ARRSE is supported by the advertisements on it, so if you use an adblocker please consider helping us by starting an Ad-Free subscription.

Crime figures up and police numbers at their lowest level since 1985

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by wetsmonkey, Jul 20, 2017.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I'm not bleating about it, I'm trying to encourage discussion about why crime figures are up and whether this is linked to 1985 numbers of police officers.

    I have pointed out to some people why the level of service may not be as good as it could be with more officers.

    When I see a comparably risky occupation in civvy street that places the same restrictions on a persons private life then I might answer your question. At no time have I complained about my pay or pension. Still doesn't compare favourably to my pay and non contributory pension in the army.

    If you are happy to see experience walk out the door for better employment to be replaced with inexperienced teenagers and early twenties then I think you have a poor idea of how to balance a workforce.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Its how the Armed Forces work, I being fortunate to have semi retired, due to my wifes death now spend my time, winter months in cumbria with the MRT, summer months in durham. I have seen older, experienced people act like *********, similar to younger people.

    Crime doesn't affect me.

    If you want to get into the Sociological arguements about, crime, the recording of crime, targets to be achieved feel free. Then look at how the media is determing where your funding is being spent, its all in the narrative.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. They would be run ragged on this site then................
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. And that's why the army is woefully understaffed and people don't appear to want to join. Questioning why things are not working as well as they could and should doesn't automatically mean a person should want to leave. It's called critical thinking.

    If crime doesn't affect you, then congratulations. Unfortunately that's not the case for a lot of other people. It probably means you don't really have much constructive to contribute.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. MrBane

    MrBane LE Moderator Reviewer Reviews Editor

    Here's the old scenario in Scotland:

    We're on foot patrol, we observe a known criminal coming towards us. Violent sort, drugs, weapons, etc.

    "Alright John, how's things? You're getting a search, anything on you?"
    "Naw mate."

    The search would be completed, fairly quickly because it was routine for us and routine for them. We'd often have some banter, or wind them up a bit by telling them they were shit at crime. Sometime's we'd just tell them we knew what they were up to and to wrap their pish.

    Did we ever find anything? Very, very ******* rarely. Any ideas why? That's right, because we robustly policed the people who had made a decision to remove themselves from the normal circles of society by committing acts of violence, disorder and other fun stuff. Because of this, they didn't carry anything.

    Guess what?

    Violent crime fell in public places.

    Unfortunately, in Legacy Strathclyde, bonuses to the bosses was based on performance, and searches were taken as a part of the KPI to mark peformance.

    Uh-oh.

    Stop search figures rocketed. Not because more were being conducted, but because the lines were being muddied and things were being recorded that weren't stop searches, or people entered figures for searches that hadn't happened. This is all well known and documented in various reports.

    So those areas with an agenda against Stephen House, pounced on this and fucked him with it.

    In turn, they fucked us and, themselves.

    Here's the scenario now:

    We're on foot patrol, we observe a known criminal coming towards us. Violent sort, drugs, weapons, etc.

    "......"

    Anyone spot the difference there?

    Guess what?

    Violent crime is rocketing.

    Our hands are so badly tied. We need really very solid evidence of reasonable suspicion before we search someone, and if a complaint is made, you can count on that cop getting fucked for it. Even if I know John has 68 previous convictions (That's low for where I work, start with three digits) and fifteen of those are aggravated with a weapon such as a knife, I cannot use that information to search him, because previous convictions are now a protected characteristic.

    However, everyone's a winner in the end.

    John, the criminal, gets to go about his day conducting crime, assaulting people, dealing in Class A drugs and maybe breaking into a few homes or businesses, and knows he'll get much less hassle from us as long as he isn't too obvious. His human right to liberty are protected.

    The member of the public who was walking home late one night and who bumped into John when he was out his face, gets to be stabbed up by him because he doesn't give a ****, and we couldn't search him earlier for a weapon because grounds didn't legally exist. Their human right to be stabbed up is protected (...what?)

    The politicians and liberals who had their agenda and who achieved it, can go back to their very pleasant, high income housing areas and wonder what all the fuss is about as there is no crime in their high income, high employment area. Their human right to liberty is protected, even though the whole debacle never affected them.

    The Police can get away with less officers on the street and act more in the response role because now we don't have to worry about stopping bad people, because those politicians and liberals made it almost impossible for us. That's nice, except when you're dealing with the lad who got stabbed, who looks to you to protect them and you've failed because you didn't have grounds to search John earlier, even though you knew, you ******* knew, he was up to no good.

    Carry on people, nothing to see here....
     
    • Like Like x 11
    • Informative Informative x 7
  6. So if I report a burglary/break in and forget to mention the burglar fell down the stairs due to the trauma of fighting for my life the police won't rock up for a few days at the very least ?

    Ooopsss.
     
  7. Why would you want to do that?
     

  8. Excellent post just about sums up what this Governments aversion to Stop and Search is doing to violent crime and drug dealing.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. @wetsmonkey

    FFS. You have not got the memo, have you?

    Crime isn't up, it is just being accurately recorded. Except if it goes down, then it is actually down.

    Numbers don't matter it is about intelligent deployment.

    For example, The fact that the Met is appealing to retired detectives to come back in warranted, non-warranted or even voluntary capacities should not be used to draw any conclusions.

    If people are happy with the police resorting to charity from former officers (and let me tell you good will was in very short supply when I left, and has only got worse from what I hear), or direct entry to critical front line investigative posts from the inexperienced (since they cannot recruit any detectives from inside) then that is fine.

    Just don't come complaining when the cases start failing at court.

    Well, we won't. The job will throw the officers under the bus and make systemic fault actually an individual failure. it is a bit easier that way.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  10. Well, only the standards department looking for cops who post here to stick on.

    I can safely say The Job is Fucked now.

    giphy-downsized.gif
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1

  11. You're right. Much simpler and less fuss to dump the would be burglar's remains on some waste ground.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  12. MrBane

    MrBane LE Moderator Reviewer Reviews Editor

    Mmmm.... Just spotted this one. That's an incorrect statement for Scotland anyway. If someone makes a complaint, be it in person or via third party reporting, about something offensive that has been posted on Facebook / Twitter / anything online, then it falls under the Communications Act and we are required by law to take the complaint and progress it as normal. Most of it is down to perception of the complainer, there is very little scope for us to write it off as banter. In fact, none, and that would cost a cop his job if he tried to do that.

    We've had people making complaints to us who are in Australia, who read something they found offensive or obscene that was posted by someone in Scotland - still has to be fully investigated... :rolleyes:

    Put simply, swearing and verbally (or written, in this case) abusing someone online is no different from doing it in person.

    For example, this site - I genuinely look at this site and laugh / grimace at the amount of reportable crime taking place on it. You're all just lucky I'm shit at my job. :D

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2017
    • Like Like x 4
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. The criminologists have the theory that punishments aren't the things which deter crime, but instead the chances of getting caught. So, somewhere like Singapore which is almost a police state and hopping with under-employed coppers has very little crime because those few proto-criminals that do try anything get lifted almost instantly.

    The problem is that for this to work effectively, you need lots of police and not very much paperwork, combined with a court system that runs efficiently and quickly. You also need effective and quick punishments, which is where a lot of supposedly primitive countries seem to be doing it right. Six of the best from a cane tends to provide budding Moriarty criminals with a great disincentive to a life of crime.

    The key point is, there has to be a high chance of getting caught and preferably caught young, and the punishment has to follow the crime quickly and be fairly unpleasant for all of this to work. What you then get is actual learning going on; the proto-crim doesn't get any reward from their crime, but does get punished. That tends to teach even the thickest of the thick.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. MrBane

    MrBane LE Moderator Reviewer Reviews Editor

    Agreed with all of your post, but in reference to the above, that is where this country falls down.

    In the UK, again, specifically Scotland but it's across the country, Juvenile's (Under the age of 18) are never, ever held custody for an offence unless it's something along the lines of murder.

    So if you catch someone at age 15, who has just punched a random bystander to the face, they'll get taken home to the parents and given an Early Effective Intervention warning, which gets flagged up to partners such as social work services, etc.

    Nothing happens to them.

    The more serious offences may get referred to the Children's Panel, but they're toothless as well.

    I know of one lad who's 16 years old, and should really by now have around thirty to forty previous convictions, but has a clean record because the system doesn't understand that age is not a barrier to being a little shit.

    Also, our Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal service is so ineffective and backlogged, that a basic shoplifting case to the value of £80 can take two years to appear in court. I recently had one citation for a fairly serious sexual offence that happened four years ago.

    The whole system needs to be scrapped and built from the ground up, with more immediate punitive penalties such as on the spot fines, etc. The fines are good as they come straight out their benefits, so they notice that. Community service is a waste of time, as it's just a **** about.

    When I was in the barracks one day, I spotted two Turkish looking fellows in hi vis, picking up rocks from a demolished block and putting them in a skip. Turns out they were kiddy fiddlers doing payback service, but doing it with us. That's the way forward. Bring them into a disciplined organisation, put them under our care and let us use them for shit jobs around camp. They get pushed hard - the lad covering them was shouting at them and generally giving them a hard time, and we benefit directly at no cost to Joe public.

    Meh. Whole thing is a joke.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. Not sure I agree, we get juveniles being detained in custody all the time. Maybe 14, definitely enough 15 year olds going through. 10 is too young for anything less than a really serious crime. Remands or leaving them in the bin overnight are rare - they have to be dealt with asap, but age is not a barrier to being arrested.

    Your options are limited on the street, you can't spot fine them or do restorative justice without an appropriate adult, usually family; arrest is pretty much the only resolution. It's the bit afterwards - youth court, youth offending teams and all that where the system shakes.
     
    • Like Like x 1