I am not blaming the CJS for causing there to be so many violent, nasty people; quite how we seem to have bred (and imported) so many of them is a different matter. But the reasons above explain why so many aren’t forced to change their ways , ie stop attacking people.
Because of the first point, thugs know they can attack strangers with very, very little chance of getting caught. They are also encouraged by the police’s famed tactic of heavily pursuing victims who attempt to defend themselves, often instead of going after the attacker. The reasons for this are simple: The police know that many people (although now ever decreasing) still see the police as being on their side, and as a result of this will be completely honest with the police, thus implicating themselves to what ever crime plod wants to stick on. For example a decent bloke who is violently attacked but manages to defend himself, who then reports the matter to the police will be asked to say what happened,
Decent bloke “he jumped me from behind and punched me in the back of the head, then tried to steal my mobile”
Plod “Oh yeah, what did you do?”
DB “I managed to land a good punch on his nose, then he ran off”
Plod (with detection signs in his/her eyes) “You are under arrest for ABH etc etc etc”
As more and more people are treated like this by the police, more and more won’t report attacks as they fear being criminalised themselves.
The thugs know this. They know that an ever growing proportion of people will not report the matter to the police, or will not attempt to fight back.
Cases like this also involve an amount of work, which is why desk sergeants and call handlers do all they can to discourage victims reporting them. The top reason for plod’s aversion to dealing with such crimes is that they take time and may not result in desired detections. Why waste time locking muggers up, when you can dish out PNDs for SMS-based rows in minutes; the result is the same – a detection!
The fact that one career scrounger in a free council house getting PNDed is of no benefit to society whereas a violent thief being arrested clearly is, is of no importance whatsoever in modern policing. As far as the police are concerned, 10 nonsense detections for nonsense crimes are far far FAR better than one for a real crime, with real victims.
A detection is a detection is a detection.
Point 2) to follow….
Ho hum. It took 13 posts but you finally rolled out your famous and repetitive rant.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the police are determined to fit people up for defending themselves - In fact, though they could never admit it, I suspect many officers are wishing you did a better job of it - but that's beside the point...
ReplyDeleteWhere you and I differ in our views Hibbo (and I'm not knocking them, coz I've heard them echoed by some very sensible people over the years) is that I do not think the police are out to get everyone all the time. What I do think though, and this is where we perhaps find common ground, is that they're not averse to doing this if they think you are a protestor, campaigner, or anyone else they don't happen to like... The police service has got very, very big problems - and seemingly lacks the balls to confront them.
Even then, it's *not* all of them. I've dealt with both bloody appalling and excellent coppers in the past.
What I think even those in the service would agree with us on is that the the whole "targets" culture creates more problems than it solves. Screw it. I don't want PC Bloggs totting up his monthly score - he / his superiors / the police authority should have a good idea where everyone is at in terms of performance...
It's depressing that some of things that would really help the police to regain the trust of the public - like engaging with the community, walking around - maybe having a chat to a gang of lads on the school field and NOT moving them on - don't appear in any of the targets. Targets by their very nature tend to get set against what is easy to measure, and not what actually matters.
Martin.
Martin is eloquent and generous but the treatment he suggests is analogous to redecorating a house whilst overlooking dry rot. The budget for wallpaper and paint has no priority.
ReplyDeleteFlooring must be stripped to facilitate examination and removal of all infected timbers/damp sources before reinstatement with sound materials.
Dr M T Gray
Concern4Justice
Anon 20:49, thank you for your observation.
ReplyDeleteAnd what part of my rant is untrue?
Martin, that's a fair one I suppose, but you're spot on with regards to the police having some very deep-rooted views that are just accepted.
and your evidence that "the majority of officers take that approach" is......?
ReplyDeleteHi Melv...
ReplyDeleteI'm not quite sure what you mean by the treatment I have suggested - could you explain?
I know that the police service has HUGE issues, and SWEEPING changes will be needed if it is to be fixed. Unfortunately, that will involve sweeping away a lot of people I would judge "unsuitable" for the role as well - and we are of course dealing with a unionised organisation that would fight all the way...
Doesn't mean the fight is not worthwhile though.
For me, the police need to focus the following - in order:
A/ Standards / Conduct.
B/ Accountablity to the public.
C/ Resourcing.
D/ Their image.
Martin
200,
ReplyDeleteThe fact that this type of carry-on goes on so much, is evidence that a majority of officers favour it.
If they did like it it wouldn't happen.
I don't like it but I understand it; "anything for a quiet life".
Martin,
I would put "getting their priorities in order" in the number one spot. Point D would then naturally follow. I'd also put C a bit higher...
So that's no evidence at all then...
ReplyDelete200
ReplyDeleteHere's your problem. I'm a law abiding person, professional, respected by many, and *I* don't think Hibbo's views are necessarily that far from the mark...
I can't be sure it's the majority, but I'm confident it's a hell of a lot more than 10%
Martin.