You don't see bobbies on the beat any more?

[Mallard60022]

While out for my walk this morning a patrol car followed by 3 vans went up the road. A window cleaner stood there looking absolutely gob smacked commented to me that it was rare to see 1 never mind 4 together.

Special 'project' about to kick off?

P

[polybear]

Statistics show how highly unlikely it is for a patrolling 'beat bobby' to actually catch a burglar (or other villain) red handed.

.

Similarly, there are no accurate figures available to quantify how much crime is prevented by a patrolling 'beat bobby'.

.

 

However, a beat bobby who actually takes the effort to get to know the public well is surely best placed to get inside info on what the local scrotes are up to...?

[Mallard60022]

However, a beat bobby who actually takes the effort to get to know the public well is surely best placed to get inside info on what the local scrotes are up to...?

Local 'intelligence' was and sometimes still is, a valuable assett. Also, Traffic Officers where they remain in a dedicated team, usually catch more villains than CID, as those villains use vehicles or personal transport to commit crime. The daft arses playing silly ####### around estates and off road, that one sees on the TV shows as it makes exciting viewing I'm told, are just a small part of what they have to deal with.

Phil

[jjb1970]

I'm convinced based on my own sense of cynicism and distrust of many things that one reason the legal system effectively discourages people from reporting minor crime is that once people get the message that there's not much point reporting anything short of violent assault it will do wonders for crime stats. There has basically been a policy decision in this country to just accept low level crime, I think I've said this before but I find it quite eye opening that when I visit the US I don't see anything like the sort of low level anti-social behaviour in public that is common here (and god help anybody misbehaving in countries like Singapore). Sometimes I have to work late and take a late train home and the reason I wouldn't describe the train as being like a zoo is that I wouldn't want to insult animals, it's a rolling demonstration of the effects of over indulgence in alcohol. And passengers who are not drunk just have to keep their heads down and try and switch off to it (hence why I avoid late trains so far as is possible and use taxis to get home from airports if I land late in the evening to avoid it all). However, I think it is important to remember that the Police do not commit crime (well, not unless they're of a criminal bent themselves), the reason we need a Police service (I still prefer force) is because of those who commit crimes.

I have a lot of sympathy for the Police. The Police are not the CPS, they don't develop sentencing guidelines, they're not the Home Office, they're not responsible for anti-social behaviours etc but as the face of law and order they get a lot of the blame for deeper systemic issues which they are hardly responsible for.

[jjb1970]

And don't get me started on those dippy leaflets and offers of counselling to victims of crime. When I received a letter through the post with a leaflet and offer of counselling a couple of weeks after reporting a fairly minor crime I actually found to be almost like rubbing salt in a wound as it just represents so much that is wrong with the whole system.

[rob D2]

They have a hard job. They were at next doors in a heartbeat when our alcoholic resident got in his car and wiped out half the street.

I see a lot of PCSOs mainly on bikes.

 

The backlash they get mainly comes from being “ right on “. We had a spell for our local police FB Page to constantly harp on about LGBTQIwXyZ rights, gay pride parade and the fact they had had 350 sets on rainbow epaulettes made.

 

I don’t give a stuff what their sexual inclination is, but I want to see results against crime that’s all.

[rockershovel]

Greater Manchester police seem to be the “poster boys” for this sort of thing, publishing high-profile announcements about “treating assaults on goths and emos as hate crimes”

 

There was me, thinking that assault, threatening behaviour and the like were against the law anyway?

[Dick Turpin]

Sam Tyler - 'I think we need to explore whether this attempted murder was a hate crime.'

 

Gene Hunt - 'What as opposed to one of those I-really-really-like-you sort of murders?'

[10000]

Greater Manchester police seem to be the “poster boys” for this sort of thing, publishing high-profile announcements about “treating assaults on goths and emos as hate crimes”

 

There was me, thinking that assault, threatening behaviour and the like were against the law anyway?

 

Trying to out do the neighbouring Lancashire Police following on from the murder of Sophie Lancaster. 

 

Sophie's mother Sylvia does a lot of campaigning to have the law changed to include attacks on sub cultures classed as hate crimes.

[Purley Oaks]

Had the opportunity to chat with a policewoman on Friday and asked her about cuts to police numbers in the Edinburgh area.

 

She said that some police stations, such as Leith, had closed and that others had their police numbers halved to five police officers on duty. Sometimes these officers will be required in court to give evidence, so the number of available police officers drops further. Peripheral police stations around Edinburgh, which always used to be manned 24-hours, are now manned between 9 and 5 only, so anyone visiting a police station outwith these hours may or may not find a police officer on-site, depending on the number out on calls.

 

This was caused by government austerity measures which, you may recall, dates to the banking crash of 2007/8. Can't recall how many bankers have been banged-up as a result, can you?

 

Mal

Edited May 13, 2018 by Purley Oaks

[jjb1970]

The problem is that blaming government Austerity doesn't account for the long tail of administrative tasks which absorb so much time or the fact that a perception of law and order in this country becoming increasingly supine predated the 2008 financial crisis by many years. There is some sort of belief in many large organisations that their large and burdensome procedures and tails are some sort of fixed reality that cannot be changed rather than that they're there because they were chosen to be there. I think someone has already noted that there is a difference between being underfunded and not spending available funds to good effect. And at the risk of being labelled as a cynic and unfair I have long had the impression that chief constables are there because they know how to play the political game rather than any particular gifts in law enforcement. Many of the systemic issues in policing and law and order are the result of deliberate decision making.

And I would return to the point that the police don't make criminals. Those responsible for crime are those perpetrating crimes.

[rockershovel]

.... which brings us back to the issue of “hate crimes”. Reporting isn’t a free action, to use a computer game term.

 

You might well think that moping around wearing mascara and draped in a tatty black lace tablecloth is ridiculous, but it isn’t illegal. It IS illegal to congregate for the purpose of committing an affray (or whatever the exact term is), “putting in fear” or committing an assault. So is under-age drinking, including in public places.

 

The background to the Sophie Lancaster affair seems to involve most, if not all of the above. Surely the police have recourse to all necessary measures without such posturing?

Edited May 13, 2018 by rockershovel

[10000]

What you say about being enough measures already is true but that attack was so vicious and brutal it was clearly a hate crime.

 

Not because they were 'Goths', (that night they were not dressed in what most people would consider goth clothing) but because they were different to the scumbags that carried out the attack. Yes they were dressed differently to the 'Chav' uniform but also because they were intelligent educated individuals hoping to make something of there lives.  The things that the scum dispise because its not handed to them on a plate.

Edited May 13, 2018 by 10000

[Mike Storey]

What you say about being enough measures already is true but that attack was so vicious and brutal it was clearly a hate crime.

 

Not because they were 'Goths', (that night they were not dressed in what most people would consider goth clothing) but because they were different to the scumbags that carried out the attack. Yes they were dressed differently to the 'Chav' uniform but also because they were intelligent educated individuals hoping to make something of there lives.  The things that the scum dispise because its not handed to them on a plate.

 

That type of attack is nothing new, and still just as horrific. "Town and Gown" fights and individual attacks, have long been a feature in Cambridge - there is another side to Cambridge that the tourists rarely see, except when a home match is on. In Leeds, where my daughter once lived near Headingly, there were attacks/muggings/abuse on the local (mainly medical) students by the local scumbags almost every Friday and Saturday night. Indeed, my daughter, despite being a care worker with barely twopence to her name, nearly suffered the same fate on her way home from another 12 hour shift, fortunately losing only her phone, thanks to intervention by a pub security guard. Plod were quick to the scene (and were regularly seen patrolling), but the barstewards had long gone. I understand there have been/are similar problems in several other university towns/cities.

[jjb1970]

I fundamentally disagree with institutionalising hate crime as a distinct category of crime. I do think it is entirely appropriate for the circumstances of a crime to be considered when determining a sentence in the case of a guilty verdict but to me the criminal act is murder, rape, assault or whatever the charge might be in a particular case. Are the loved ones of a murder victim in some way less hurt because they can take comfort in the fact that their lost one wasn't murdered in a hate crime? Just as I really cringe whenever we see statements from the Police or politicians about a "particularly senseless murder", from which I guess we must infer that some murders must be quite reasonable.

 

I am always a bit cynical about attempts to extend the law and to dream up new laws and offences. I'll admit this cynicism is grounded in my experience of industrial health and safety and not the sort of offences that have been discussed in this thread but in almost every case of industrial incidents I've looked at closely existing laws and regulations that were already in force were completely sufficient if they'd been properly implemented and enforced. However to admit that calls into question the acts of enforcement agencies and of government departments who prioritise what those enforcement agencies should do hence it is a convenient fiction for government to decide there was a regulatory or legal gap to plug with some kneejerk new bit of law. As with procedures, if you can't be bothered to implement and enforce existing law (which in my experience tends to be more concise, comprehensible and easier to implement in any case) then why do people think dreaming up more laws is the answer?

[spikey]

Not that it will ever happen, but I've often wondered what difference it would make if we went back to alcohol being available from pubs and from off-licences. That seemed to work well enough before supermarkets were allowed to flog booze.

[10000]

Not that it will ever happen, but I've often wondered what difference it would make if we went back to alcohol being available from pubs and from off-licences. That seemed to work well enough before supermarkets were allowed to flog booze.

 

May help prevent underage drinking but I don't think it will stop alcohol related crime.

 

Even places where alcohol is available only from specific licensed stores and not from supermarkets and garages see alcohol related crime from those who have reached the legal age.

[jjb1970]

Seeing how we are on a whingefest about law and order, the police etc, one of my biggest whinges is idea of linking parole to admitting guilt. All that does is encourage the guilty to appear suitably contrite at the same time as placing the innocent victims of miscarriages of justice (and such people do exist) in an impossible position of having to choose between their integrity and remaining incarcerated or lying and admitting to a crime they didn't commit in order to get out of prison. Personally I think that is a totally messed up concept.

[kevinlms]

For police on foot, no doubt there will be plenty to see on Saturday around a certain wedding and also at Wembley. No shortage of overtime this weekend.

[Coryton]

Seeing how we are on a whingefest about law and order, the police etc, one of my biggest whinges is idea of linking parole to admitting guilt. All that does is encourage the guilty to appear suitably contrite at the same time as placing the innocent victims of miscarriages of justice (and such people do exist) in an impossible position of having to choose between their integrity and remaining incarcerated or lying and admitting to a crime they didn't commit in order to get out of prison. Personally I think that is a totally messed up concept.

 

Absolutely.

 

There can be little doubt that there are miscarriages of justice and that some percentage of people in prison are innocent.

 

There may not be much that can be done about that, but it should be possible not to set up systems that put innocent people at a disadvantage.

[brianusa]

I'm convinced based on my own sense of cynicism and distrust of many things that one reason the legal system effectively discourages people from reporting minor crime is that once people get the message that there's not much point reporting anything short of violent assault it will do wonders for crime stats. There has basically been a policy decision in this country to just accept low level crime, I think I've said this before but I find it quite eye opening that when I visit the US I don't see anything like the sort of low level anti-social behaviour in public that is common here (and god help anybody misbehaving in countries like Singapore). Sometimes I have to work late and take a late train home and the reason I wouldn't describe the train as being like a zoo is that I wouldn't want to insult animals, it's a rolling demonstration of the effects of over indulgence in alcohol. And passengers who are not drunk just have to keep their heads down and try and switch off to it (hence why I avoid late trains so far as is possible and use taxis to get home from airports if I land late in the evening to avoid it all). However, I think it is important to remember that the Police do not commit crime (well, not unless they're of a criminal bent themselves), the reason we need a Police service (I still prefer force) is because of those who commit crimes.

I have a lot of sympathy for the Police. The Police are not the CPS, they don't develop sentencing guidelines, they're not the Home Office, they're not responsible for anti-social behaviours etc but as the face of law and order they get a lot of the blame for deeper systemic issues which they are hardly responsible for.

 

It would appear that there is a distinct sub section of British men who over imbibe, make a nuisance of themselves on public transportation or in foreign countries particularly when associated with sporting events.  It used to be widely known that British men could hold their beer, apparently not so nowadays.  No doubt a lot of excuses are laid to lack of education and social skills, low wages or no jobs.  In days gone by, the 'bobby on the beat' would have been a deterrent but sadly the police force these days is faced with everything from governmental restraints to those who feel the need to be soft on crime, except perhaps when it happens to them.

The US has its own problems, maybe not the same but as can be seen from many TV news broadcasts, the same kind of violence but with guns rather than knives which makes it all the more dangerous and disturbing.

 

Brian.

[br2975]

However, a beat bobby who actually takes the effort to get to know the public well is surely best placed to get inside info on what the local scrotes are up to...?

 

Yes.

[pH]

The US has its own problems, maybe not the same but as can be seen from many TV news broadcasts, the same kind of violence but with guns rather than knives which makes it all the more dangerous and disturbing.

 

 

That was something I was very aware of when we first moved to Vancouver. I don't think the city has any more violent incidents than many British cities, but when you add guns to the mix, the results are different.  

[PatB]

Absolutely.

 

There can be little doubt that there are miscarriages of justice and that some percentage of people in prison are innocent.

 

There may not be much that can be done about that, but it should be possible not to set up systems that put innocent people at a disadvantage.

 

My standard response (when I can be bothered) to those who demand that it be made easier to find guilty/lock up those responsible for crimes of xyz nature is to ask what percentage of innocent people they are prepared to send to prison as a result of their desired changes. Because, like it or not, most of the safeguards in the Justice System which may be seen as obstacles to conviction/incarceration have been put in place as a result of the exposure of miscarriages of justice. IMHO it should be bl**#y difficult for the State to lock someone up, because, when you think about it carefully, the alternative is rather terrifying.

 

That said, whilst I don't support any reduction in things like burden of proof, and I'm certainly concerned about anything which puts at a potential disadvantage victims of miscarriages of justice, I do believe that those responsible for obtaining convictions should be given adequate resources in order to do so where appropriate. They should also be subject to such checks and audits as may be necessary to ensure that they exhibit the highest levels of integrity and competence.  I'm not sure how things stand in the UK, but I can think of a number of high-profile cases in WA over the last 20 years or so where what probably should have been a slam-dunk has fallen over because of gross incompetence or misconduct on the part of the authorities.* I can also think of at least one which almost certainly fell out as it did because the defendant knew/could afford better lawyers than the State could. Which is probably not particularly unusual I'll admit.

 

 

*All the ones that spring immediately to mind have been murders, which raises the rather unsettling prospect that either the authorities, by a combination of incompetence, under resourcing and, at worst, corruption, failed to gain a conviction against a guilty murderer, or, for the same reasons, subjected an innocent person to the stress, humiliation and, generally negative, life-changing effect of a trial for something they didn't do, whilst allowing whoever did to get away scot free.. Either way, there are people free in WA who really shouldn't be, and I don't think that reflects well on our Justice System. I'm fully aware that such things are not unique to WA, but, for a state with a population of ~2m we seem to punch well above our weight for such errors.

Edited May 14, 2018 by PatB

[jjb1970]

My standard response (when I can be bothered) to those who demand that it be made easier to find guilty/lock up those responsible for crimes of xyz nature is to ask what percentage of innocent people they are prepared to send to prison as a result of their desired changes. Because, like it or not, most of the safeguards in the Justice System which may be seen as obstacles to conviction/incarceration have been put in place as a result of the exposure of miscarriages of justice. IMHO it should be bl**#y difficult for the State to lock someone up, because, when you think about it carefully, the alternative is rather terrifying.

 

That said, whilst I don't support any reduction in things like burden of proof, and I'm certainly concerned about anything which puts at a potential disadvantage victims of miscarriages of justice, I do believe that those responsible for obtaining convictions should be given adequate resources in order to do so where appropriate. They should also be subject to such checks and audits as may be necessary to ensure that they exhibit the highest levels of integrity and competence.  I'm not sure how things stand in the UK, but I can think of a number of high-profile cases in WA over the last 20 years or so where what probably should have been a slam-dunk has fallen over because of gross incompetence or misconduct on the part of the authorities. I can also think of at least one which almost certainly fell out as it did because the defendant knew/could afford better lawyers than the State could. Which is probably not particularly unusual I'll admit.

Fully agree. When people complain about how hard it is to bang people to rights they tend to ignore the asymmetric nature of a court case in which the CPS have access to a whole armoury of state agencies, forensic labs and general resource versus the likes of people on this board. We have seen a couple of significant trials collapse recently because the prosecution failed to disclose evidence to the defence. One of these cases was concerned with sexual crimes and it doesn't matter how many times it is stated that the accused is innocent, there will be a body of people for whom there wouldn't have been smoke without fire and who will consider that he got off on some sort of technicality.

 

Unfortunately the whole debate tends to get polarised between extreme positions.