The truth is NOT out there ...
Discussion
Revealed: how the Home Office hides the true level of crime
By Daniel Foggo and Carl Fellstrom
Sunday Telegraph 17/04/2005
The Government is misleading the public on the true level of crime in Britain by instructing police forces not to record many offences, while simultaneously logging crimes in which nobody is convicted or even taken to court as "detected".
This week the Government will release its latest quarterly figures for recorded crime in England and Wales, the last such release before the general election. But regardless of whether they show an overall fall or rise, they will give a highly distorted picture.
Multiple offences can be logged as a single crime
A detailed analysis by The Telegraph of the Home Office's "counting rules" - the instructions that are given to all forces each April telling them how to compile their official crime statistics - has revealed that the Government has expanded the range of "get-outs" that allow officers to ignore many crimes while taking credit for solving others that have not resulted in successful prosecutions.
In some instances, even if the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which usually has the last word in deciding whether someone should be charged, declares that there is no evidence at all to sustain a prosecution, the police are allowed to claim that they have "detected" the relevant crimes. In this way, a police force that has problems with proper evidence gathering and whose prosecutions have a tendency to collapse can still present a glowing "detection" record.
In the last prime minister's questions before the election campaign began, Mr Blair boasted: "It's a well established fact that crime has been falling for years."
In February he said: "The important thing is crime is actually down, not up. However, that is no consolation if you are a victim of crime. There are also record numbers of police but people don't always see them out on the street."
The revelations on the "counting rules" put into stark relief the Government's claim that it has recently broadened the criteria by which crimes are logged, resulting in a rise in recorded incidents. In fact, under a sub-clause in the counting rules, the police are allowed to record only "one crime per person". In an incident where several crimes are committed by the same person against the same victim, only the most serious single crime is recorded.
An example given is that "a house is entered [burglary], the female occupant is raped [rape] and her car is stolen from the driveway [vehicle theft]". The statistics must overlook the burglary and car theft, the Government has ordered. The record should read only: "One crime of rape."
In another get-out, police are also told to log multiple offences as only one crime if they are all reported at the same time.
The rules make it clear that any number of crimes can be distilled down to a single figure simply according to the timing of when they are reported. One example states: "[If] A threatens B on three occasions [and] B reports the threats to the police on each occasion a threat is made [it is] three crimes. [If] B reports the three occurrences at the same time [it is] one crime."
The counting rules also stipulate how police forces must record "detected" crime. Most members of the public would understand the term detected to mean solved, or cleared up.
In fact, under the counting rules definition, it means only that the police have an idea of who may have carried out the crime and usually have enough evidence to charge him or her. It does not correspond to the number of people convicted, or even to those appearing in court. As the rules state, a crime is detected if someone is charged or summonsed "irrespective of any subsequent acquittal".
Despite this revelation, the last annual published figures showed "detection rates" across England and Wales of only 24 per cent.
The rules on penalty charges, which since last year have been used by all of Britain's police forces to deal with low-level "nuisance" crime, such as shoplifting and public disorder, also enable the police to claim better results than they are achieving. Offences for which a penalty notice has been issued can be logged as detected", even if the CPS subsequently decides there is not enough - or, indeed, any - evidence to support it.
If an alleged offender contests a penalty notice, the case is referred to a magistrates' court. Before going to trial, the prosecution must be approved by the CPS, who may decide there is insufficient evidence to proceed. Yet for the purposes of the official crime statistics, the police can ignore such a finding by the CPS, simply by having one of the force's "designated decision makers" (DDM) - usually an officer of the rank of sergeant - state that he is happy with the issuing of the penalty notice. Although the penalty notice goes no further, the alleged crime is still registered as "detected".
In all other crimes, from murder downwards, if the case is dropped before or during a trial because the police have not gathered enough evidence, it is still logged as "detected". The rules state: "If the case is discontinued on evidential grounds, then the detection should not be cancelled if a DDM still stands by the reasons for charging."
Norman Brennan, a serving police officer and the director of the Victims of Crime Trust, a charity that supports people affected by serious crime, said that most people would imagine that "detection" rates related to those convicted. "We in the police know that detection rates are nothing of the sort, but the public do not" he said. "If we recorded crime accurately the public would be astounded. Violence against the person is up by 90 per cent over the last five years but the true figure is four times that."
So there you have it!
Streaky
By Daniel Foggo and Carl Fellstrom
Sunday Telegraph 17/04/2005
The Government is misleading the public on the true level of crime in Britain by instructing police forces not to record many offences, while simultaneously logging crimes in which nobody is convicted or even taken to court as "detected".
This week the Government will release its latest quarterly figures for recorded crime in England and Wales, the last such release before the general election. But regardless of whether they show an overall fall or rise, they will give a highly distorted picture.
Multiple offences can be logged as a single crime
A detailed analysis by The Telegraph of the Home Office's "counting rules" - the instructions that are given to all forces each April telling them how to compile their official crime statistics - has revealed that the Government has expanded the range of "get-outs" that allow officers to ignore many crimes while taking credit for solving others that have not resulted in successful prosecutions.
In some instances, even if the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which usually has the last word in deciding whether someone should be charged, declares that there is no evidence at all to sustain a prosecution, the police are allowed to claim that they have "detected" the relevant crimes. In this way, a police force that has problems with proper evidence gathering and whose prosecutions have a tendency to collapse can still present a glowing "detection" record.
In the last prime minister's questions before the election campaign began, Mr Blair boasted: "It's a well established fact that crime has been falling for years."
In February he said: "The important thing is crime is actually down, not up. However, that is no consolation if you are a victim of crime. There are also record numbers of police but people don't always see them out on the street."
The revelations on the "counting rules" put into stark relief the Government's claim that it has recently broadened the criteria by which crimes are logged, resulting in a rise in recorded incidents. In fact, under a sub-clause in the counting rules, the police are allowed to record only "one crime per person". In an incident where several crimes are committed by the same person against the same victim, only the most serious single crime is recorded.
An example given is that "a house is entered [burglary], the female occupant is raped [rape] and her car is stolen from the driveway [vehicle theft]". The statistics must overlook the burglary and car theft, the Government has ordered. The record should read only: "One crime of rape."
In another get-out, police are also told to log multiple offences as only one crime if they are all reported at the same time.
The rules make it clear that any number of crimes can be distilled down to a single figure simply according to the timing of when they are reported. One example states: "[If] A threatens B on three occasions [and] B reports the threats to the police on each occasion a threat is made [it is] three crimes. [If] B reports the three occurrences at the same time [it is] one crime."
The counting rules also stipulate how police forces must record "detected" crime. Most members of the public would understand the term detected to mean solved, or cleared up.
In fact, under the counting rules definition, it means only that the police have an idea of who may have carried out the crime and usually have enough evidence to charge him or her. It does not correspond to the number of people convicted, or even to those appearing in court. As the rules state, a crime is detected if someone is charged or summonsed "irrespective of any subsequent acquittal".
Despite this revelation, the last annual published figures showed "detection rates" across England and Wales of only 24 per cent.
The rules on penalty charges, which since last year have been used by all of Britain's police forces to deal with low-level "nuisance" crime, such as shoplifting and public disorder, also enable the police to claim better results than they are achieving. Offences for which a penalty notice has been issued can be logged as detected", even if the CPS subsequently decides there is not enough - or, indeed, any - evidence to support it.
If an alleged offender contests a penalty notice, the case is referred to a magistrates' court. Before going to trial, the prosecution must be approved by the CPS, who may decide there is insufficient evidence to proceed. Yet for the purposes of the official crime statistics, the police can ignore such a finding by the CPS, simply by having one of the force's "designated decision makers" (DDM) - usually an officer of the rank of sergeant - state that he is happy with the issuing of the penalty notice. Although the penalty notice goes no further, the alleged crime is still registered as "detected".
In all other crimes, from murder downwards, if the case is dropped before or during a trial because the police have not gathered enough evidence, it is still logged as "detected". The rules state: "If the case is discontinued on evidential grounds, then the detection should not be cancelled if a DDM still stands by the reasons for charging."
Norman Brennan, a serving police officer and the director of the Victims of Crime Trust, a charity that supports people affected by serious crime, said that most people would imagine that "detection" rates related to those convicted. "We in the police know that detection rates are nothing of the sort, but the public do not" he said. "If we recorded crime accurately the public would be astounded. Violence against the person is up by 90 per cent over the last five years but the true figure is four times that."
So there you have it!
Streaky
If you've ever read David Copperfield (the copper not the book) on coppersblog.blogspot.com he's been saying that for months.
It's Nulabor stuff. All fraud.
Areas that immediately come to mind : teaching, health, police. All generating reams of meaningless stats. so the pols can get votes. It has *no* value.
It's Nulabor stuff. All fraud.
Areas that immediately come to mind : teaching, health, police. All generating reams of meaningless stats. so the pols can get votes. It has *no* value.
Why? Most of the papers are owned by a man who is almost in bed with the Labour party...and the rest are left-wing rags!!!
Free press??? Yeah right? This government has had a ludicrously easy ride from the press compared to the previous bunch.
Still...we're not as bad as the USA...yet!
Free press??? Yeah right? This government has had a ludicrously easy ride from the press compared to the previous bunch.
Still...we're not as bad as the USA...yet!
Further examples of manipulation of the crime figures involves one of the common 'street crimes' - the theft of cellular telephones.
The Metropolitan Police use a "Book 40 Report" that keeps the theft out of the crime statistics.
Essex Police issue a piece of paper with a rubber stamp on it to indicate the report has been made that also keeps the theft out of the crime statistics.
Other police 'services' try to fob victims off with making a "lost property reports" that (guess what?) keeps the theft out of the crime statistics.
Management guru Peter Drucker famously said: "You can't manage what you don't measure."
Various police services have adopted this as: "We can't manage it, so there's no point in measuring it."
The ex-Home Secretary David (Wrong side of the) Blunkett and his successor Charles (I look a tw4t in a copper's hat) Clarke adapted it to: "If you don't measure it, it isn't happening."
BLiar has embraced it as: "Who gives a stuff about the truth provided I get re-elected. Let's move on."
Streaky
The Metropolitan Police use a "Book 40 Report" that keeps the theft out of the crime statistics.
Essex Police issue a piece of paper with a rubber stamp on it to indicate the report has been made that also keeps the theft out of the crime statistics.
Other police 'services' try to fob victims off with making a "lost property reports" that (guess what?) keeps the theft out of the crime statistics.
Management guru Peter Drucker famously said: "You can't manage what you don't measure."
Various police services have adopted this as: "We can't manage it, so there's no point in measuring it."
The ex-Home Secretary David (Wrong side of the) Blunkett and his successor Charles (I look a tw4t in a copper's hat) Clarke adapted it to: "If you don't measure it, it isn't happening."
BLiar has embraced it as: "Who gives a stuff about the truth provided I get re-elected. Let's move on."
Streaky
This is most interesting. Since the National Crime Recording Standards were introduced trying to get something logged as not being a crime is near impossible.
E.g. mobile phones. Nobber comes in to report that his phone was mysteriously taken from his pocket by the invisible man at some point between 7pm and 11pm in whatever pub, whilst he was on the p1ss. We used to (quite rightly) give a lost property reference number. Now we HAVE to record it as a crime, becasue we cannot show that on the balance of probability a crime did not take place.
Friday Night fights - anon call "3 people fighting outside the pub." On arrival, not a soul around. Speak barman in pub, who says that 3 lads left the pub, bit of pushing and shoving and bravado but they've now gone on their way. That too will go down as a violent crime.
Which is precisely why "violent crime" is apparently increasing. It isn't, is just that the goalposts have changed as to what is a violent crime.
E.g. mobile phones. Nobber comes in to report that his phone was mysteriously taken from his pocket by the invisible man at some point between 7pm and 11pm in whatever pub, whilst he was on the p1ss. We used to (quite rightly) give a lost property reference number. Now we HAVE to record it as a crime, becasue we cannot show that on the balance of probability a crime did not take place.
Friday Night fights - anon call "3 people fighting outside the pub." On arrival, not a soul around. Speak barman in pub, who says that 3 lads left the pub, bit of pushing and shoving and bravado but they've now gone on their way. That too will go down as a violent crime.
Which is precisely why "violent crime" is apparently increasing. It isn't, is just that the goalposts have changed as to what is a violent crime.
xxplod said:
This is most interesting. Since the National Crime Recording Standards were introduced trying to get something logged as not being a crime is near impossible.
Perhaps a case of "different strokes for different folks"? Reports are that the Met and Essex are fobbing people off with other than a CRN for cellular telephone theft and perhaps other 'minor' thefts too.
Interesting too is that the British Crime Survey (BCS) - which BLiar recently relied upon to state that crime figures were falling - is a sample of 40,000 people over the age of 16. This latter is vitally important to note, as much cellular telephone theft affects the under-16s. The BCS also understates crime because it only covers England and Wales, and does not include crimes against businesses, homicides and crimes where there is no direct victim - such as drug dealing.
Back to Peter Drucker and I realised that: "If you don't measure it, it isn't happening" has something of Schrodinger and Heisenberg in it.
Hmm!
Streaky
>> Edited by streaky on Tuesday 26th April 21:34
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff