no money, food or housing. Are they stealing because they're "built" that way, or because the external circumstances force them to do so? Think of it this way. Some people are born gay, some are born feeling they are the wrong gender. Some are born with the attraction to children.
There are, of course, 'nurture' factors within 'nature / nurture', but let's not make the mistake and categorise sexual offending of this nature as some casual opportunism that many many people are awaiting to fill to void.
V8 Fettler said:
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?
Why would they release their intelligence? V8 Fettler said:
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.
No, the scale of complete offending was unknown. Like every area, with every crime type. Again, what didn't work in Rotherham was primarily the acting upon information.
And even if it were a failure to gather, that's because it wasn't done right, not because it doesn't work when done right.
V8 Fettler said:
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.
It subverts it because it's true. No offenders = no crime. V8 Fettler said:
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.
But we're talking about if it is dealt with properly, not if it's broken. V8 Fettler said:
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.
You're never going to know everything. There are plenty of measurements available that'll form the base of a strong assessment as to whether measures are effective or not. Everything doesn't need to be known to make effective decisions. That's fundamental to a lot of risk environments.
V8 Fettler said:
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/V8 Fettler said:
The police will know of a large proportion of the victims of high-powered vehicle theft, this is a key variable compared to CSE.
But the victims won't help, nearly all of the time, to identify the offenders. That's the point. It's effectiveness is a top down approach to targeting offenders. V8 Fettler said:
Another thread for the effectiveness of counter-terrorism. There is a view that the real threat is not as high as the authorities declare.
People can speculate how they want, the fact is there have been regular serious plots over the years and very few incidents. The degree of seriousness is irrelevant to the point that they don't know everyone, yet manage to resource things well. V8 Fettler said:
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?
I expect other areas will have / have had similar issues. V8 Fettler said:
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.
I didn't say it was controlled solely by targeting offenders, I said you don't need to know everything in order to resource effectively. You said it wasn't possible to resource effectively without knowing those not known to services. A different thing entirely.
V8 Fettler said:
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.
Prevention is as important a any strand. But remember, this isn't about the overall strategy, it's about you saying you can't effectively resource without knowing the number of people not know to services. A different thing entirely.
V8 Fettler said:
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.
That assumes it's possible to know all the marbles stolen, or know within any reasonable degree of accuracy. V8 Fettler said:
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.
No, but you may have intelligence that that offender is the main marble thief and make some probabilistic assessment as to the impact of taking them out of the equation. Like nearly all crime types. Planning ahead? How do you justify a budget if you don't understand the scale of the problem you're dealing with? Guesswork? Is it approximately 1 marble or approximately 99 marbles that have gone missing?
History shows that gangs are more than prepared to cross boundaries if the rewards are high enough e.g. London turf wars.
Are you seriously categorising all homeless people who are a bit hungry as thieves? Some will steal, some won't.
CSE is far more than "being born with the attraction to children". It's also about control, which in the gang environment frequently involves casual opportunistic control.
There's no data available re: offenders travelling from area to area. I see no valid reason for such data to be a secret, I want to know what the "authorities" are doing with my tax money.
Scale of "complete" offending? What does "complete" mean in this context? The scale of offending for murder is easily identifiable, other crimes less so.
What didn't work in Rotherham was the result of insular empires neglecting their professional duties and dismally failing the public they are supposed to be serving.
I doubt if it would be particularly difficult to build a model of the scale of offending for the smaller villages within the geographical area of the Borough of Rotherham, would need someone like Risky Business (2015) to do the ground work though. Total population of potential victims wouldn't be too large, could make some profiling assumptions to further reduce the likely scale of the number of victims, the key would be breaking down communication barriers. Which means that the "authorities" need to take a step back.
The continuing subversion is your repetitive assertion that my view requires a detailed knowledge of the number of offenders and victims, whereas the reality is that my view requires a knowledge of scale. Not one or two or three marbles, but one, ten or seventy.
Either displacement occurs or it doesn't. You've stated that it occurs, I agree. How will you know if CSE is being dealt with properly unless you have an idea of the variation in the scale of the number of victims? Guesswork perhaps? I would prefer that the "authorities" deal with facts.
I'm not stating that everything needs to be known to the nth degree, but the scale of the problem needs be identified to permit the correct level of resource to be allocated and to identify trends leading to resolution. Scale is not detail.
Identifying CSE offenders is certainly difficult, that's why it's important to identify the scale of the number of CSE victims to gauge the scale of the problem.
Re: theft of high powered cars. The point of measuring the scale of the number of victims is to identify resource required to resolve and to identify trends ("are we dealing with the problem?").
As I said, another thread for counter-terrorism.
It's concerning that you believe that there are other Rotherhams out there, is that belief based on anything concrete?
You don't need to know the number of people who are not known to the "services", but you need to know the scale of the number to identify the scale of the problem (for resource planning) and to evaluate if your efforts to resolve are successful.
The two marble scenarios are the extremes that would be used to set the boundaries for building a model, the real world solution would be somewhere in between the two extremes, where the scale is known but not the absolute detail.
The authorities cannot know the scale of crime that is continuing out of sight of the authorities because it's out of sight of the authorities.
La Liga said:
carinaman said:
4th paragraph from bottom 'Things have improved.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshi...
At least the BBC have done a bit of reporting on it now? I assume the Notts. Supt. was on the Today programme?
Someone needs to tell the Notts Supt that unless her team knows all the people who are unknown, they won't really be able to do anything. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshi...
At least the BBC have done a bit of reporting on it now? I assume the Notts. Supt. was on the Today programme?
V8 Fettler said:
You're prevaricating and flailing. Is there any possibility of you sticking to the point rather than rambling on about homosexuality, homelessness and starvation?
You may want to make simplistic generalisations about offenders, but I prefer a bit more depth. The example was clearly to demonstrate the difference between external and internal circumstances that lead to offending behaviour. You don't like it because it doesn't fit with you "there are infinite offenders waiting in the flanks" non-sense. I have stuck to my point throughout, that it's not needed to know every unknown person to effectively resource the problem, as you proposed here:
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?).
V8 Fettler said:
Planning ahead? How do you justify a budget if you don't understand the scale of the problem you're dealing with? Guesswork? Is it approximately 1 marble or approximately 99 marbles that have gone missing?
You don't need to if you know who the marble thieves are. Knowing who the thieves are and dealing with them is "the problem you're dealing with". You can't see an alternative approach. V8 Fettler said:
History shows that gangs are more than prepared to cross boundaries if the rewards are high enough e.g. London turf wars.
Crime has always displaced. The extent and probability of doing so in these circumstances is being made-up by you for your convenience. Whereas me presenting things like how information is shared about criminals moving is actually tangible and real. V8 Fettler said:
Are you seriously categorising all homeless people who are a bit hungry as thieves? Some will steal, some won't.
Yes, that's what I was doing, I wasn't making the point that sex offending of this nature is deeply rooted and doesn't spontaneously appear due to external environment changing. V8 Fettler said:
CSE is far more than "being born with the attraction to children". It's also about control, which in the gang environment frequently involves casual opportunistic control.
There are ancillary elements, and there are offenders who deal with the 'business side', naturally, but in terms of the customer, they are required to have the motivation to commit sexual offences in the first place. People without this 'build' don't just suddenly appear from no where. Most sexual offenders demonstrate 'warning sign' behaviours early on in their development, and IIRC, there is little correlation to back-ground. You don't like to consider this because it undermines why there aren't "infinite" numbers of offenders as you like to present.
V8 Fettler said:
There's no data available re: offenders travelling from area to area. I see no valid reason for such data to be a secret, I want to know what the "authorities" are doing with my tax money.
Maybe there is, but a) you're the one asserting there's some mass migration so you should look for it and b) beyond this esoteric conversation, who cares? V8 Fettler said:
What didn't work in Rotherham was the result of insular empires neglecting their professional duties and dismally failing the public they are supposed to be serving.
But more specifically, it was not acting upon information, not having it in the first place. V8 Fettler said:
I doubt if it would be particularly difficult to build a model of the scale of offending for the smaller villages within the geographical area of the Borough of Rotherham, would need someone like Risky Business (2015) to do the ground work though. Total population of potential victims wouldn't be too large, could make some profiling assumptions to further reduce the likely scale of the number of victims, the key would be breaking down communication barriers. Which means that the "authorities" need to take a step back.
Lots of third sector organisations feed in information already. V8 Fettler said:
The continuing subversion is your repetitive assertion that my view requires a detailed knowledge of the number of offenders and victims, whereas the reality is that my view requires a knowledge of scale. Not one or two or three marbles, but one, ten or seventy.
There's no subversion, if there are no offenders, there are no victims. V8 Fettler said:
Either displacement occurs or it doesn't. You've stated that it occurs, I agree. How will you know if CSE is being dealt with properly unless you have an idea of the variation in the scale of the number of victims? Guesswork perhaps? I would prefer that the "authorities" deal with facts.
It's not binary, there are degrees. A process for offender identification begins from somewhere. Are people who move from one area to another immune from being picked up through the processes that picked-up their predecessors?
V8 Fettler said:
I'm not stating that everything needs to be known to the nth degree, but the scale of the problem needs be identified to permit the correct level of resource to be allocated and to identify trends leading to resolution. Scale is not detail.
They have a good idea of the scale. It's in the report. You've picked up on one area they find hard to estimate (as I expect all areas do, and is no different from most crime-types) and have extrapolated it to mean it's not possible to address / resource. V8 Fettler said:
Identifying CSE offenders is certainly difficult, that's why it's important to identify the scale of the number of CSE victims to gauge the scale of the problem.
Difficulty doesn't mean it can't be done. It's of course better to have every piece of the puzzle, but that's not in dispute. What is it that you claim it's essential to resource correctly to have pretty much every piece. V8 Fettler said:
Re: theft of high powered cars. The point of measuring the scale of the number of victims is to identify resource required to resolve and to identify trends ("are we dealing with the problem?").
But you still don't know how many offenders there are. Few can commit a huge number of crimes, whereas many can create few crimes. Victims won't give you offender data. The point of this comparisons was:1) You don't need victim-led information to identify offenders.
2) You don't need victim-led information to tackle and target offenders.
V8 Fettler said:
As I said, another thread for counter-terrorism.
It's not about CT, it's about a crime area where being able to resource effectively doesn't require all the unknowns, as the biggest threats have the best intelligence flow. I don't think you like this example as it's easy to understand the point I am making with it. V8 Fettler said:
It's concerning that you believe that there are other Rotherhams out there, is that belief based on anything concrete?
There are reports about sexual offending failures appearing. I'd also attribute the central-led focus on targets and specific crime areas as playing a part in ignoring CSE. Being central, it applied to every area. V8 Fettler said:
You don't need to know the number of people who are not known to the "services", but you need to know the scale of the number to identify the scale of the problem (for resource planning) and to evaluate if your efforts to resolve are successful.
You could also measure the amount of prosecutions vs recorded crime (you were keen on recorded crime for the scrap metal theft - why doesn't it apply here? And yes, lots of scrap metal theft wasn't reported). V8 Fettler said:
La Liga said:
carinaman said:
4th paragraph from bottom 'Things have improved.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshi...
At least the BBC have done a bit of reporting on it now? I assume the Notts. Supt. was on the Today programme?
Someone needs to tell the Notts Supt that unless her team knows all the people who are unknown, they won't really be able to do anything. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshi...
At least the BBC have done a bit of reporting on it now? I assume the Notts. Supt. was on the Today programme?
spadriver said:
Or perhaps wont want to because of the people involved or the race.I really have doubts that much will come of all of this .
Lots of words on here. Bit like the reality of Rotherham ...and here in Oxford (Operation Bullfinch and the like).http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2956225/Co...
Lots of words. No action.
Except the action of nice payouts, promotions (and words of course!)
Like OCC Chief Executive* Joanna Simons - *this job will no longer exist from June, so Ms Simons will get a payoff: £600k (jeez!).
Not sure what Thames Valley Police Chief Constable Sara Thornton will get or if there is a payoff? (she's going too!) but be fair, she did apologise to the victims reiterating that any misconduct by officers would be dealt with ‘firmly’.
She's off to boss the new NPCC - on a nice salary, naturally.
Action or actions?
Don't be silly.
Words? ££££s? Promotions?
Lots of!
Interesting that when a certain race is involved in crimes, the powers that be get too scared to take action.If this scandal were a white british thing, Im pretty sure it would have been jumped on from a great hight.
Bent coppers /councillors not to mention the evil s
tty taxi drivers, cab company owners etal just a massive cover up that (if it ever does) just be painted over. Faith in the police? ? Absolute ZERO!
Bent coppers /councillors not to mention the evil s
tty taxi drivers, cab company owners etal just a massive cover up that (if it ever does) just be painted over. Faith in the police? ? Absolute ZERO!La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
You're prevaricating and flailing. Is there any possibility of you sticking to the point rather than rambling on about homosexuality, homelessness and starvation?
You may want to make simplistic generalisations about offenders, but I prefer a bit more depth. The example was clearly to demonstrate the difference between external and internal circumstances that lead to offending behaviour. You don't like it because it doesn't fit with you "there are infinite offenders waiting in the flanks" non-sense. I have stuck to my point throughout, that it's not needed to know every unknown person to effectively resource the problem, as you proposed here:
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?).
V8 Fettler said:
Planning ahead? How do you justify a budget if you don't understand the scale of the problem you're dealing with? Guesswork? Is it approximately 1 marble or approximately 99 marbles that have gone missing?
You don't need to if you know who the marble thieves are. Knowing who the thieves are and dealing with them is "the problem you're dealing with". You can't see an alternative approach. V8 Fettler said:
History shows that gangs are more than prepared to cross boundaries if the rewards are high enough e.g. London turf wars.
Crime has always displaced. The extent and probability of doing so in these circumstances is being made-up by you for your convenience. Whereas me presenting things like how information is shared about criminals moving is actually tangible and real. V8 Fettler said:
Are you seriously categorising all homeless people who are a bit hungry as thieves? Some will steal, some won't.
Yes, that's what I was doing, I wasn't making the point that sex offending of this nature is deeply rooted and doesn't spontaneously appear due to external environment changing. V8 Fettler said:
CSE is far more than "being born with the attraction to children". It's also about control, which in the gang environment frequently involves casual opportunistic control.
There are ancillary elements, and there are offenders who deal with the 'business side', naturally, but in terms of the customer, they are required to have the motivation to commit sexual offences in the first place. People without this 'build' don't just suddenly appear from no where. Most sexual offenders demonstrate 'warning sign' behaviours early on in their development, and IIRC, there is little correlation to back-ground. You don't like to consider this because it undermines why there aren't "infinite" numbers of offenders as you like to present.
V8 Fettler said:
There's no data available re: offenders travelling from area to area. I see no valid reason for such data to be a secret, I want to know what the "authorities" are doing with my tax money.
Maybe there is, but a) you're the one asserting there's some mass migration so you should look for it and b) beyond this esoteric conversation, who cares? V8 Fettler said:
What didn't work in Rotherham was the result of insular empires neglecting their professional duties and dismally failing the public they are supposed to be serving.
But more specifically, it was not acting upon information, not having it in the first place. V8 Fettler said:
I doubt if it would be particularly difficult to build a model of the scale of offending for the smaller villages within the geographical area of the Borough of Rotherham, would need someone like Risky Business (2015) to do the ground work though. Total population of potential victims wouldn't be too large, could make some profiling assumptions to further reduce the likely scale of the number of victims, the key would be breaking down communication barriers. Which means that the "authorities" need to take a step back.
Lots of third sector organisations feed in information already. V8 Fettler said:
The continuing subversion is your repetitive assertion that my view requires a detailed knowledge of the number of offenders and victims, whereas the reality is that my view requires a knowledge of scale. Not one or two or three marbles, but one, ten or seventy.
There's no subversion, if there are no offenders, there are no victims. V8 Fettler said:
Either displacement occurs or it doesn't. You've stated that it occurs, I agree. How will you know if CSE is being dealt with properly unless you have an idea of the variation in the scale of the number of victims? Guesswork perhaps? I would prefer that the "authorities" deal with facts.
It's not binary, there are degrees. A process for offender identification begins from somewhere. Are people who move from one area to another immune from being picked up through the processes that picked-up their predecessors?
V8 Fettler said:
I'm not stating that everything needs to be known to the nth degree, but the scale of the problem needs be identified to permit the correct level of resource to be allocated and to identify trends leading to resolution. Scale is not detail.
They have a good idea of the scale. It's in the report. You've picked up on one area they find hard to estimate (as I expect all areas do, and is no different from most crime-types) and have extrapolated it to mean it's not possible to address / resource. V8 Fettler said:
Identifying CSE offenders is certainly difficult, that's why it's important to identify the scale of the number of CSE victims to gauge the scale of the problem.
Difficulty doesn't mean it can't be done. It's of course better to have every piece of the puzzle, but that's not in dispute. What is it that you claim it's essential to resource correctly to have pretty much every piece. V8 Fettler said:
Re: theft of high powered cars. The point of measuring the scale of the number of victims is to identify resource required to resolve and to identify trends ("are we dealing with the problem?").
But you still don't know how many offenders there are. Few can commit a huge number of crimes, whereas many can create few crimes. Victims won't give you offender data. The point of this comparisons was:1) You don't need victim-led information to identify offenders.
2) You don't need victim-led information to tackle and target offenders.
V8 Fettler said:
As I said, another thread for counter-terrorism.
It's not about CT, it's about a crime area where being able to resource effectively doesn't require all the unknowns, as the biggest threats have the best intelligence flow. I don't think you like this example as it's easy to understand the point I am making with it. V8 Fettler said:
It's concerning that you believe that there are other Rotherhams out there, is that belief based on anything concrete?
There are reports about sexual offending failures appearing. I'd also attribute the central-led focus on targets and specific crime areas as playing a part in ignoring CSE. Being central, it applied to every area. V8 Fettler said:
You don't need to know the number of people who are not known to the "services", but you need to know the scale of the number to identify the scale of the problem (for resource planning) and to evaluate if your efforts to resolve are successful.
You could also measure the amount of prosecutions vs recorded crime (you were keen on recorded crime for the scrap metal theft - why doesn't it apply here? And yes, lots of scrap metal theft wasn't reported). V8 Fettler said:
La Liga said:
carinaman said:
4th paragraph from bottom 'Things have improved.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshi...
At least the BBC have done a bit of reporting on it now? I assume the Notts. Supt. was on the Today programme?
Someone needs to tell the Notts Supt that unless her team knows all the people who are unknown, they won't really be able to do anything. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshi...
At least the BBC have done a bit of reporting on it now? I assume the Notts. Supt. was on the Today programme?
Once again, you're confusing "scale" with "need to know the precise number of victims and the identity of each victim".
If you concentrate on the offenders that you know then you have little idea of the scale or activities of the unknown offenders, which will lead to the scenario where the problem is declared resolved when in fact it is continuing out of sight of the authorities, therefore the only reasonably sure way of being certain that the problem has been resolved is to measure the scale of the number of victims.
I can see your alternative approach, and it's flawed because you're not attempting to deal with unknown victims or unknown offenders. This criminal carried on offending for 20 years until victims approached the police http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news...
If the rewards are high enough, criminals will travel substantial distances eg London drugs gangs travelling to Scotland, reported by the Met http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25974360 The likelihood of this needs to be included in any viable model.
It's bizarre that you should believe that homelessness + hunger = 100% thievery.
Control over a minor can take several unlawful forms, ranging from verbal abuse through assault to murder. If the control issue is gang-related then new recruits to the gang will become more likely to commit CSE offences following peer pressure than if there was no gang membership involved. Clearly, there will also be an element of "he was always going to offend".
Effectively infinite in this context = very large unknown number.
Why should I search for data on criminals crossing boundaries when there those who receive my tax money for dealing with this? I wouldn't regard detecting and deterring criminals as "esoteric", and I certainly care that I pay substantial amounts of tax money to fund the "authorities", the same authorities who were demonstrably incompetent at Rotherham. Surprising that you should treat this so flippantly.
The insularity of the little empires at Rotherham led directly to the chaotic and incompetent management of the CSE problem. You stated that other "Rotherhams" may well come to light, do you have anything to support that view?
3rd parties may well be feeding in information, but to what end? It doesn't appear that anyone built a model to calculate the extent of the CSE problem in Rotherham, even if on a small geographical scale.
The subversion is that I say "scale", you repeat this as "detailed and exact number". Two different things.
We are agreed that there is displacement, therefore it needs to quantified by scale to establish a model.
The first sentence of the main body of Jay's report states:
">No one knows the true scale of child sexual exploitation (CSE) in Rotherham over the years.<"
Which directly contradicts your view that
">They have a good idea of the scale<".
If the "authorities" had a good idea of scale then this would have been mentioned in Jay's report.
Without knowing the extent of the scale of the problem it cannot be possible to accurately allocate resource, it will rely on guesswork and there is no accurate means to measure the success/failure rate.
Re: theft of high-powered cars, if the ratio (victims who report)/(victims) is high - which it will be for high-powered vehicle theft - then the damage to society and the cost of the problem can be measured, resource allocated and effectiveness of the strategy quantified. This is a crucial difference to CSE, where the ratio (victims who report)/(victims) is not high.
Counter-terrorism for another thread, it would derail this thread.
I've seen nothing (yet) in the media regarding failures of the extent that occurred in Rotherham.
The key point re: cable theft from overground railways is that accurate records are available re: incidents. Therefore scale is easy to quantify, resource can be allocated accurately and we can measure the effectiveness of the solutions.
Again, you are subverting. The "authorities" and the "services" don't have to know of each individual victim, but they do need to identify the scale of the number of victims.
V8 Fettler said:
Once again, you're confusing "scale" with "need to know the precise number of victims and the identity of each victim"
How do you know they don’t have a good idea of the scale? V8 Fettler said:
If you concentrate on the offenders that you know then you have little idea of the scale or activities of the unknown offenders, which will lead to the scenario where the problem is declared resolved when in fact it is continuing out of sight of the authorities, therefore the only reasonably sure way of being certain that the problem has been resolved is to measure the scale of the number of victims.
You assume you can't identify most offenders without knowing every victim. This is wrong. It happens in other crime areas. The point, again, is you said they can't plan to resource without knowing the scale of one specific area of data. This is wrong. It works for other crime-types, including ones you dismiss as “being for another thread”, conveniently.
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 and works with lots of other crime types, like organised gangs of burglars and CT. V8 Fettler said:
I can see your alternative approach, and it's flawed because you're not attempting to deal with unknown victims or unknown offenders.
Who says you’re not trying to deal with unknown offenders? You’ve made that up. The process aims to identify as many as possible. V8 Fettler said:
If the rewards are high enough, criminals will travel substantial distances eg London drugs gangs travelling to Scotland, reported by the Met http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25974360 The likelihood of this needs to be included in any viable model.
Yes, we know criminals move across borders, again... The point is there isn't an "infinite" number willing to do so, like you said. Drugs gangs and sexual offending ones are different, but I guess we’re not on to the “subtleties” like that when we can’t really even consider the differences between more opportunistic offending and “quicker development offending” as oppose to sexual offending.
V8 Fettler said:
Control over a minor can take several unlawful forms, ranging from verbal abuse through assault to murder. If the control issue is gang-related then new recruits to the gang will become more likely to commit CSE offences following peer pressure than if there was no gang membership involved. Clearly, there will also be an element of "he was always going to offend".
Yes, victims are groomed and gangs get formed. V8 Fettler said:
Effectively infinite in this context = very large unknown number.
Says who? A very large unknown number who magically appear out of no-where? Who’ve spontaneously decide to offend? V8 Fettler said:
Why should I search for data on criminals crossing boundaries when there those who receive my tax money for dealing with this?
We’re not talking about the authorities, we’re talking about you, during a debate, making an assertion. It’s up to the person doing it to prove the point. V8 Fettler said:
The insularity of the little empires at Rotherham led directly to the chaotic and incompetent management of the CSE problem. You stated that other "Rotherhams" may well come to light, do you have anything to support that view?
As per my last post. V8 Fettler said:
The key point re: cable theft from overground railways is that accurate records are available re: incidents. Therefore scale is easy to quantify, resource can be allocated accurately and we can measure the effectiveness of the solutions.
For the railway, but when did I specify just the railway? I said the initial unknowns were well beyond simple recorded crime, yet it managed to get resourced correctly. You own data, which was taken later in the process highlighted the problems with estimating the scale when it estimated 60k - 80k.
V8 Fettler said:
Again, you are subverting. The "authorities" and the "services" don't have to know of each individual victim, but they do need to identify the scale of the number of victims.
Or the scale of offenders, as then they can allocate appropriate resources to developing offender profiles and mapping and take them out of the crime equation. La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Once again, you're confusing "scale" with "need to know the precise number of victims and the identity of each victim"
How do you know they don’t have a good idea of the scale? V8 Fettler said:
If you concentrate on the offenders that you know then you have little idea of the scale or activities of the unknown offenders, which will lead to the scenario where the problem is declared resolved when in fact it is continuing out of sight of the authorities, therefore the only reasonably sure way of being certain that the problem has been resolved is to measure the scale of the number of victims.
You assume you can't identify most offenders without knowing every victim. This is wrong. It happens in other crime areas. The point, again, is you said they can't plan to resource without knowing the scale of one specific area of data. This is wrong. It works for other crime-types, including ones you dismiss as “being for another thread”, conveniently.
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 and works with lots of other crime types, like organised gangs of burglars and CT. V8 Fettler said:
I can see your alternative approach, and it's flawed because you're not attempting to deal with unknown victims or unknown offenders.
Who says you’re not trying to deal with unknown offenders? You’ve made that up. The process aims to identify as many as possible. V8 Fettler said:
If the rewards are high enough, criminals will travel substantial distances eg London drugs gangs travelling to Scotland, reported by the Met http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25974360 The likelihood of this needs to be included in any viable model.
Yes, we know criminals move across borders, again... The point is there isn't an "infinite" number willing to do so, like you said. Drugs gangs and sexual offending ones are different, but I guess we’re not on to the “subtleties” like that when we can’t really even consider the differences between more opportunistic offending and “quicker development offending” as oppose to sexual offending.
V8 Fettler said:
Control over a minor can take several unlawful forms, ranging from verbal abuse through assault to murder. If the control issue is gang-related then new recruits to the gang will become more likely to commit CSE offences following peer pressure than if there was no gang membership involved. Clearly, there will also be an element of "he was always going to offend".
Yes, victims are groomed and gangs get formed. V8 Fettler said:
Effectively infinite in this context = very large unknown number.
Says who? A very large unknown number who magically appear out of no-where? Who’ve spontaneously decide to offend? V8 Fettler said:
Why should I search for data on criminals crossing boundaries when there those who receive my tax money for dealing with this?
We’re not talking about the authorities, we’re talking about you, during a debate, making an assertion. It’s up to the person doing it to prove the point. V8 Fettler said:
The insularity of the little empires at Rotherham led directly to the chaotic and incompetent management of the CSE problem. You stated that other "Rotherhams" may well come to light, do you have anything to support that view?
As per my last post. V8 Fettler said:
The key point re: cable theft from overground railways is that accurate records are available re: incidents. Therefore scale is easy to quantify, resource can be allocated accurately and we can measure the effectiveness of the solutions.
For the railway, but when did I specify just the railway? I said the initial unknowns were well beyond simple recorded crime, yet it managed to get resourced correctly. You own data, which was taken later in the process highlighted the problems with estimating the scale when it estimated 60k - 80k.
V8 Fettler said:
Again, you are subverting. The "authorities" and the "services" don't have to know of each individual victim, but they do need to identify the scale of the number of victims.
Or the scale of offenders, as then they can allocate appropriate resources to developing offender profiles and mapping and take them out of the crime equation. How many times do I have to point out that you are deliberately confusing "scale" with "knowing every victim"?
I won't discuss counter-terrorism with you on a public forum, nothing to do with convenience and everything to do with not wishing to point out the obvious or to leave a potentially misrepresented trail in cyberspace. Paranoid? Possibly. But it's my paranoia and I'm keeping it.
For burglary, the ratio of (victims who report)/(total number of victims) is substantially higher than CSE, hence the scale of burglary can be calculated and incorporated into a model, pdf here (although dated) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Your process may be designed to detect unknown offenders, but you can't close that information loop without knowledge of the scale of the number of victims, so you can't measure success to enable the accurate targeting of resource. Not too much resource, because that would waste my tax money; but also need to avoid insufficient resource because that wouldn't fix the problem.
If the number of potential CSE offenders isn't infinite (where infinite is a very large number) then what is the finite number?
We are discussing criminals crossing borders to offend, there are three scenarios here:
1) it doesn't happen. But I've demonstrated that it does
2) it happens and the authorities measure the scale. If so, where is this information?
3) it happens and authorities don't measure the scale. With insular empires, this is a possibility.
You appear to be suggesting that I should pay the authorities substantial sums in tax money to collect data to control criminality, and then I have spend more of my own (taxed) money doing exactly the same thing. A bizarre scenario, but similar occurs in other areas where my tax money is misused by the "authorities".
You state that drugs gangs and CSE gangs are different, this report from the College of Policing states otherwise
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/majo...
College of Policing said:
Links to other crime types
The sexual exploitation of a child or young person will almost certainly involve the commission of a crime, or have the potential for a crime to be committed.
In cases of sexual exploitation, links to other types of crimes are common. These include:
anti-social behaviour
human trafficking – including children being moved in, out of or within the UK
domestic violence/abuse
sexual violence in intimate relationships
grooming – both online and face-to-face
drugs-related offences
gang and youth violence
immigration-related offences
domestic servitude
honour-based violence and forced marriage
child abuse
missing persons
rape and other sexual offences
production, possession and distribution of indecent images of children.
College of Policing is a new one on me. Learning curve etc.The sexual exploitation of a child or young person will almost certainly involve the commission of a crime, or have the potential for a crime to be committed.
In cases of sexual exploitation, links to other types of crimes are common. These include:
anti-social behaviour
human trafficking – including children being moved in, out of or within the UK
domestic violence/abuse
sexual violence in intimate relationships
grooming – both online and face-to-face
drugs-related offences
gang and youth violence
immigration-related offences
domestic servitude
honour-based violence and forced marriage
child abuse
missing persons
rape and other sexual offences
production, possession and distribution of indecent images of children.
Also (pdf) http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStora... depressing reading.
CSE linked to a drug dealer in Coventry http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-new...
How much more evidence do you need to be convinced of the link between drugs and CSE?
You have no evidence to support your view that more "Rotherhams" will be revealed.
As explained previously, the only accurate data for scrap metal theft is for copper cable stolen from the overground railways. I can only see the effect of price on the scale of the thefts. Please show me on the graph where action by the "authorities" had an effect on the theft of copper cable from overground railways prior to the Scrap Metal Dealers Act being passed. Other metal thefts will follow the same trends.
You may well take some offenders out of the crime equation. How do you know if other unknown offenders are offending if you don't have some idea of the scale of the number of victims? Guesswork? Need to close that information loop.
V8 Fettler said:
How many times do I have to point out that you are deliberately confusing "scale" with "knowing every victim"?
You can know the scale of offenders without knowing each one and resource accordingly. V8 Fettler said:
I won't discuss counter-terrorism with you on a public forum, nothing to do with convenience and everything to do with not wishing to point out the obvious and/or to leave a potentially misrepresented trail in cyberspace. Paranoid? Possibly. But it's my paranoia and I'm keeping it.
Discussing CT? Why are you going to talk about some 'top secret' graded information? Sounds more like it's because it is resourced well with lots of unknowns. V8 Fettler said:
For burglary, the ratio of (victims who report)/(total number of victims) is substantially higher than CSE
Yes, but the point of the burglary was that it's more of a top-down approach whereby offenders aren't identified by the victims. Remember how I said it could be few doing many burglaries, or many doing few? Accurate recording doesn't really help find that picture out. Identifying offenders and taking them on does, through.
V8 Fettler said:
Your process may be designed to detect unknown offenders, but you can't close that information loop without knowledge of the scale of the number of victims, so you can't measure success to enable the accurate targeting of resource. Not too much resource, because that would waste my tax money; but also need to avoid insufficient resource because that wouldn't fix the problem.
It's not perfect, but I'm not arguing that, I'm saying you're wrong to say the issue can't be resourced correctly. 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 and works with lots of other crime types, like organised gangs of burglars and CT. V8 Fettler said:
If the number of potential CSE offenders isn't infinite (where infinite is a very large number) then what is the finite number?
Who knows, but we only need an idea of the scale, not exact numbers. Accurate mapping and information sharing can give us quality data to work from and assess from an offender originated approach. "Very large" according to who?
V8 Fettler said:
We are discussing criminals crossing borders to offend, there are three scenarios here:
1) it doesn't happen. But I've demonstrated that it does
2) it happens and the authorities measure the scale. If so, where is this information?
3) it happens and authorities don't measure the scale. With insular empires, this is a possibility.
4) It is a natural occurrence in crime and there are systems in place to manage and assess it. 1) it doesn't happen. But I've demonstrated that it does
2) it happens and the authorities measure the scale. If so, where is this information?
3) it happens and authorities don't measure the scale. With insular empires, this is a possibility.
V8 Fettler said:
You appear to be suggesting that I should pay the authorities substantial sums in tax money to collect data to control criminality, and then I have spend more of my own (taxed) money doing exactly the same thing. A bizarre scenario, but similar occurs in other areas where my tax money is misused by the "authorities".
There's no "appearing", it spell it out. You make the assertion, you prove it. Who said the authorities haven't collected the data? That's different from you not searching for it. Why not the same approach for the scrap metal data? Same logic.
V8 Fettler said:
You state that drugs gangs and CSE gangs are different, this report from the College of Policing states otherwise
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/majo...
Yes, the business side of gangs will often do lots of different crimes (making it easier to map them). I'm talking about the direct 'users' and offenders. No one willing to rape = no one to sell children to. https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/majo...
These are the finite people willing to commit the direct offence. There are a finite number of sex offenders.
You are confused with the organisational aspect with the primary offending. If you put the primary offenders in prison, more don't magically appear.
Gangs won't move to a higher-risk area where there are no customers to commit the crime.
V8 Fettler said:
You have no evidence to support your view that more "Rotherhams" will be revealed.
I said I expect other areas will have similar issues because some of the global factors that I believe caused Rotherham etc apply in other areas. I didn't say there will be "more Rotherhams". V8 Fettler said:
As explained previously, the only accurate data for scrap metal theft is for copper cable stolen from the overground railways.
In that case lots of unknowns, then. spadriver said:
This thread now resembles a biology class!
Or a History lecture:Police hunt millionaire paedophiles accomplices after report finds they failed to do enough to find people who helped him prey on 3500 children by Kieran Corcoran on Daily Mail website 13 September 2013 said:
Former Detective Constable Shirley Thompson said: 'The interviews and statements showed there were more victims and more offenders out there. A senior officer said to my boss "put a lid on it and concentrate on Goad".'
from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419958/Po...For Wail detractors there are other newspaper articles online about how the police protected paedophile William Goad.
So one businessman in Devon could have defiled more kids than those ignored in Rotherham by the Council and Police.
carinaman said:
Stuff.
Carinaman seem pretty clued up on this. Or at least are taking an interest and doing some research. Have I gone mad or do I remember correctly jack straw changing laws when he was Home Secretary so it was harder abused children to complain?
Oh and isn't his brother a sex pest too?
Edited by Pesty on Tuesday 24th February 00:08
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff