Is sexual abuse Police officers crime of choice?
Discussion
La Liga said:
Listening to text?
Sounds like you're unable to explain. Repeating 'it's unrealistic' doesn't explain anything.
If you want to be obtuse, that's fair enough. Making a binary choice between officer and non officer is just silly - there's so many variables. And basing it on one police force alone to support your argument is even more unrealistic. Sounds like you're unable to explain. Repeating 'it's unrealistic' doesn't explain anything.
You seem to acknowledge it's unrealistic yourself a few posts ago.
bmw535i said:
If you want to be obtuse, that's fair enough. Making a binary choice between officer and non officer is just silly - there's so many variables. And basing it on one police force alone to support your argument is even more unrealistic.
You seem to acknowledge it's unrealistic yourself a few posts ago.
It's the largest force in the country by far so can be reasonably extrapolated. It's also the worst data I could find in terms of police offending. You seem to acknowledge it's unrealistic yourself a few posts ago.
Why is it silly? The point of the thread is about police offending. My data was to show that the police as an organisation dramatically reduce the risk of being having someone convicted vs the general population.
The data is what it is. You need to give it some context of reference point to talk about realism or not.
La Liga said:
t's the largest force in the country by far so can be reasonably extrapolated. It's also the worst data I could find in terms of police offending.
Why is it silly? The point of the thread is about police offending. My data was to show that the police as an organisation dramatically reduce the risk of being having someone convicted vs the general population.
The data is what it is. You need to give it some context of reference point to talk about realism or not.
Like I've already said, if you could find a group of people (non officers) who are all educated similarly to officers, similar ages, similar backgrounds, etc etc etc, then you could probably make a comparison.Why is it silly? The point of the thread is about police offending. My data was to show that the police as an organisation dramatically reduce the risk of being having someone convicted vs the general population.
The data is what it is. You need to give it some context of reference point to talk about realism or not.
I know you can't see it, and I know you like arguing for the sake of it, and I know you think you're always right (ALL police officers do), but you're simply being obtuse.
Your statement is quite likely to be right, but the way you've "proved" it is nonsense.
bmw535i said:
Like I've already said, if you could find a group of people (non officers) who are all educated similarly to officers, similar ages, similar backgrounds, etc etc etc, then you could probably make a comparison.
But that's not necessary when comparing police vs non-police offending. As I said, a victim doesn't care if the non-police offender was eligible for the police are not. I'm not making a specific demographic comparison, for example, I'm making a general one to make a broad point.
bmw535i said:
I know you can't see it, and I know you like arguing for the sake of it, and I know you think you're always right (ALL police officers do), but you're simply being obtuse.
I'm not being obtuse by asking you to actually be specific and define what you mean. You're saying it's 'unrealistic' but not defining what you actually mean or why it is. Pointing out some of the non-police offending group would be / are ineligible to join the police isn't relevant to my point.
Is there any mathematical model to predict how many unapprehended offenders there are from the numbers who actually are apprehended doing wrong?
For example, if Yorkshire police catch 10 people drink-driving tonight, how many drivers in Yorkshire are likely to have been drink-driving?
Is there any scientific study to realistically predict it?
And if there is, then in the police force for every 'proven bad apple' how many apples are predicted to still be in the barrel rotting away?
For example, if Yorkshire police catch 10 people drink-driving tonight, how many drivers in Yorkshire are likely to have been drink-driving?
Is there any scientific study to realistically predict it?
And if there is, then in the police force for every 'proven bad apple' how many apples are predicted to still be in the barrel rotting away?
La Liga said:
bmw535i said:
Like I've already said, if you could find a group of people (non officers) who are all educated similarly to officers, similar ages, similar backgrounds, etc etc etc, then you could probably make a comparison.
But that's not necessary when comparing police vs non-police offending. As I said, a victim doesn't care if the non-police offender was eligible for the police are not. I'm not making a specific demographic comparison, for example, I'm making a general one to make a broad point.
bmw535i said:
I know you can't see it, and I know you like arguing for the sake of it, and I know you think you're always right (ALL police officers do), but you're simply being obtuse.
I'm not being obtuse by asking you to actually be specific and define what you mean. You're saying it's 'unrealistic' but not defining what you actually mean or why it is. Pointing out some of the non-police offending group would be / are ineligible to join the police isn't relevant to my point.
You dont seem to understand that making a comparison between an officer and (as an example) a homeless junkie and saying the police officer is less likely to commit crime is just silly. Because that's exactly what you've done effectively.
Going back to the police conviction rates, I ask myself how many were sanctioned internally rather than been convicted. I also ask myself how many get away with it given their expertise and the potential to use that expertise to remain undetected.
You also have to take into account the extra feeling of vulnerability a victim would feel if the perpetrator was a police officer and their subsequent reluctance to report it.
drainbrain said:
Is there any mathematical model to predict how many unapprehended offenders there are from the numbers who actually are apprehended doing wrong?
For example, if Yorkshire police catch 10 people drink-driving tonight, how many drivers in Yorkshire are likely to have been drink-driving?
Is there any scientific study to realistically predict it?
And if there is, then in the police force for every 'proven bad apple' how many apples are predicted to still be in the barrel rotting away?
Someone will be along in a minute with some completely irrelevant statistics to rubbish your completely valid point For example, if Yorkshire police catch 10 people drink-driving tonight, how many drivers in Yorkshire are likely to have been drink-driving?
Is there any scientific study to realistically predict it?
And if there is, then in the police force for every 'proven bad apple' how many apples are predicted to still be in the barrel rotting away?
Interesting and pretty much answers my own thoughts/questions
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...
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.
I suppose the stats we really need are for civillian drivers stopped by real, live Trafpol given "Words of advice" and those who allow a Warrant Card to fall from their wallet whilst extracting their DL.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
bmw535i said:
Of course people don't care if a person is eligible to serve or not, that's not the point. I know you're quite thick, but even you must see (you have already said) that your comparison is unrealistic.
Unrealistic in what respect? You seem to struggle in defining what you actually mean. Repeating it over and over again isn't a substitute for substance. I think you may actually be thinking of 'invalid' and are using the wrong word. I've been clear what the data means. The police as an organisation have created an environment whereby the probability of them obtaining a conviction is a fraction of that of the general public. It was relevant within the context of the thread and the alleged 'concerns' some of the posters had.
bmw535i said:
You dont seem to understand that making a comparison between an officer and (as an example) a homeless junkie and saying the police officer is less likely to commit crime is just silly. Because that's exactly what you've done effectively.
Yes, the non-police pool contains everyone else. Well done for stating the obvious. But again, within the context of the thread that's the point. bmw535i said:
Going back to the police conviction rates, I ask myself how many were sanctioned internally rather than been convicted.
They're not mutually exclusive. It's actually a 'double bite' in a lot of circumstances. drainbrain said:
Is there any mathematical model to predict how many unapprehended offenders there are from the numbers who actually are apprehended doing wrong?
You'd take the data from something like the Crime Survey of England and Wales and compare the data with recorded crime, detections, prosecutions and convictions to get some idea. 55palfers said:
I suppose the stats we really need are for civillian drivers stopped by real, live Trafpol given "Words of advice" and those who allow a Warrant Card to fall from their wallet whilst extracting their DL.
2017, who has time to stop drivers? 
Invalid/irrelevant/unrealistic/obtuse/moronic/stupid (take your pick) comparisons to try and make a point don't really mean anything.
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. Of course the staunch defence of the police is very noble, but worrying that they can't recognise there is an issue.
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.
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. Of course the staunch defence of the police is very noble, but worrying that they can't recognise there is an issue.
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.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 28th January 07:14
bmw535i said:
You dont seem to understand that making a comparison between an officer and (as an example) a homeless junkie and saying the police officer is less likely to commit crime is just silly. Because that's exactly what you've done effectively.
I'm not sure why you are trying to argue this point. The original comparison was between offending rates of the Police as compared to the General population that they are part of. It's not a particularly complex comparison but just illustrates that whilst any Police officer committing a crime of sexual abuse is unacceptable, the statistics show officers appear less likely to commit the crime than the general population despite the publicity that those cases achieve. The OP asks the question based on extensive media coverage of a small number of Police offenders.
If you selectively remove elements of the general public who commit crimes or are more likely to commit crimes, then it would be a nonsensical comparison, proving only that the entire Police force are more likely to commit crime than members of the public who don't commit crime!
bmw535i said:
Going back to the police conviction rates, I ask myself how many were sanctioned internally rather than been convicted. I also ask myself how many get away with it given their expertise and the potential to use that expertise to remain undetected.
This approach was taken by Pre-PACE CID in the 70's I believe. We have no evidence of anything, but we don't like them, we don't trust them and they're different to us. Clearly they must be guilty of something! Not surprising you don't like the modern Police Services!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
brenflys777 said:
This approach was taken by Pre-PACE CID in the 70's I believe. We have no evidence of anything, but we don't like them, we don't trust them and they're different to us. Clearly they must be guilty of something! Not surprising you don't like the modern Police Services!
To me making the binary choice between officer and non officer is irrelevant. I know liga likes to try and change my mind on these things, but never really manages it. Listening is not a strong point unfortunately- I find a lot of police officers are like this.As you can see from the article below, the data used previously is pretty irrelevant too. I am going to presume that written warnings are issued after the offence is proven to have happened.
https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/one-met-officer...
Also, as pointed out by several posters, how many offences go unreported/undetected? I'd aver that a victim would be infinitely more cautious about making an allegation against a police officer than non officer for obvious reasons.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 28th January 08:00
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
Well yes, it would be helpful if some police officers could recognise some of the failings - a bit blinkered some of them 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff