Is sexual abuse Police officers crime of choice?
Discussion
Phil Dicky said:
These arguments make no sense to me, are people that naïve that they truly believe there are no bad apples in the various Police Forces. Just like there are no bad apples in the Doctor profession, nurses, fire service etc etc !!!There always will be, its impossible to weed them out in the selection process. So perhaps a bit of common sense would be more appropriate? ...of course not this is PH...that hasn't been seen for many years
Which poster has said there are no bad apples in the Police? Phil Dicky said:
These arguments make no sense to me, are people that naïve that they truly believe there are no bad apples in the various Police Forces. Just like there are no bad apples in the Doctor profession, nurses, fire service etc etc !!!There always will be, its impossible to weed them out in the selection process. So perhaps a bit of common sense would be more appropriate? ...of course not this is PH...that hasn't been seen for many years
Your post would make some sense if someone would claim that there are no 'bad apples' in any of the professions mentioned. I had about 5-6 contacts with the police (speeding and once when my car was broken into). Without exception, they have been fantastic (even when giving me deserved points). The only person irl that I've ever heard complaining about police was some dimwit b
hing about police 'abusing' him for his chav number plate. People should try living in different countries to start appreciating what they have in the UK.
La Liga said:
et's have a go. I've done this quickly but I think it's right.
The largest force in the UK, the Met, have had 685 officers convicted between 2005 and the start of 2016. 426 were for traffic-related matters in which the largest group within that category were for speeding convictions.
685 / 11 years = 62 per year.
62 / 32,000 (officers in the Met) = 0.0019375.
Population minus under 10s approximately 60 million.
1,250,000 convictions in 2015.
1,250,000 / 60 million 0.2083333.
0.2083333 / 0.0019375 = 107 times as many non-police officers convicted as police officers.
If you were to take 135,000 non-police officers and place them within an organisation, say an energy company, then the probability of convictions would be much greater.
The data for under 18s and over 65s would need removing as police officers will not feature from this demographic. There are also over 300,000 out of court disposals per year that are not going to be offered to a police offender.
Err...The largest force in the UK, the Met, have had 685 officers convicted between 2005 and the start of 2016. 426 were for traffic-related matters in which the largest group within that category were for speeding convictions.
685 / 11 years = 62 per year.
62 / 32,000 (officers in the Met) = 0.0019375.
Population minus under 10s approximately 60 million.
1,250,000 convictions in 2015.
1,250,000 / 60 million 0.2083333.
0.2083333 / 0.0019375 = 107 times as many non-police officers convicted as police officers.
If you were to take 135,000 non-police officers and place them within an organisation, say an energy company, then the probability of convictions would be much greater.
The data for under 18s and over 65s would need removing as police officers will not feature from this demographic. There are also over 300,000 out of court disposals per year that are not going to be offered to a police offender.
Edited by La Liga on Thursday 26th January 23:47
1.25m / 60m is emphatically not ~0.2, its ~0.02.
So it's approximately 10x, not 100x.
The point still stands, but this is PH - Maths Matters.
bmw535i said:
Invalid/irrelevant/unrealistic/obtuse/moronic/stupid (take your pick) comparisons to try and make a point don't really mean anything.
It means exactly what I've said it means. If you keep in mind my original reply it helps to make sense of it. As I say, if you can't define what you mean by 'realistic' (did you consider you actually meant 'invalid'?) then that's not my fault.
bmw535i said:
Simply repeating over and over a police officer is not more likely to offend than a non police officer is a moot point and doesn't prove anything at all - particularly with the data that was used.
Apart from what it proves. The data is sound. 32k from 120k is a good sample. bmw535i said:
Of course the staunch defence of the police is very noble, but worrying that they can't recognise there is an issue.
Strawman now. bmw535i said:
There clearly is an issue, as highlighted by the OP and in the article I posted. I suppose by wandering off down invalid/irrelevant etc rabbitholes it can be forgotten.
Any police conviction is an issue. However, it's about having perspective. brickwall said:
Err...
1.25m / 60m is emphatically not ~0.2, its ~0.02.
So it's approximately 10x, not 100x.
The point still stands, but this is PH - Maths Matters.
You're quite right. I managed to sneak another 540 million people in the UK. Must have used UKIP figures 1.25m / 60m is emphatically not ~0.2, its ~0.02.
So it's approximately 10x, not 100x.
The point still stands, but this is PH - Maths Matters.
Is this thread merely an attempt to see if posters can exhaust La Liga's patience? If so then, despite tests that many would fail, he's not gone into abusive mode yet and for that he should be praised. I, certainly, would have used modifiers such as pathetic, nonsensical and Oh! For god's sake get a life before the end of page 2.
He's provided figures, he's supported his contention, yet that's not enough it seems.
From any logical, reasonable or non-biased point of view, it is clear that sexual abuse is not the crime of choice of police officers.
Offending rates for police officers are lower than for the same demographic of the public. That has been proven, not only on this thread but on others and on published stats. Bringing up a person against whom the CPS found sufficient evidence to prosecute, despite the requirement for prosecuting police officers being, many feel, and some of that many have ample evidence, significantly lower is a sign, surely, of desperation.
He's provided figures, he's supported his contention, yet that's not enough it seems.
From any logical, reasonable or non-biased point of view, it is clear that sexual abuse is not the crime of choice of police officers.
Offending rates for police officers are lower than for the same demographic of the public. That has been proven, not only on this thread but on others and on published stats. Bringing up a person against whom the CPS found sufficient evidence to prosecute, despite the requirement for prosecuting police officers being, many feel, and some of that many have ample evidence, significantly lower is a sign, surely, of desperation.
Derek Smith said:
Is this thread merely an attempt to see if posters can exhaust La Liga's patience? If so then, despite tests that many would fail, he's not gone into abusive mode yet and for that he should be praised. I, certainly, would have used modifiers such as pathetic, nonsensical and Oh! For god's sake get a life before the end of page 2.
He's provided figures, he's supported his contention, yet that's not enough it seems.
From any logical, reasonable or non-biased point of view, it is clear that sexual abuse is not the crime of choice of police officers.
Offending rates for police officers are lower than for the same demographic of the public. That has been proven, not only on this thread but on others and on published stats. Bringing up a person against whom the CPS found sufficient evidence to prosecute, despite the requirement for prosecuting police officers being, many feel, and some of that many have ample evidence, significantly lower is a sign, surely, of desperation.
Lower than for the same demographic of the public? What exactly do you mean by that?He's provided figures, he's supported his contention, yet that's not enough it seems.
From any logical, reasonable or non-biased point of view, it is clear that sexual abuse is not the crime of choice of police officers.
Offending rates for police officers are lower than for the same demographic of the public. That has been proven, not only on this thread but on others and on published stats. Bringing up a person against whom the CPS found sufficient evidence to prosecute, despite the requirement for prosecuting police officers being, many feel, and some of that many have ample evidence, significantly lower is a sign, surely, of desperation.
bmw535i said:
It is about having perspective, you're quite right. That will be subjective of course, but I think most people would consider the worrying figures in the article I posted to be unacceptable.
Of course your view will be different, it is in your interests to believe so.
Are you self-aware?Of course your view will be different, it is in your interests to believe so.
bmw535i said:
Derek Smith said:
Is this thread merely an attempt to see if posters can exhaust La Liga's patience? If so then, despite tests that many would fail, he's not gone into abusive mode yet and for that he should be praised. I, certainly, would have used modifiers such as pathetic, nonsensical and Oh! For god's sake get a life before the end of page 2.
He's provided figures, he's supported his contention, yet that's not enough it seems.
From any logical, reasonable or non-biased point of view, it is clear that sexual abuse is not the crime of choice of police officers.
Offending rates for police officers are lower than for the same demographic of the public. That has been proven, not only on this thread but on others and on published stats. Bringing up a person against whom the CPS found sufficient evidence to prosecute, despite the requirement for prosecuting police officers being, many feel, and some of that many have ample evidence, significantly lower is a sign, surely, of desperation.
Lower than for the same demographic of the public? What exactly do you mean by that?He's provided figures, he's supported his contention, yet that's not enough it seems.
From any logical, reasonable or non-biased point of view, it is clear that sexual abuse is not the crime of choice of police officers.
Offending rates for police officers are lower than for the same demographic of the public. That has been proven, not only on this thread but on others and on published stats. Bringing up a person against whom the CPS found sufficient evidence to prosecute, despite the requirement for prosecuting police officers being, many feel, and some of that many have ample evidence, significantly lower is a sign, surely, of desperation.
So let's go though it:
A demographic, when used as a noun, is a specified group of people, normally divided for reasons of comparison by way of statistics. Here we have the police compared to a group of the general public (GP) where individuals are selected according to the make up of the police officers.
Police officers are male and female, although the proportion of women is lower than that of the GP. Police officers are generally, but not always, between the ages of 18 and 65. The racial make up of police officers is balanced towards Caucasian. So, if you take a similar proportion of the GP and then compare their criminal record, is will be lower for the police.
The figures a not directly comparable I suppose as a police officer convicted of a criminal offence will, in the normal course of discipline procedures, have their employment terminated so will not be able to offend again as a police officer. I know of no statistics that take this into account. I feel the effects of this will be marginal.
Do you want me to support my contention that there is a lower standard of proof required by the CPS for prosecution of police officers? Unlike a lower offending rate, there is no overwhelming amount of evidence other than example for obvious reasons. It would be unlikely that the CPS would publish those examples. I've got lots, two that ended in tragic circumstances for the officers concerned.
Do you want me to further comment on why depending on a person against whom there was insufficient evidence to prosecute is a sign of desperation?
Derek Smith said:
bmw535i said:
Derek Smith said:
Is this thread merely an attempt to see if posters can exhaust La Liga's patience? If so then, despite tests that many would fail, he's not gone into abusive mode yet and for that he should be praised. I, certainly, would have used modifiers such as pathetic, nonsensical and Oh! For god's sake get a life before the end of page 2.
He's provided figures, he's supported his contention, yet that's not enough it seems.
From any logical, reasonable or non-biased point of view, it is clear that sexual abuse is not the crime of choice of police officers.
Offending rates for police officers are lower than for the same demographic of the public. That has been proven, not only on this thread but on others and on published stats. Bringing up a person against whom the CPS found sufficient evidence to prosecute, despite the requirement for prosecuting police officers being, many feel, and some of that many have ample evidence, significantly lower is a sign, surely, of desperation.
Lower than for the same demographic of the public? What exactly do you mean by that?He's provided figures, he's supported his contention, yet that's not enough it seems.
From any logical, reasonable or non-biased point of view, it is clear that sexual abuse is not the crime of choice of police officers.
Offending rates for police officers are lower than for the same demographic of the public. That has been proven, not only on this thread but on others and on published stats. Bringing up a person against whom the CPS found sufficient evidence to prosecute, despite the requirement for prosecuting police officers being, many feel, and some of that many have ample evidence, significantly lower is a sign, surely, of desperation.
So let's go though it:
A demographic, when used as a noun, is a specified group of people, normally divided for reasons of comparison by way of statistics. Here we have the police compared to a group of the general public (GP) where individuals are selected according to the make up of the police officers.
Police officers are male and female, although the proportion of women is lower than that of the GP. Police officers are generally, but not always, between the ages of 18 and 65. The racial make up of police officers is balanced towards Caucasian. So, if you take a similar proportion of the GP and then compare their criminal record, is will be lower for the police.
The figures a not directly comparable I suppose as a police officer convicted of a criminal offence will, in the normal course of discipline procedures, have their employment terminated so will not be able to offend again as a police officer. I know of no statistics that take this into account. I feel the effects of this will be marginal.
Do you want me to support my contention that there is a lower standard of proof required by the CPS for prosecution of police officers? Unlike a lower offending rate, there is no overwhelming amount of evidence other than example for obvious reasons. It would be unlikely that the CPS would publish those examples. I've got lots, two that ended in tragic circumstances for the officers concerned.
Do you want me to further comment on why depending on a person against whom there was insufficient evidence to prosecute is a sign of desperation?
This is exactly my point, LL didn't use a specified same demographic of the general public. He just pulled a figure out his bum, did some wrong (as it turns out) maths and made an incorrect statement.
If he had made a comparison with the same demographic i.e. 2 groups of exactly a mix of the same age, sex, race, qualifications etc but the only difference being their jobs (police/non police) then I'd see it as a fairer test.
I'm sure you know what I'm getting at, you just don't like criticism of the police. Unfortunately there always will be should they continue to fall below their own standards.
I notice nobody cared to comment on the article I posted in which the HS and some police officers conceded there is an issue.
bmw535i said:
andy_s said:
Are you self-aware?
Are you, or have you been, a police officer?The comment about being self-aware was that I think you are on just an opposite end of the bell curve to a police officer that would deny there is any problem at all. (Please note I refrained from making any 'bell' and 'end' jokes
)bmw535i said:
I notice nobody cared to comment on the article I posted in which the HS and some police officers conceded there is an issue.
To be fair, that is a pretty crap article, and you could say it undermines your argument.The important word in that article is 'accused'. Just like anyone in authority dealing with vulnerable or under aged people it's a risk of the job to be accused of stuff to try and get off or to blackmail.
So despite all those accusations, the lines "Despite the large numbers, there is evidence that only 40 officers or staff have been dismissed for abusing authority for sexual gain in a similar period." would point to a lot of false allegations.
Just like scout masters, teachers or sports coaches, being a police officer will carry the risk of accusations.
eccles said:
To be fair, that is a pretty crap article, and you could say it undermines your argument.
The important word in that article is 'accused'. Just like anyone in authority dealing with vulnerable or under aged people it's a risk of the job to be accused of stuff to try and get off or to blackmail.
So despite all those accusations, the lines "Despite the large numbers, there is evidence that only 40 officers or staff have been dismissed for abusing authority for sexual gain in a similar period." would point to a lot of false allegations.
Just like scout masters, teachers or sports coaches, being a police officer will carry the risk of accusations.
Are you really suggesting that victims of abuse are accusing police officers of further abuse to try and "get off" (what exactly?) or blackmail them?The important word in that article is 'accused'. Just like anyone in authority dealing with vulnerable or under aged people it's a risk of the job to be accused of stuff to try and get off or to blackmail.
So despite all those accusations, the lines "Despite the large numbers, there is evidence that only 40 officers or staff have been dismissed for abusing authority for sexual gain in a similar period." would point to a lot of false allegations.
Just like scout masters, teachers or sports coaches, being a police officer will carry the risk of accusations.
How many haven't been dismissed, but received warnings?
How many have abused but not even been accused?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff