Are the Police Service fit for purpose anymore?
Discussion
JuanCarlosFandango said:
But when was I more likely to find my house burgled, my car stolen, or myself being assaulted? 1960 or 2020?
I didn't work in the 1960's but I served with those who had.You would probably be more likely to be assaulted by the police in 1960, and more likely to have nothing done about it.
You would probably be much less likely to be a victim of crime in 1960. But then again very little would be done if you were.
XCP said:
I didn't work in the 1960's but I served with those who had.
You would probably be more likely to be assaulted by the police in 1960, and more likely to have nothing done about it.
You would probably be much less likely to be a victim of crime in 1960. But then again very little would be done if you were.
You would probably be more likely to be assaulted by the police in 1960, and more likely to have nothing done about it.
You would probably be much less likely to be a victim of crime in 1960. But then again very little would be done if you were.
- I* would be more likely to? Or someone arrested would be more likely to?
FWIW I wasn't a policeman then or now, and I wasn't even a member of the public in 1960, but those who were don't often cite random acts of police brutality as a memory.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
But when was I more likely to find my house burgled, my car stolen, or myself being assaulted? 1960 or 2020?
If you look at the history of crime, you'll discover that after the war there was very little reported crime. This is in part because, opposite of what you suggested earlier before changing your point, the population did not see the point of reporting it as nothing was done. There were no systematic enquiries, nor pressure to solve minor crimes. If they didn't know who it was, it was either filed or, probably, not even recorded.To report a domestic assault was seen as an admission of guilt almost. Assaults on children went unreported and certainly unpunished.
In the intervening 60 years - that's 60 years, and a lot's happened in that time - the crime rate has increased, at least as far as recorded crime goes. Whether there is more actual crime - apart from one aspect I'll mention later - or not is unknown.
You mention being assaulted. I'm not sure there is a bigger risk now. In any case, no one knows. Certainly in my neck of the woods there were many assaults as I was growing up. Not reported, of course, as if you did, the offender's mates would get you. The docks, where crime was rampant, violence was a daily occurrence.
However, there has been a steady increase in certain crimes since 1971. It was slow at first, but speeded up as the years went by. It's well documented and there's umpteen research documents that are little viewed outside of politics and the police. The Drugs Act is the single biggest cause of burglary, car thefts and knife assaults. There's no argument about that. The evidence is overwhelming.
We went from a managed problem to an unmanageable one.
I accept it is easy to pick on one factor and blame it for any increase in burglaries, thefts and assaults. That's because the Drugs Act is the major cause of burglary, thefts and assaults.
I read a bit of research on why there was a drop in crime rates from the end of the war until the end of the 50s, so a little outside your limits, but relevant. The conclusion was that those returning from the war were generally used to violence and felt they did not want to tolerate it. The organised crimes gangs, at least in London, were mostly based post war on the gangs that committed crimes during the war. Thefts from bombed out homes and such was rampant, although little was reported. The black market was everywhere and very little was reported; only discovered crimes went into the book.
The Richardsons operated in my area and you had to be careful in their area of influence. Then there was the Harp Club, an ethnic-based clientele, of which I was one. There were fights and assaults all the time. Then there were the Cray gangs. The myth that they only harmed those who attacked them was nonsense. They were nasty and vicious and were involved in corruption with the police and courts.
It was a lawless time, of that there can be no doubt. You could keep out of it quite easily by keeping out of the no-go areas.
No country, even the one that forced the '71 Drugs Act on us, has managed to deal with the problem in any meaningful way other than by decriminalising it. Blame that for the increase in domestic burglaries.
Car crime has steadily dropped over time, although there's been a significant increase of late. We are assured by the government that this has nothing to do with there being fewer police.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
So do you think there were more burglaries in the period after the water than today? Recorded or unrecorded.
I would be genuinely interested to see the overwhelming evidence that it can all be blamed on the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act?
First of all, I did not say, suggest or even hint at there being more burglaries after the war than today. I'm not sure why you said that. I said that no one knows. It's an obvious conclusion.I would be genuinely interested to see the overwhelming evidence that it can all be blamed on the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act?
What you will find is that many police forces have, or at least had, quite a library of books on the subject of crime, policing and the history of the service. They also got, I don't know how, research papers on crime, at least mine did.
The idea that the Drugs Act gave rise to an increase in crime is largely accepted by those who research and report on crime trends.One of the main findings was that a high number of those guilty of domestic burglaries were addicts. It seemed that they were indulging in theft and burglary to feed their habit, or rather feed their suppliers.
One bit of research did reach the mainstream media, this in the late 80s/early 90s, when an ACC I think commented on the report and said that were it not for drug related crime, he could get rid of 50% of officers, and still do a better job on the rest of it. Spend time as a gaoler and you will see the trend. Indeed, one of our nicks had a volunteer ex-druggie, nice bloke, in the cells willing to discuss the problems of druggies.
The ACC was not, evidently, on message and the Home Office directed him as to what was acceptable to tell the press.
There's no argument; a significant number of domestic burglaries and petty thefts are drugs related. The only point open to argument is the degree. I seen the conclusion of 40 - 70%, so no one has a clue to how many precisely.
On top of that, there's the specific drugs crimes of dealing, importing, manufacture, etc. These were not included in most of the reports/books I read.
Drugs crime, because drugs were regulated and controlled before the '71 Act, was managed before. It was not solved, although many of the current problems, such as crime by druggies, were generally low-level. That's what has changed.
The world changes, crime patterns change
To say we now have people arrested because an offence has been placed on statute is rather simplistic and ignores totally the cause and effect
It’s a simplistic as saying if the Computer Crime Act hadn’t been introduced in 1990 there’d be no cyber crime or if we hadn’t introduced the Terrorism Act we would have no Terrorist offences
Legislation lags and reacts ( in general ) to threats that emerge. No it’s not always perfect and sometimes very problematic (Dangerous Dogs Act as an example)
To say we now have people arrested because an offence has been placed on statute is rather simplistic and ignores totally the cause and effect
It’s a simplistic as saying if the Computer Crime Act hadn’t been introduced in 1990 there’d be no cyber crime or if we hadn’t introduced the Terrorism Act we would have no Terrorist offences
Legislation lags and reacts ( in general ) to threats that emerge. No it’s not always perfect and sometimes very problematic (Dangerous Dogs Act as an example)
By the way, what exactly are you saying about the 71 act Derek?
In 1967, a few years and a change of government before the act, Mick Jagger was sent to prison for some prescription drugs and Keith Richards sentenced to a year for allowing cannabis to be smoked on his property. Of course they beat it with lawyers and media support, but is that the sort of management you would prefer?
In 1967, a few years and a change of government before the act, Mick Jagger was sent to prison for some prescription drugs and Keith Richards sentenced to a year for allowing cannabis to be smoked on his property. Of course they beat it with lawyers and media support, but is that the sort of management you would prefer?
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I'm not saying all police officers are useless. I'm saying the force is ineffective at fighting crime because they are operating under a set of ridiculous constraints set by politicians and senior management who don't really care about crime, or believe that effective policing can solve it.
Worked with a few senior manager over the years. They all cared about crime / victims. Also:
You're making it up as you go along.
Red 4 said:
The rise in drug related crime was probably more to do with the large increase in users (heroin in particular) rather than The Misuse of Drugs Act.
A junkie will steal to fund an addiction. No surprises there.
I'm not sure how Derek is making the link.
A junkie will steal to fund an addiction. No surprises there.
I'm not sure how Derek is making the link.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
By the way, what exactly are you saying about the 71 act Derek?
In 1967, a few years and a change of government before the act, Mick Jagger was sent to prison for some prescription drugs and Keith Richards sentenced to a year for allowing cannabis to be smoked on his property. Of course they beat it with lawyers and media support, but is that the sort of management you would prefer?
The 71 Act wasn't like prohibition in the USA; going from legal to illegal overnight. The cause and effect was a lot more subtle and took time to build.In 1967, a few years and a change of government before the act, Mick Jagger was sent to prison for some prescription drugs and Keith Richards sentenced to a year for allowing cannabis to be smoked on his property. Of course they beat it with lawyers and media support, but is that the sort of management you would prefer?
Remember, I'm going by research I read back in the late 80s and details fade, but I can hit the main spot, so to speak.
Drug addiction to hard drugs was managed. You could register as an addict and get your drugs from a pharmacy. I remember the 24-hour pharmacy near Trafalgar Square having a queue of odd-looking people, of all ages, in it. You got your monkey.
Whether this 'worked' or not is open to argument, and was subject of argument in one of the books. However, what it did do was allow addicts to source their drug without recourse to crime. Also, and after going to some deaths of druggies it's of some importance to me, it meant they got unadulterated material to pump into their veins.
Post the Act things changed and they were given a replacement that knocked them out for a day at a time without the high. It opened up a gap for criminals to supply the real stuff. As they did so, others who were not druggies had a go and so the market increased.
One book predicted the rise in gangs supplying the drugs, and the associated violence. Rather obvious to us now, but I would assume most would have dismissed it as alarmist at the time it was published.
The need to fund a fix is what generated an increase in petty crime, if domestic burglaries can be credited with being called petty. The violence associated with gangs increased. Usage increased. In the late 60s it was difficult to get even mild drugs. Now a 73-year-old can go into Brighton and score his choice of drug in an hour or so.
No one knows what leaving the legislation as it was would have resulted in. It's impossible to say, although it is probable that things would have had to change. What is a good bet is that it would be somewhat different to what it is now.
It's no great leap of the imagination to work out that removing the crutch of metered supply would cause problems.
I've got my own opinions of course, but they've largely been modified by what I read.
The question on The Stones is hardly relevant. There was drugs legislation limiting possession going back quite a way. It's the management of the problems associated with illegal drugs that was changed under the Act. Mind you, of course, it was not always regulated. Queen Vic used to take her hard stuff, as did a lot of the upper classes back in the day.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
- I* would be more likely to? Or someone arrested would be more likely to?
FWIW I wasn't a policeman then or now, and I wasn't even a member of the public in 1960, but those who were don't often cite random acts of police brutality as a memory.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
But when was I more likely to find my house burgled, my car stolen, or myself being assaulted? 1960 or 2020?
Almost impossible to answer if we only have figures for reported crime.ETA: far more likely to have your car stolen in 2020. Far more likely to have one to be stolen.
Pothole said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
But when was I more likely to find my house burgled, my car stolen, or myself being assaulted? 1960 or 2020?
Almost impossible to answer if we only have figures for reported crime.ETA: far more likely to have your car stolen in 2020. Far more likely to have one to be stolen.
Edited by Bigends on Sunday 23 February 11:57
La Liga
Yes, it seems I was more likely to be burgled or assaulted in 1996, all else being equal. Again, it would be interesting to see what has changed.
XCP
I would say there's a difference between summary beatings and a clip around the ear.
Derek
With all due respect something you vaguely remember reading 30 years ago can hardly count as overwhelming evidence that one particular act of parliament is the single biggest cause of burglary, car thefts and knife assaults.
Yes, it seems I was more likely to be burgled or assaulted in 1996, all else being equal. Again, it would be interesting to see what has changed.
XCP
I would say there's a difference between summary beatings and a clip around the ear.
Derek
With all due respect something you vaguely remember reading 30 years ago can hardly count as overwhelming evidence that one particular act of parliament is the single biggest cause of burglary, car thefts and knife assaults.
An interesting point with regards the post war use of heroin was that it was largely middle class, middle aged men who were on prescription. In the 60s, with the emancipation of the working class - cool Britannia and all that - it started to filter down to younger males and those of lower class and this caused the concern. The suggestion was often made that it was seen as OK for the posh ones to get high, but once the lower orders got in on the act, it was a bit out of order.
Although I am as common as muck and was called bog Irish at school (my Irish gran said it was about right), in the 60s I used to knock around with a crowd of really posh people who lived on and around Blackheath. Drug use was common, common in the sense of endemic. At parties in the big houses, there would be rooms where the grass smokers would congregate and others were high from higher priced stuff. Spiking drinks was seen as a bit of a laugh and a punch concoction with amphets in it caused a lot of problems. I 'lost' hours.
Other countries had significant problems and it was international pressure, largely led by the USA, that led to the 71 act.
There was a Royal Commission in the early 60s, or perhaps a big report, that highlighted the working class youth drugs use, but it wasn't clear if this was the hard stuff and/or just weed. Certainly cannabis was used quite a bit by the middle/late 60s, but it wasn't strong stuff though. Pretty weak in fact and it was only that it was laced with placebo that gave rise to odd behaviour. Yet is was seen by police, courts and parliament as every bit as evil as opiates. Again, the suggestion was that there was a class divide. Indeed, there was.
Pre 71, LSD was being illicitly manufactured, virtually in a domestic environment, but the discoverer/inventor was unable to distribute it because of the drugs law. In the early 1970, post the act, a team built up an interconnected distribution network across the UK and on the continent. It was massive. I remember the rumour of them making over £1million. We all knew this was hyperbole, right up until Operation Julie, the multi-force task force which cleared it up in an inspired bit of police work, discovered £1million in bank account(s) so we had to concede it wasn't hyperbole, and probably under-reported its worth.
I used to walk my dog past a cottage that was used as a switching centre for LSD deliveries. It was under obs for operation Julie. It was in a pretty little village in Kent. I used to take sugar cubes, I ask you, sugar cubes, from work, each individually wrapped in City of London Police paper, complete with a coat of arms, and feed it to a donkey in the garden.Unknown to me, all the time there were police officers in the bungalow opposite looking through a spy hole in the roof. I suppose it gave them a laugh. I used to talk to the donkey as well, but it probably didn't have a wire on it. It is arguable as to whether it was down to the 71 Act. It still would have been illegal under previous legislation, but without the Act needing to prove itself, the considerable investment in time, manpower and resources would not have been made. Not that the Act proved itself of course with that case.
Worth looking up if you are interested in historical police work. There were a number of books on the subject in the police library at my force as it was seen as a considerable success and worth publicising. As, indeed, it was.
Although I am as common as muck and was called bog Irish at school (my Irish gran said it was about right), in the 60s I used to knock around with a crowd of really posh people who lived on and around Blackheath. Drug use was common, common in the sense of endemic. At parties in the big houses, there would be rooms where the grass smokers would congregate and others were high from higher priced stuff. Spiking drinks was seen as a bit of a laugh and a punch concoction with amphets in it caused a lot of problems. I 'lost' hours.
Other countries had significant problems and it was international pressure, largely led by the USA, that led to the 71 act.
There was a Royal Commission in the early 60s, or perhaps a big report, that highlighted the working class youth drugs use, but it wasn't clear if this was the hard stuff and/or just weed. Certainly cannabis was used quite a bit by the middle/late 60s, but it wasn't strong stuff though. Pretty weak in fact and it was only that it was laced with placebo that gave rise to odd behaviour. Yet is was seen by police, courts and parliament as every bit as evil as opiates. Again, the suggestion was that there was a class divide. Indeed, there was.
Pre 71, LSD was being illicitly manufactured, virtually in a domestic environment, but the discoverer/inventor was unable to distribute it because of the drugs law. In the early 1970, post the act, a team built up an interconnected distribution network across the UK and on the continent. It was massive. I remember the rumour of them making over £1million. We all knew this was hyperbole, right up until Operation Julie, the multi-force task force which cleared it up in an inspired bit of police work, discovered £1million in bank account(s) so we had to concede it wasn't hyperbole, and probably under-reported its worth.
I used to walk my dog past a cottage that was used as a switching centre for LSD deliveries. It was under obs for operation Julie. It was in a pretty little village in Kent. I used to take sugar cubes, I ask you, sugar cubes, from work, each individually wrapped in City of London Police paper, complete with a coat of arms, and feed it to a donkey in the garden.Unknown to me, all the time there were police officers in the bungalow opposite looking through a spy hole in the roof. I suppose it gave them a laugh. I used to talk to the donkey as well, but it probably didn't have a wire on it. It is arguable as to whether it was down to the 71 Act. It still would have been illegal under previous legislation, but without the Act needing to prove itself, the considerable investment in time, manpower and resources would not have been made. Not that the Act proved itself of course with that case.
Worth looking up if you are interested in historical police work. There were a number of books on the subject in the police library at my force as it was seen as a considerable success and worth publicising. As, indeed, it was.
La Liga said:
orked with a few senior manager over the years. They all cared about crime / victims.
Also:
You're making it up as you go along.
In 2018-19, fewer than 8% of offences led to a suspect being charged or ordered to appear in court.Also:
You're making it up as you go along.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49986849
Maybe people have given up on reporting crime as they know the police will achieve f
k all?Those appear to be National Crime Survey numbers, which are based on interviews and surveys rather than crime reports, for just that reason, that many crimes are not well reported and there is significant bias in police crime report statistics.
If they are not then the NAO national crime survey shows pretty much the same trend.
If they are not then the NAO national crime survey shows pretty much the same trend.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff