Crime figures - manipulated by plod.
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-267169...
No sure if a repost but this guy was on the One Show last night.
I say well done to him!!!!!!!
No sure if a repost but this guy was on the One Show last night.
I say well done to him!!!!!!!
The guy must be a CRO (criminal) or he knew the MET were closing in on him for some illegal activities he had carried out. Otherwise why did he resign?
Majority of the officers in the MET are brave and honest officers and would never engage in manipulating crime figures. The MET is doing well to get rid of officers like PC James Patrick who are giving the MET a bad name.
Majority of the officers in the MET are brave and honest officers and would never engage in manipulating crime figures. The MET is doing well to get rid of officers like PC James Patrick who are giving the MET a bad name.
It's a right old mess isn't it.
Ever since the change to target driven policing stuff like this has been going on.
If the police are expected to get ten crimes, but there have only been eight then it's a tough decision between fudging a few figures vs. Getting b
ked for not doing your job.
I do get the impression that this specific person has a bit if an axe to grind though.
Ever since the change to target driven policing stuff like this has been going on.
If the police are expected to get ten crimes, but there have only been eight then it's a tough decision between fudging a few figures vs. Getting b
ked for not doing your job.I do get the impression that this specific person has a bit if an axe to grind though.
I manipulated figures when I was a police officer.
My forces figure for police accidents was in the bottom five of all police forces in the country and I was told that it was my responsibility, given my position at the time, to get us up to at least the middle.
I discovered that all the forces in the top 10% reported their accidents differently, e.g. a windscreen that needed replacing was not seen as a police accident. None of the top forces reported damage where the cause was unknown as a police accident. Collisions in police and local authority run car parks had limited access were not reported.
I put forward the suggestion that we should comply with those forces at the top of the pile but this showed my naivety. the superintendent in charge of my department, whilst grateful for my input, decided to 'phase in' the improvement over a couple of years.
So who was manipulating figures? Those forces that reported damage as a police accident where there was no known cause, or those where the term reportable accident was taken as a guideline?
There is no deception in the figures. The government doesn't believe them and is only interested if they show an increase that makes them look bad.
As long as the reporting is consistent, i.e. the figures can be compared to the previous years' figures, then the statistics do their job. They are not, nor have they ever been, a record of the number of crimes committed.
According to statistics there are more police officers on patrol now than before the swingeing 20% plus cuts to the police. It must be true, the statistics are there. But nobody believes this, nobody with any sense anyway, and they know full well that the guidelines issued by the Home Office are there to give a misleading impression.
If the Home Office guidelines are not complied with in reporting the incidence of crime then force in question can be disciplined. However, if any force follows the Home Office guidelines the statistics will be wrong and will only be useful in comparison to previous, and later subsequent, years.
If this self-styled whistleblower can prove that the Home Office guidelines are not being complied with then OK, he's discovered something that really should be put to his senior officers. However, if he feels that in following the Home Office guidelines offences are going undereported then he is arguing against a purely political decision and police officers are barred from taking any active interest in politics. So what he would be guilty of is a discipline offence.
Which does is fall into? I don't know, and nor do 'you'. It is not simple. Except to the simple of course.
My forces figure for police accidents was in the bottom five of all police forces in the country and I was told that it was my responsibility, given my position at the time, to get us up to at least the middle.
I discovered that all the forces in the top 10% reported their accidents differently, e.g. a windscreen that needed replacing was not seen as a police accident. None of the top forces reported damage where the cause was unknown as a police accident. Collisions in police and local authority run car parks had limited access were not reported.
I put forward the suggestion that we should comply with those forces at the top of the pile but this showed my naivety. the superintendent in charge of my department, whilst grateful for my input, decided to 'phase in' the improvement over a couple of years.
So who was manipulating figures? Those forces that reported damage as a police accident where there was no known cause, or those where the term reportable accident was taken as a guideline?
There is no deception in the figures. The government doesn't believe them and is only interested if they show an increase that makes them look bad.
As long as the reporting is consistent, i.e. the figures can be compared to the previous years' figures, then the statistics do their job. They are not, nor have they ever been, a record of the number of crimes committed.
According to statistics there are more police officers on patrol now than before the swingeing 20% plus cuts to the police. It must be true, the statistics are there. But nobody believes this, nobody with any sense anyway, and they know full well that the guidelines issued by the Home Office are there to give a misleading impression.
If the Home Office guidelines are not complied with in reporting the incidence of crime then force in question can be disciplined. However, if any force follows the Home Office guidelines the statistics will be wrong and will only be useful in comparison to previous, and later subsequent, years.
If this self-styled whistleblower can prove that the Home Office guidelines are not being complied with then OK, he's discovered something that really should be put to his senior officers. However, if he feels that in following the Home Office guidelines offences are going undereported then he is arguing against a purely political decision and police officers are barred from taking any active interest in politics. So what he would be guilty of is a discipline offence.
Which does is fall into? I don't know, and nor do 'you'. It is not simple. Except to the simple of course.
Eclassy said:
The guy must be a CRO (criminal) or he knew the MET were closing in on him for some illegal activities he had carried out. Otherwise why did he resign?
Majority of the officers in the MET are brave and honest officers and would never engage in manipulating crime figures. The MET is doing well to get rid of officers like PC James Patrick who are giving the MET a bad name.
Why he resigned will come out when his employment tribunal is settled.Majority of the officers in the MET are brave and honest officers and would never engage in manipulating crime figures. The MET is doing well to get rid of officers like PC James Patrick who are giving the MET a bad name.
This sort of thing has been going on for years and years and years, it stinks.
ED209 said:
This sort of thing has been going on for years and years and years, it stinks.
Of course it has, and it stinks more than a sewerage farm.Crime figures are manipulated for political ends, crimes are incorrectly recorded using different classifications, etc. etc.
Government want to see crime figures down - it suits their purpose.
PS. Don't forget the large bonuses paid to senior officers when recorded crime is down.
i think it was last year,or the year before where assaults were supposed to be down by a huge amount for the area of scotland i live in. until the local NHS accident and emergency figures were found to record around 2500 more . paper figures are meaningless these days,they are churned out to suit whoever publishes them.
wc98 said:
i think it was last year,or the year before where assaults were supposed to be down by a huge amount for the area of scotland i live in. until the local NHS accident and emergency figures were found to record around 2500 more . paper figures are meaningless these days,they are churned out to suit whoever publishes them.
Yep.But, there's a big difference between actually being a decent police force and filling in the paperwork correctly.
Anyone who's ever tried to work in a target lead workplace knows how much figures get massaged at every level to fit the targets.
It's the system that's to blame.
Snowboy said:
Yep.
But, there's a big difference between actually being a decent police force and filling in the paperwork correctly.
Anyone who's ever tried to work in a target lead workplace knows how much figures get massaged at every level to fit the targets.
It's the system that's to blame.
of course,and i would hazard a guess the people issuing the statistics are not those actually dealing with the front line crime.But, there's a big difference between actually being a decent police force and filling in the paperwork correctly.
Anyone who's ever tried to work in a target lead workplace knows how much figures get massaged at every level to fit the targets.
It's the system that's to blame.
Snowboy said:
I do get the impression that this specific person has a bit if an axe to grind though.
Do mean former PC James Patrick or another PH poster?Former PC James Patrick features on this BBC programme 23 minutes and 20 seconds in:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04d4n8l
I hope that him and his family aren't destitute. I think that would be a crime if that is the case.
carinaman said:
Former PC James Patrick features on this BBC programme 23 minutes and 20 seconds in:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04d4n8l
I hope that him and his family aren't destitute. I think that would be a crime if that is the case.
It's unfair that James Patrick was included in that programme.http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04d4n8l
I hope that him and his family aren't destitute. I think that would be a crime if that is the case.
He told the truth. The rest of that programme was largely political spin and nonsense.
I had to laugh when one politician said the police had more honesty and integrity 40 years ago and that you could trust them back then.
I think his rose-tinted glasses must be bi-focals. Times have changed - in the main it is for the better.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff