Monday, August 25, 2008

Guest Blog: What's The Point of The Police?

By Jonathan Sheppard

Last Tuesday I went to bed a normal person. By 6:00am the following morning I had joined a growing band of people who are known as being "victims of crime". Ok so mine was no biggie, but I still feel violated and angry that someone has dared to come on my property and take something of mine. Some little toe rag had entered my car parked two feet from my front door ransacked the boot and glove compartment and swiped my SatNav.

What to do? Well we needed to get to the station to head of to work and 10 minutes later we called the police. My wife was asked her name, ethnic minority, what job she had, and what car we drove amongst other pointless things including our address and we were told someone would be in touch. How naïve of me to expect a visit that evening from all those police we hear are making our streets safer.

Two days later – yes two days later - we get a call from a PC from a police station 20 miles away to finally give us a crime number. They apologise for the delay – but say they are behind in following up on committed crimes – something I'm sure all criminals will be delighted to hear.

We asked if anyone else has had anything broken into or stolen in an attempt to try to determine if it was part of a gang hitting the estate. No we were told. We ask are we likely to hear or see a police representative and are told it's unlikely.

Now at that point I suddenly concluded the police are just a pointless organisation. Is it too much to ask for a uniformed officer to visit someone who is a victim of crime? Funny how they had plenty of time to pull my wife over earlier in the year while driving to the station at 6:00am to breathalise her and then let her go on her way as they thought she may have been speeding. That's easy to do. Visiting a victim of crime and actually trying to solve it seems to be too much trouble.

That would have been the end of it had a neighbour not popped over to tell us the local paper had a small piece about someone else on the street who apparently also had things stolen on the same night.

So we do no less than call the police and ask why when we had asked if anyone else had been victims, had we been told no. First of all we were told there was no record of any other incident. When we point out it is in the local paper we are told that it is up to the public to link crimes. Funny – I really thought a detectives job may have been to detect things. Maybe I was wrong.

So now I am angry and ask for someone to call us back. Hours later a police constable calls and I yet again have to go through the whole story and say how I am pretty disgusted that now 4 days have gone and we have seen no uniformed officer given the police station is less than a mile away. She tried to fob me off, and then calls back a few hours later and leaves a message saying they were under the impression we didn't want to see anyone. Quite frankly I am nothing short of being disgusted as to how the police treat victims of crime.

They police spend more time collating useless information for their useless monitoring forms than doing real police work.

If they are behind in their work they don't send anyone out to see you. That means as a victim you clean up whatever mess the criminal has left – which means they will NEVER send anyone out as they will say they will then have no useable evidence. For them that then closes the case.

They don't even know what crimes have been committed where and furthermore think you the ordinary citizen should be doing the detective work for them.

My respect for the police has reached an all time low, and what makes me sad is I know my story is probably happening all over the country. Recorded crime will only be dropping because people like me will no longer see any point whatsoever in informing the police when a crime is committed.

The system now has to change to ensure victims of crime see police as a matter of course. Surely this isn't too much to ask? If that doens't happen, more and more people will begin to question what the purpose of our police force actually is.

Jonathan Sheppard is editor of Tory Radio.

88 comments:

Victor, NW Kent said...

We should question why the standard of public services appears to decrease in inverse proportion to the increase in taxation.

The police no longer attend theft from motor vehicles or vandalism. They do not investigate credit card crime either. In that way statistics can be produced proving that crime is dropping.

Paul Pinfield said...

Last November our office was broken into by three female ex-employees. They ransacked the office, caused £17,000 of damage to our telephone system, and stole £7,000 of Apple Mac computers. All of this was caught on video. All of them were arrested, the computers were recovered.

Statements were taken... err, that's it. They were not prosecuted and we were never told what was happening or why they were not going to be prosecuted.

If anything else happens, I will deal with it myself...

judith said...

On the night of the 7/7 atrocities, I was telephoned, addressed by my full name and had death threats issued to me by a man with a genuine Pakistani accent.

I called the police on my mobile while the landline was still open, and was told they had no means of tracing the call; I was given a crime number and told to call again if the threat recurred (it didn't).

I was later told by a retired Police Officer that 'of course they can trace the call, they couldn't be bothered'.

Man in a Shed said...

Victor has a good point. The underlying problem is New Labour's insistence on living the narrative and ignoring evidence and facts that don't fit - and of course punish those who point them out. Hence ministers are told crime is dropping since they have insisted police forces tell them that ( by targets etc ).

The police have become politicised and subverted by issues such as political correctness and more subversive elements such as Common Purpose. ( I saw the logo "Building communities" on a local police car recently - it should have been preventing crime and catching criminals ).

I had a similar experience with the back window of my car smashed in. ( A problem that took me a whole day and a half to resolve including taking my children by bus and train to another town which had the window in stock ).

Police response ? A leaflet on victim support. The council tax for police in Surrey rose by c49% last year.

Anonymous said...

Paul Pinfield. I can only assume that all three made full admissions to the offences and had no previus convictions which made them eligible to be dealt with by means of a caution/warning or reprimand depending on their age.At any rate you should have been informed at the time as to how they were going to be dealt with, this is part of the Victims Charter and something the Police MUST do, my own force place sgreat emphasis on it. I would make a formal complaint to your particular force, write to the Chief Constable in fact.

javelin said...

The deep problem with the police is politicial interference. Intuition has been replaced with procedures, forms, rules and regulations. They run like clockwork, like clockwork trains, they are late, inflexible and run on rails. To the senior officers they run correctly, they simply can't see they are not delivering even the basic services. They give up on drug crime and car crime.

The Tories need to sweep away a generation of police officers - that's the top-3 tiers as soon as possible. The most senior police officer should be voted in like a major. They are expensive, looking to strike and target the middle classes. If the police really want to run on rails they could be replaced by mothers who are looking to go back to work. I'm sure they would do a better job with victims.

The message from the Tories shouldn't be more police, but lets replace the police with street officers and office workers.

john miller said...

I think that the person who gave you the crime number was not a PC.

We had a gang doing exactly what happened to you, but on a regular basis...

They would arrive in the early hours of a Monday morning (!) and break into cars. The person who dispensed the crime number over the telephone was a civilian.

After the third "run", a neighbour heard his car being broken into and ran after the youth, who jumped into a white van at the end of the cul de sac, and his partner in crime behind the wheel drove off. the neighbour only got the three letters of the number plate.

Until this time no policeman had visited the scene of the crime, even though by this time half a dozen vehicles had been broken into by the same pair.

It was when the police said that they were unable to trace the white van because the witness had not got the full registration number that I really did lose faith in them.

The crimes ceased after that night, but I don't think it was much to do with the police.

The next contact our family had with the "police" was when my 19 year old son was stopped carrying a carrier bag with four cans of lager in it. The Community Support officer asked for his ID, which my son produced. His two friends were under 18 and on this basis the "officer" opened the cans and poured the contents down the drain. His excuse was that my son would share the beer with his friends. My son would not lodge a complaint, as this "officer" was well known for such behaviour and was likely to cause trouble for all the youngsters if aggravated. And it was at that point that the entire Miller family lost any respect whatsoever for the "police"

Ron Todd said...

I was mugged once. held on to my money but was peeing blood for weeks after.

Calling the police was a total waste of time.

I suspect that anybody tying to protest outside Downing Streer would see a much quicker police reaction.

Annabel H. said...

I am a neighbourhood watch coordinator. I have downloaded stuff to deliver round my patch from the police. Instructions to never ever leave your satnav anywhere in your car. You also have to remove the sticky disk from the windscreen, and clean underneath it. It seems the local scroats go looking for the disk/holder on the windscreen, and will ransack the car to find the satnav. They target the glove compartment first, then go through the car, causing damage as they go.
Even if you have taken the satnav indoors, your car will still be vandalised while they are looking, as they see the holder/marks on the windscreen.
Personally, I'm sticking to a good road map, and leaving enough time to get lost at my actual destination.
Totally agree with Javelin. The country needs to go back to good old fashioned policing, no matter how politically incorrect, and no matter how expensive.

Anonymous said...

My nephew lives in South London. He is frightened to go out of the house and to school because he has been attacked and robbed repeatedly by a local gang of youths.

Like the boy who fell to his death escaping a gang last week my nephew has to constantly take similar extreme evasive measures such as taking a hour long bus journey around the estate so he can come down the other road that the gang does not control.

Surely the police know about the gang but nothing is done. My nephew has had his education and his life ruined by these people.

I have a friend who used to be a police special constable. Her husband is a police inspector. She says quite openly that the vast majority of police officers are lazy. She knows most of the local police force so I guess she knows first hand.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

The Police are great, what would we do, do, do, da, da, da without them? Roxanne would never have seen the light of day. We'd never have gone walking on the moon ... oh, I see what you mean.

Yeah, they're bloody useless. I've had plenty of arguments with actual live policemen on forums (where I seem to encounter many more of them than, say, on the street or in the business of preventing or solving crime) and they keep telling me that they "don't have the resources to fight crime or bobby on the beat."

They tell me that they never attend car radio thefts or similar crimes because they have "more effective ways of catching the criminals". No, really!

I point out that even if by some miracle they caught the scrote (and banged him up with a severe ASBO or community service order), I'd never feel a sense of justice because they have no proof that it was my car he did.

Somehow they have no answer to that, but hey, who cares? You're only a member of the public. Don't ever try telling a policeman that you pay his salary, either -- it offends the poor mites.

Someone I know of was involved in a hit and run with an uninsured driver. He had the registration number of the driver and gave it to the police. Despite the highly-regarded ANPR, that car has never been found, the driver has never been caught. If he'd driven past a camera at speed, he would have had his front door kicked in at 4AM by heavily armed police.

As I blogged here, they seem to be jumped-up little Hitlers who don't even know the law. Jock Coats shows that they are quite unpleasant in the business of harassing arbitrary members of the public in the name of "protecting us from terrorism."

Crime statistics are regarded as a politically-inspired joke. Chief Constables seem to be far more interested in appearing as New Labour appratchiks than doing anything about crime, especially that Blair twat.

In summary: they are lazy, arrogant, unapproachable when we need them, draconian when they what to do something to us, holier-than-thou and do nothing to make people feel like they're tackling crime.

The whole thing needs to be scrapped completely and restarted on Peelian principles. (And I'm sorry to say, Iain, I don't think it's going to get any better under the Tories, given Dominic G's latest waffling on the subject.)

Anonymous said...

Jonathan Sheppard's and everyone else's stories have one thing in common. The police involved are never named and therefore can never be held accountable. Until we elect police chiefs who can be sacked i.e. voted out, our only recourse is to name at least the police station involved.

Bob Peel said...

This isn't new - it's been going on for years. If an offender for something such as burglary, particularly where no violence has been used, has no chance of being apprehended the police will not really bother to investigate too much,its too much paperwork for very little result, and as far as the "victim" is concerned I suspect if it wasn't for the fact that they needed a crime reference no. for an insurance claim they wouldn't bother to report it either and let's face it - in the unlikely event the police actually do catch someone the offender will get off with a few hours community service or a caution which is regarded as a "professional hazard" and be back thieving again pretty quickly
Welcome to Britain in 2008 - "Tough on Crime - tough on the causes of crime !"

Patrick said...

Of course the Nu-Labour answer to this is national id cards.

Which wont solve anything apart from criminalising those who dont or wont carry them. While those who live outside the law will carry on regardless.

Mitch said...

Try leaving your bin in the street with the lid up and you will soon see the full weight of the law descend.
The only reason to phone the police is to get a crime number for the insurance claim.

Anonymous said...

Don't blame the police for this. It says all over Tom Tom boxes, "DO NOT LEAVE THIS IN YOUR CAR." Citizens need to show some responsibility. It's a bit like jumping in front of a tube and then suing London Underground for damages.

Paul said...

Another day, yet another uninformed attack on the Police Service on this blog. It's not the criminals who are criticised. It's not the Government who are criticised. It's not the CPS who are criticised. Its the one group of people who actually put their necks on the line to deal with crime that take the heat.

Does Mr Sheppard have a constructive contribution to make to the safety of his community? Apparently not. Does he play an active part in making his community safer? No - he is apparently minded to let others do it for him whilst he blogs about it. Jonathan Sheppard's embarrassing self-pity highlights how dependent on the state we have now become.

As Conservatives we need to start supporting our police, not just endlessly demanding from them. We need to understand what Robert Peel meant when he said that the police are the public and the public are the police. We each need to take some responsibility for the safety of our communities. We are the party of law and order. Labour have let the service down time and again. But before we're even in office, we're attacking the service too. This kind of uninformed rant plays to the lazy stereotypes of the mass media and cheapens the spirit of Conservatism.

Let's be clear - Sheppard would have a lot more to pity himself for after a couple of days deprived of the services of the brave and dedicated men and women comprising the thin blue line between the law abiding public and the criminal element.

JuliaM said...

"My respect for the police has reached an all time low..."

Every time I say that, the very next day I read something that causes it to sink lower...

But read a few of the police blogs out there and you realise there's a lot that are just as fed up. They aren't able to do anything about it either.

"Don't blame the police for this. It says all over Tom Tom boxes, "DO NOT LEAVE THIS IN YOUR CAR." Citizens need to show some responsibility. It's a bit like jumping in front of a tube and then suing London Underground for damages."

actually, it's nothing like it. Owning a satnav (or any other nickable item) isn't a crime, unlike jumping in front of a tube train. Obviously the quality of anonymous trolls is going down as fast as the respect for the police...

Did like the 'citizens' touch, though. Is that you, Sir Ian Blair..?

JuliaM said...

"Another day, yet another uninformed attack on the Police Service on this blog."

"As Conservatives we need to start supporting our police, not just endlessly demanding from them."

No-one's endlessly demanding that they do anything other than their JOBS. It might be nice if they did them before arresting innocent men for rape, frankly.

"Let's be clear - Sheppard would have a lot more to pity himself for after a couple of days deprived of the services of the brave and dedicated men and women comprising the thin blue line between the law abiding public and the criminal element."

I'm not sure how he'd see a difference, frankly...

javelin said...

Actually - what are those stupid adverts that say - don't use your phone in public, lock your door, etc, etc In otherwords "Our society is SO broken you can't talk to your friends without the risk of getting mugged".

I don't blame the junior or middle ranking officers, it's the senior officers who need stringing up for selling out to the politicians. Replace the regional senior officers with elected representatives and keep national politics out the local police.

JuliaM said...

"Does Mr Sheppard have a constructive contribution to make to the safety of his community? Apparently not. Does he play an active part in making his community safer?"

Actually, as a taxpayer, he does all those things, buy paying through the nose. He's complaining that he isn't getting what he pays for.

Are you suggesting he isn't entitled to complain..?

Jonathan Sheppard said...

PAul - yes I do plenty to make my community I report crimes to the police when I see them being committed but never see an officer in the area. I hav gone down to the police station and been told most officers are in Nottingham.

Should I do something myself. You mean like Tony Martin did. Funny how one of his "victims" walks round Newark on a daily basis.

There is no self pity Paul - but given all the other comments hear do you not think there is a serious issues about crimes against property not being taken seriously.

Funnily enough a few weeks ago all the grates were stolen from the ground. Then a gang (and they tried mine when parked someowhere else in Newark) has gone around stealing catalytic converters to sell to scrap metal dealers. Should I stop up until 2 or 3 am and collect teh evidence of those thefts.

Sorry Paul - thats the purpose of the police. Yes we rely on them and yes they are paid for by the state, and yes some do a good job. My issue is I never see them when crimes have been committed - so please tell me the purpose of reporting them???

Jonathan Sheppard said...

And as for solutions.

1) Split traffic cops from normal cops. Like teh highway patrol in the US. The traffic cops will be disliked as they will give tikckets allowing us to have some faith that the "real police" or solving crimes not handing tickets out.

2) Any job that can be done by a civilian should be. No point training up someone to solve crimes if they never do.

3) Get rid of all the nonesense targets so police can visit victims of crime.

4) Stop having to patrol in pairs - so at least more communities can see police

5) A discount on your council tax if you actively take part in neighbourhood watch.

How about that for some suggestion Paul??? What are yours?

Not a sheep said...

Juliam: "Actually, as a taxpayer, he does all those things, buy paying through the nose. He's complaining that he isn't getting what he pays for. Are you suggesting he isn't entitled to complain..?"
Under New Labour your only entitlement is to to pay tax and keep quiet. Anything else is in the gift of the government.

jac said...

This "don't leave stuff in the car it's all your own fault" stuff is NONSENSE. Do the people writing that themselves routinely break into other people's cars to see what they can steal? No? Neither do I - because I am not a thief. I wouldn't know if my neighbours had the Crown Jewels in their car boots because I AM NOT A THIEF.

Some people are, however, and I agree that sensible precautions are - sensible. But not taking said precautions does not make crime the fault of the victim.

Why are there so many thieves around, I wonder. Could it be because they have learned there's very little chance of being caught because the Police don't care about detecting and preventing crime?

There's a whole tier of senior Police Officers in this country who are interested only in their careers and the next rung on the ladder - and sucking up to politicians is the way to ensure promotion.

The current bunch in Government are interested only in pretending crime is down when it isn't - and there's lots of senior Officers keen to help.

I never used to think this, but now I think electing senior Police Officers is the way to go - if they don't do their jobs - vote them out. Proper accountability mind, no Government interference.

Anonymous said...

@ Johnathan Sheppard

1:) Roads Policing Units/Traffic Units are already seperate from the officer's you are mostly likely to meet, namely Community or Response officers. You can tell by the white hats.

2:) Most of these jobs already are being done by civilians - and other jobs as well. Such as telling us we've ticked a box wrong, or reminding us our latest victim has a suntan, and as such could be a victim of racism.

3:) Get rid of nonsense targets. I fully agree, they're a waste of time. Get rid of Ethical Crime Recording as well, and let us go back to using our discretion.

4:) No. Recruit more, and get the office jobs disbanded and put back on Community/Response. Although Officer's in England are single crewed fairly often (from what I hear) it does increase the risk level to that officer. Officers in Scotland will probably never be single crewed as a matter of course, as Scots law requires corrobation to each incident, and so Officer's are double crewed for 95%+ of their time.

5:) A decent idea. It's a good start is what I'll say. I read/comment on IDD with a different name, and I do enjoy the majority of pieces. And I agree that the Police need reform, and that there's a lot of lazy officers out there. But blaming us, on the street, for the faults of the SMT and the lazy coppers is not the stance a Conservative government would do well with. The Labour government are both clueless about crime, and clearly don't like the Police (I'm a hobby bobby, so I don't get paid, but I'm rather glad that when I finish university and go FT my salary is written by Mr. Salmond) and a Tory government can afford to be neither if they wish to do well tackling crime.

So, for starters: Remove targets and Ethical Criming. The idea that a MOP 'thinking' a crime has been committed means a crime has been committed is ludicrous when many of the people phoning the police are drunk, daft, or looking to get their giro reported as stolen.

For seconds, any further policy should be formulated by: http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/

and his colleagues :)

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Another day, yet another uninformed attack on the Police Service on this blog. It's not the criminals who are criticised. It's not the Government who are criticised. It's not the CPS who are criticised. Its the one group of people who actually put their necks on the line to deal with crime that take the heat.

Actually, you creeping apologist for utter incompetents, my complaints were pretty clearly about police not doing anything that would get as far as the CPS.

Anonymous said...

As a boy (I'm 60 now) I was bought up to look at a police constable with respect, even awe. After all this was a person who was there to protect me and my family. - What happens now? - See a crime being committed, say nothing or you will most likely be arrested - watch a ferrel youth attacking someone - what ever you do DON'T interfere - you will most likely be arrested - being attacked or burgled yourself? - don't bother, it will take days for some scrawny 5ft slip of a girl to call out if they can be bothered at all - best thing to do is let the dears be left alone to look after all the politically correct work they have to do in triplicate at the behest of Gordon Broon and his NuLabour cretins - Now at 60 I'm ashamed of our Police Service and its NuLab enforcers - Iain please don't let them have my email address or I'll end up in jail - I'm bound to have broken a number of NuLab laws just writing this!

JuliaM said...

"Under New Labour your only entitlement is to to pay tax and keep quiet. Anything else is in the gift of the government."

It certainly seems that way, doesn't it? And with people like 'paul' enabling that attitude, we aren't going to be any better off if the Conservatives DO get in..!

"...not taking said precautions does not make crime the fault of the victim. "

Very true. I wonder how many of the people who routinely raise that issue squealed like stuuck pigs when a sexual assault victim's compensation was reduced recently because she was drunk..?

Anonymous said...

I was a victim of crime like the guest blogger's. I didn't get to see a Police Officer. But about two weeks after I reported the crime one of Blunkett's Bobbies (a police community support officer) came round. To be honest I felt worse after she called. I'm paying her wages and gold plated public sector pension to basically do nothing about solving crime - just fill in pointless paperwork and insult victims of crime. About a week after she called I got a call from the police asking me how much it had cost to repair the damage to my car and if I'd found out who'd carried out the crime. I said that I didn't and went on to tell them about other recent crimes in my area. The police officer on the phone took offence at this and said "this is just a courtesy call, I didn't call to hear about this" and put the phone down.

Anonymous said...

Want your day ruined? - just watch this! - and you wonder why all respect is being lost for our Police Service when this type of bullying is going on - What happened to PC Dixon


http://obotheclown.blogspot.com/2008/08/utterly-depressing.html

mac said...

" . . . statistics can be produced proving that crime is dropping". Quite so, Victor (9.04), it's yet another New Labour 'achievement'. This morning on Today Lord Hunt repeated shrilly that "everyone (sic) accepts that crime is down by a third". Yes, minister, whatever you say minister . . . The fantasy world inside the bunker gets ever more ridiculous.

Dave said...

Gosh, how much was the satnav worth? £99 or one of the really expensive ones? Up to £500?
Well don't leave it in your bloody car then!

Serf said...

We need Elected Police Chiefs, all the rest is pointless commentary.

Anonymous said...

socialism has ruined this country - we are broken society - cameron, osborne and grayling ar right about that - we are broken and this just proves it. The olympics is a con - whatever BoJo says we are a broken society

Wallenstein said...

Hurrah! Another attempt to use a single anecdote to prove a generality.

When a neighbour threatened me and my student housemates a couple of years back, the police were round in minutes and sorted him out. Never any bother after that.

So there you go... the police are doing a great job, based on that single incident.

We can go on comparing anecdotes as much as we like, but ultimately you're trying to prove a negative.

How many times have the police prevented someone nicking stuff from your estate? How many times have potential criminals seen a police patrol near your house and thought twice?

Or how about the fact you're alive today to type your rant is because of the bloke the police pulled over for drunk driving last week.

Was your lawnmower nicked last month? If not it's because the police caught the gang of theives six months ago before they could make it round to your estate. Did you write a post congratulating them on a job well done? No? Why's that then?

And so on. Anyway, what exactly would you expect the police to do when they come round? "Dust the car for prints"? Organise a citizens' milita to search the local area? Use those funky UV lights they have in CSI to detect traces of blood in the back seat?

Yes it's horrible to have stuff nicked, but sending PC Plod over to calm your outraged middle-class nerves isn't going to bring your sat-nav back.

Andrew Woodman said...

The trouble is Wallenstein, it's not a single anacdote because it's normal practise as other comments on here have proved. It is standard now for police to fail to attend many indicents and just to issue crime numbers for insurance purposes (and what kind of insurance fraud is going on due to that system).

We need elected police chiefs so the public has someone to go to when they're unsatisified, and someone who is accountable.

Paul said...

Hi Jonathan

I must begin with an apology, as I think I was too fiery with my first response. I was maddened by seeing yet another media attack on the police force. I work regularly with the police and see the sacrifices that are made to protect people and the frustrations that officers have with the system. But the only time officers get praised in the national media these days it seems is when they are killed or seriously injured on duty. That doesn't excuse my excessive rantiness though, so apologies to you.

With my thinking hat on, my main issue with your post is that the problems you believe are police issues originate higher up the chain, not with the force. If the CPS won't throw its weight behind prosecuting a crime, what's the point of chasing it? If there aren't enough prison places, why would the CPS choose to prosecute? Police resources are slim and people are reluctant to pay more for the service. It doesn't make sense to throw limited resources at a fruitless task. It is wrong to level all of the criticism at the police for this - their hands are tied by the systems around them and ultimately the Government that oversees it all. Believe me when I say that people do not join the service to let criminals off the hook, but this is the world we live in, and I hope that the next Conservative government shows some backbone and takes the measures necessary to get the system working properly in the interests of everyone who isn't a criminal.

In terms of solutions, if I were to change one thing about policing, it would be the public's relationship to the service. I think people need to think honestly about what they expect against how much they are really willing to give. In addition, law-abiding people must accept that the process of preventative policing will occasionally affect them (ie being breathalysed). Roads policing is a good example - it is sadly a very serious area of police work that affects more people than any other. More serious unfortunately than is generally understood. 2940 people died last year on our roads, a huge number which is significantly bigger than the number of people murdered each year. Breathalysing people, punishing speeding motorists and dangerous drivers - this is saving lives and penalising dangerous crimes. The police are absolutely right to concentrate on this clear danger to public safety and I think the occasional breathalyser stop is a price well-worth paying, but public intolerance to this seems to be enormous.

Having a uniformed officer visit every victim of crime is a good idea, one from personal experience that I would welcome. But it would cost serious money. If you're a London resident, the Met has around 30,000 officers to serve 6m people 24/7. The ratio is even worse outside - for example the force Man in a Shed mentioned - Surrey - has about 1900 officers to cover 1m people. If you wanted those officers to visit every victim of crime you would deprive response and area policing of a substantial slice of its manpower. That is not to mention all of the specialist functions that would also have to be stripped of manpower - counter-terrorism, child protection, roads policing etc.

Cost-wise, realistically you would be looking at a significant increase in spend and recruitment to get anywhere near what you propose. That means increases in precept, NNDR contributions and central funding. Are we ready to pay more? Its just not going to happen, because public prioritisation doesn't work that way. Mending the roof is not a priority when the sun is shining, and people who aren't victims of crime are not likely to want to fund something they think only happens to other people.

To close, I suppose the point of the police is the same as the point of the civil service - to try and protect the public from the decisions of politicians.

Kerron said...

Perhaps they just couldn't find your house - directions aren't always the strong point of the police. :-/

http://kerroncross.blogspot.com/2008/08/if-you-want-directions-dont-ask.html

Anonymous said...

I was recently visiting London and witnessed an incident. It was a hit and run where a driver reversed crashing into a Mercedes and then knocking over three motorcycles before driving off..

So I called 999 and reported it. The operator was a civilian. She was very helpful and then asked for a London contact address. I didn't have one - i was a visitor and going home next morning. In that case she said she was sorry but her system was programmed that it wouldn't let her take the report. She needed an address in London. She was about to give up but i was really angry so I simply gave her a false address. That allowed her to input it.

About 20 mins later I had a call from a police officer in the local station. They were very efficient and had already traced the driver and were dealing with the incident. HE recorded a statement from me over the phone and I explained the address issue. He laughed and thanked me for persisting.

Throughout this it was clear that the operator and the officer were doing their best. What frustrated them and me was a system deliberately designed not to accept reports from visitors.

What a criminal way to keep down crime figures

moraviandwarf said...

Sneak thief crept into the house and stole my wife's handbag, took two days for a policeman to call-- followed by an offer of 'victim support' counselling. A month later we saw a rat in the garden and the council had a man there inside two hours to lay poison. Obviously human vermin have a lower priority.

Anonymous said...

One of the big problems with this is the Home Office and the Inspectorate.

Studies show that police only detect a small % of crime so forces are encouraged to only send resources where there's a good chance of a quick arrest.

Attendance at scenes or time spent on forensics is regarded as inefficient or wasted resources and the Inspectors of Constabulary used to specifically look at this and forced many forces away form attending more crime scenes.

The problem is that without basic investigations criminals then never get caught and there is no deterrence, so why shouldn't they just carry on thieving. The Service also lost sight of the fact that it is a Service and should be delivering a service standard that its customers expect. That includes visiting scenes, offering support and advice and at least trying to reassure.

Chief Officers will argue that they cannot do this within current budgets. But if you then look at what they are doing there is a lot of slack in the system but its currently filled by bureaucracy and inefficient admin systems.

yarnesfromhorsham said...

It seems to me that Government in its many inept forms - I include the Poice - are really only capable of dealing with "soft targets". Real problems are a bridge too far.

Colin said...

All I can say is welcome to reality Britain...

Beachhutman said...

You're luck you weren't charged for endangering the crook by making him force the car open. Until 1997 (umm, what happened then?) we had largely "Policing by consent". But the police are now an arm of the labour party, helping them get to targets, so consent was abandoned along with clause 4. Then of course are the thought crimes (disapproving of gay lib leaflets in a library is apparently worthy of a caution) and terrorism (wearing "stuff Blair" tee shirts) and public order offenses (reading aloud on the cenotaph. The police (collectively) have been corrupted.

Anonymous said...

What a silly question.
The Police Service is an organisation designed to hoover up large sums of council taxpayers money.
This money is then used in two ways;
1) To relentlessly pursue people who commit "automatically solved" crimes, such as speed camera victims.
2)To fund an extremely generous pension scheme.

Question. When did you last hear of a policeman staying on to the official retirement age ???

Anonymous said...

What a silly question.
The Police Service is an organisation designed to hoover up large sums of council taxpayers money.
This money is then used in two ways;
1) To relentlessly pursue people who commit "automatically solved" crimes, such as speed camera victims.
2)To fund an extremely generous pension scheme.

Question. When did you last hear of a policeman staying on to the official retirement age ???

Bill said...

RE: >>The police are absolutely right to concentrate on this clear danger to public safety and I think the occasional breathalyser stop is a price well-worth paying, but public intolerance to this seems to be enormous. <<

Yes, it would be, if it was either sensible or justified, and that explains the intolerance. At Christmas the police break the overtime bank, and send out messages to motorists saying "You are a probably a criminal!" They then prove, through incorrectly identifying as drunk 97% of drivers they stop, that the whole exercise is to scare drivers and is pointless, and admit in the new year that the exercise was largely pointless, as in their regions positive stops go up and down randomly. There is no "hard core" to catch and actually the most drink drive accidents occur in long summer evenings and do not involve repeat offenders aka "HARD CORE OF Motorists".If the police would stop lying about seasonal drink drive statistics, pretending a dirty tail equates to a drunk driver, and accusing all drivers of potential criminality but only at Christmas, they would find they were more appreciated. Oh, and they could also try going back to actively policing the roads instead of just looking at pictures.

Wallenstein said...

Beachhutman... policing by consent stopped in 1997?

Many would say the police lost the support of the public when they became Maggie's henchmen during the minors' strike.

Or when they acted as Rupert Murdoch's private security firm at Wapping.

Or when John Major decided to use the police to clamp down on people dancing in fields (obviously worth more of the police's time than the IRA).

Don't pretend that Tories are above using the police as political footballs... a lot of the distrust for the police from my generation started in 1994, when Major / Howard decided those naughty ravers were the nation's number one threat (as if!) and set the police on 'em.

Yak40 said...

Where's Paul Kersey when you need him ?

Dirty Harry would do too, at least he'd take action.

Yak40 said...

P.S. Cops do sometimes take action don't they ?

After all they showed those Countryside Alliance rowdies where to get off tho' couldn't be bothered to interfere with the incitement to murder shown in the "cartoon" demo, have to respect the intolerant after all, Sir Ian said so.

JuliaM said...

"Where's Paul Kersey when you need him ?"

Too macho for the modern society. We have Jodie Foster now...

Andrew Efiong said...

Welcome to the real world!

No dount if you are an MP or minister, the slightest crime is taken seriously by the police. But for the rest of us, forget it...

I've not bothered to report some crimes precisely because the police response wastes of my time, they show almost no inclination to help. Indeed, once they've given you the crime number and asked you a couple of questions about your ethic background, this counts as investigating the crime. No visiting the scene to look for DNA, fingerprints, footprints etc.

I only report crimes now when my insurance company needs the crime number for the paperwork.

Too often I see our police force wafting around inside flash BMWs and Range Rovers or tracking people by CCTV, they've lost all contact with the real world.

Like so many public servants these days, they seem to forget that they are there to serve.

JuliaM said...

"The police are absolutely right to concentrate on this clear danger to public safety..."

Oh, won't someone think of the chiiiilllldreeeennn! No need to worry, 'paul', they are doing stuff for themselves nowadays...

"To close, I suppose the point of the police is the same as the point of the civil service..."

Now you're talking! We need a lot, lot less of them wasting public money and costing us a fortune in pensions too...

mirtha tidville said...

Firstly to anon @ 2.19pm ``When did you last hear of a Policeman staying on until the official retirement age?``

Well ME and this day and age almost all of them.I waiting 5 years after retirement to get index linking as well by the way. No grumbles, no complaints those were the rules.

Its true both parties have to some extent used the Police, one way or another, but never in the 30 years I was in did I ever see it corrupted, abused, manipulated and destroyed like I have with this shower of Labour shit.The Old Labourites did repect the Police and their independance and must be turning in their graves. Former Labour Chief Whip Bob Mellish had a son in the Police.The only thing Nu Lab have in the Police is their fingers......

There are enough `Bobbies` to put back on the streets but first it needs a new Government to change the culture and get rid of targets and the squads that have been set up to service those targets and return the officers to 24/7 uniformed beat patrol on a 4 shift system.

Only when someone is brave enough to do this (and there will be some internal resistance of course) can a start be made to reclaim the streets for the citizens and for the Police to be able to claim, once again, that they police with and by the consent of the people. Can Cameron rise to this challenge is the question that needs to be asked of him..

Time will tell....

Jonathan Sheppard said...

Wallenstein... sorry but would you like more anecdotes?

Wife is smashed into near the train station.. car written off. No police attend as they apparently only do if you allege alcohold or drug use is involved. Good samaritan goes to local police station at 6:00am. Only cleaners are there.

2) We report youths driving mopeds over neighbours garden. First time we get a call two days later - so no action taken.

3) We report again mini mopeds. Actually get a police response and are told the culprits have been "written to".

If I had ridden my car and pavements and grass would I have been given maybe points and a fine... I would hope so.

This isn't a go at the police it is trying to show thate there are serious issues with regards certain levels of crime being followed up.

4) Wifes grandparents live in council accomodation. Youths are known to be stealing bikes and storing them in sheds. Police response is they need to "catch them in the act". The police station is less than 2 minutes walk away.

5) 86 year old grandfather confronts one of these yobos for swearing at his wife. Youth claims he has been assualted - police obliged to caution him!

So if if was a one of perhaps I would be inclined to agree.

The author of this blog had a similar account of inaction when his property was broken into I believe as have many other respondents here.

Are you seriously telling me all is well in the fight against crime? Next you will be telling me its all Thatchers fault!

Anonymous said...

It's not the street coppers fault, it's the bureaucrat and politicians.

Yet another example of Goverments and public services attitude.

Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind

No doubt they will fall back on their tractor production statistics to refute reality.

They want the money, they want the power but they don't want the responsibility that goes with it.

Anonymous said...

In 1829 Sir Richard Mayne (the first Commissioner of the Met) wrote:
"The primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime: the next that of detection and punishment of offenders if crime is committed. To these ends all the efforts of police must be directed. The protection of life and property, the preservation of public tranquillity, and the absence of crime, will alone prove whether those efforts have been successful and whether the objects for which the police were appointed have been attained."
In attaining these objects, much depends on the approval and co-operation of the public, and these have always been determined by the degree of esteem and respect in which the police are held. One of the key principles of modern policing in Britain is that the police seek to work with the community and as part of the community.
The above words were drummed into me when I joined the police many years ago. I would suggest that some of our present day senior officers would do well to read them and reflect on them.
I served in the Met for nearly 30 years and I have to say that today's police make me feel ashamed. A good number of them are a complete waste of space.

Anonymous said...

This is really depressing to read, but alas, it's spot on! It is really sad to hear how respect for the police by decent, honest, law abiding people has hit rock bottom, and it's a sign of the times. I believe Labour have politicised the police, as they have done the civil service, and that's reflected in the way it's run, and in it's attitude. It was quite telling that you were asked your ethnic group - I guess it could have been turned into a 'race hate' crime, and then the police would have been there in minutes. Or may be you'd have caught the culprit, and made a citizens arrest - and the police would have raced round then, too. To arrest you! Breaching 'human rights' for holding him/her against their will!
What does it say that you can get clocked by a speed camera doing 58mph in a 50mph limit at 5am, in a flow of traffic and a threat to no-one, and automatically get a fine and a record. You can get mugged, burgled, etc, and the police don't want to know. I guess speeding tickets help massage crime statistics, wrapped in the blanket of road safety. But that's another topic for debate!
The Police Force (or is it Police Service now?) has lost its way, and the next Conservative Government is going to have to put restoring faith high on the agenda.

JuliaM said...

"5) 86 year old grandfather confronts one of these yobos for swearing at his wife. Youth claims he has been assualted - police obliged to caution him!"

He doesn't have to accept the caution! Tell them where to shove it and take your chances with a magistrate.

David Davis said...

A MAN OUGHT TO be able to leave a basinfull of gold, in his car, and have it unmolested.

King Henry I said it first. I don't see what's different now, except the deliberate apoligism for feral crime, said crime fostered on purpose by Zanu-Laborg, so that their bureaucratchiks will have something more and more (and more) to do.

I have often said that The Police will have to go.

Anonymous said...

I was done a couple of years back for speeding. It was in a tiny village and the local police had deployed two of their finest to cut the crime rate. They caught me and I can't complain as I was indeed breaking the limit.

What annoyed me more than anything else was that two of the finest had been deployed from an absolute shite hole of a sink town, where they could have been more effectively employed in sorting out the assorted ne'er-do-well which infest it.
Then, to add insult to injury, I, as a 60 plus white man, was asked as to my ethnic background. The officer was quite affronted when I told him...."Black, Hispanic and anything else you can think of"
And they wonder why people dislike them. MORONS!!

some2199 said...

Like all public services, distribution of the resources available to the police is a zero-sum game. Every man hour police officers spend attending to minor incidents and low-level anti-social behaviour is an hour they cannot spend elsewhere. Although it may be hard to believe, there are in fact more serious crimes than vandalism of and theft from (presumably insured) cars. The police will never be able to solve or deal with every incident.

Targets may influence the distribution decisions police forces make, for good or ill, but there will always be a calculation made involving the likelihood of arrest, the seriousness of the crime, and how vulnerable the victim is before police resources are committed. In my limited personal experience of (relatively serious) crime, I've seen that when this calculation adds up, the response is prompt and effective.

I don't know the full details of the paperwork police officers have to do, but I reckon a fair proportion of it is a good trade-off for avoiding Stephen Lawrence type incidents, which are far more damaging to the police as a whole than a few unsolved sat nav thefts.

It does amuse me, the lengths commenters go to to make New Labour an insult. "Zanu-Laborg" appears to be a new high...or low. At least the other lot can stick with Tory.

Anonymous said...

Nothing new to add but my own terrible experience of the police. I was attacked in the street and reported the incident to the police within 15 minutes of the attack - I even had a good idea where the attacker lived and let the police know. I got a reference number and a crime number but after repeated calls I never actually spoke to a constable investigating the matter - they weren't interested.

However, when I handed out NO2ID leaflets at a Home Office ID cards roadshow, the civil servants manning the Home Office stand were able to get a police sergeant to come and move me along within 10 minutes (the sergeant threatened to arrest me for "breach of the peace" for handing out the leaflets next to the Home Office's stand).

Jonathan Sheppard said...

Some2199 - Interesting point. However the local paper reported on the crime I wrote about indicating that from another house a kitchen knife was also stolen. Do you think they want it to chop up some salad leaves?

Sorry but whilst I can agree some crimes are worse than others I didnt dial 999 for gods sake.

If we accept certain crimes are OK to ignore and not get investigated where does that leae us?

Surely we should be advocating a zero tolerance or broken windows approach?

I find comments about "a fair trade off" pretty low.

Perhaps if someone breaks into someone you know while they are sleeping you may not think its a fair trade off - even though that too would only be a crime against property.

Anonymous said...

Of course, those who actually know policing are more than capable of offering genuine reforms which would make the situation far improved, but I for one am not going to contribute any of those to a thread which from the looks of it comprises mainly those with an axe to grind (Many of whom actually appear to have badly behaved kids that have been spoken to by police and now scream bloody murder, at least one whose wife has apparently driven while over the limit but managed to sober up sufficiently when she arrived at the police station to pass the second test, and a lot more who just want to scream and shout because there is an opportunity).

The comments stating 'I have a friend, she says quite openly that most police are lazy' is one of the most ridiculous comments I have heard in quite a while. If it's such an incredibly easy job and all we do all day is sit down drinking tea then by all means join up yourselves- there are plenty of forces recruiting... in no small part because of narrow-minded comments just like this. People join to make a difference within the existing framework but do not join to be blamed for that framework.

Anyway, many of you lot will be responsible for whatever mess there is. It was Thatcher and her (on this site) fawned-after government who introduced the necessary, but massively over the top rule book that is PACE, and overnight introduced a collosal amount of paperwork which needed completing.

The party most of you support took that step, no point blaming us for abiding by it.

Unsworth said...

@ Paul

"If the CPS won't throw its weight behind prosecuting a crime, what's the point of chasing it?"
So the police are now acting as judge and jury and deciding there is no case to answer? It's their job to Prevent first of all and then to Detect and provide evidence. If the CPS chooses not to act then that is its prerogative - and it's damn all to do with police views.


"If there aren't enough prison places, why would the CPS choose to prosecute?"
That is not the concern of the CPS or the Police

"Police resources are slim and people are reluctant to pay more for the service."
Actually the cost of policing has escalated fantastically, largely as the pensions and remuneration loads have increased virtually exponentially. What people clearly believe is that they are not getting value for money. There's a great deal of evidence that this is so.

"It doesn't make sense to throw limited resources at a fruitless task"
True, but it's obvious that the majority of expenditure is going on new toys and luxuries rather than basic policing.

Mike Mickey said...

As a recently-retired police officer, I NEVER got away with not personally going to see the victim of a crime UNLESS they had, for some reason, left my jurisdiction prior to realizing they'd been victimized.

Having said that, many police departments today are under-staffed and, as such, they're responding to what they consider to be of greater importance in terms of public safety and getting back with people as time allows.

That doesn't make you feel a bit better as you said in your post. What some police departments and individual officers forget sometimes is it's distressing to be victimized by crime to ANY extent! It rips away your sense of security, especially if you walk away from it feeling like the police don't care that you were stolen from.

If I were you, I'd consider writing a polite letter to your local government explaining your disappointment and frustration.

Believe it or not, if you're one of many from your area who've felt let down by the lack of police response, it could lead to some more officers being hired.

Something for you to consider.

God bless you!

-Mike-

Anonymous said...

CPS- Criminal Protection Service, or if you'd prefer- Can't Prosecute Service.

Bring back Police charging decisions, not CPS paper pushers too shared to charge criminals for fear of not hitting their own targets.

Arkangel said...

Mike Mickey said...

As a recently-retired police officer, I NEVER got away with not personally going to see the victim of a crime UNLESS they had, for some reason, left my jurisdiction prior to realizing they'd been victimized.

Having said that, many police departments today are under-staffed and, as such, they're responding to what they consider to be of greater importance in terms of public safety and getting back with people as time allows.

I reply here as an ex-police officer and I've never read such shite in all my life.
You guys out there are paid to do a job and it is one which you are patently not doing....unless of course it's prosecuting motorists.
After I left the police I worked as a Comms Op in Avon and Somerset Police force...I won't say Service since that would be a travesty of the truth. Trying to get officers to respond to calls was a major job...more often than not the reply was..."call them back and tell them we'll have a look when we can"....I knew perfectly well that not a single thing would be done about the complaint and the Sergeants and Inspectors colluded in this. All they wanted was a 'write-off' on the log. I'd just love to hear from any A&S officers on this subject

Adrian said...

Why do you want a police officer to come round? There really is no point. And if one does come to see you, all he or she will do is tell you not to leave your satnav in the car.

Jonathan Sheppard said...

Adrian - gee thanks. The humour about not leaving a satnav in the car. Actually it wasnt the only thing stolen.

Perhaps they could come round to see if they can catch the criminal who also stole other things out of the boot and items from other people on the street including a kitchen knife from another house.

If no policeman/ woman comes round how are they going to collect any evidence whatsoever in order to catch a criminal?

Just a thought. Or am I wrong in assuming police collect evidence to catch criminals.

Chris A said...

Never a truer word was spoken. Of course they've got plenty of time to bang up innocent channel crossers or hecklers as terrorists under new Labour terror (that's us they're terrorising by the way) laws.

Yak40 said...

jonathan sheppard Surely we should be advocating a zero tolerance or broken windows approach?


Exactly. That was the root of Rudy Giuliani's approach in New York City; if you ignore the minor crimes things will escalate so stamp out the little stuff first.

Seemed to work pretty well there too.

Anonymous said...

Same happened to me - four times! One burglary while I(aged 69) was in the house alone - my dog chased them off - and three break-ins to my car. I paid for the damage every time. I was FURIOUS at the police attitude

Anonymous said...

I and another woman were almost killed on a zebra crossing, walking across on a green pedestrian light. This was in the centre of Norwich on the ring road and the Mercedes AMG, full of youths and driven by a 26 year-old Asian from Sarf London, had done an illegal left turn and gone through red lights, having ignored two "No left turn" signs in his approach to the junction. He was travelling way above the speed limit and screeched round the corner on two wheels. I got his reg.number, reported it immediately to the central police station and was told that as no-one had actually been hurt they would do nothing! I stood my ground with the police and the CPS. They eventually prosecuted and in Court(after failing to appear the first two times) the Asian driver alleged I had racially threatened him and he had driven so dangerously to escape me. I am 70 and the other woman was even older! He did get a fine and six points, because the other men in his car told clashing lies in evidence. They had been in Norwich to appear in Court-I assumed on drug charges as there are lot of drugs dealt from London here. The magistrates did not challenge a word that the driver said. The previous case that morning was a girl who had done 74 mph on the A11 at night. No harm done but the police had picked her up and prosecuted. She received an identical fine and points on her licence. I am utterly disillusioned with the whole justice system.

Roger Thornhill said...

My Aunt's home had an attempted break-in. The neighbour SAW the person (in daylight) and the lump of 4x2 used to attempt the blag lying untouched by others on a dry day.

Did the police attend? No. Did they keep "thinking" we had "decided not to progress" or "agreed" to spoon this one into the long grass? Yes. At each step of the way they tried to close down the incident or fob off. There was no enforcement going on. No real attempt to deal with the crime. Ergo, open season on that kind of crime.

Yes, New Labour are not interested in cutting crime as long as they can convince people that crime is being cut. Smoke and mirrors, perception is reality. They are such utter disingenuous morons that they have totally lost grip upon reality or their very purpose (from our point of view) in being in government.

As I say, a fish rots from the head. The cause is New Labour and Statism/Welfarism in general.

JuliaM said...

"I and another woman were almost killed on a zebra crossing, walking across on a green pedestrian light."

That's a terrible story, but let's be honest. It's not just '26 year-old Asian youths' that you need to worry about...

Anonymous said...

I had a different experience with the Hampshire Police in Southampton. my mothers car was broken into and neighbour called the police they came and woke us up to tell us and then helped to try to secure the car. they patrolled the area for a little while to look for a culprit. Next day a soco officer came out and took fingerprints. They have called twice to report on the investigation. I am not holding my breath for a result but at least they tried. So credit due to the Hampshire force. On the other hand on previous occasions I have had shitty responses from Essex Police, The Met and the Police Service of Northern Ireland to reports of minor crimes. The secret to all this is acountability the Bratton reforms in NY worked because they used a rigorous system of targetting and accountability it has also worked in LAPD. It could be done here but it wont be becuause no political party has the balls to truely hold the police accountable.

Anonymous said...

The crime number is for a potential claim on insurance. Also, a build up of crime numbers in an area means it becomes a 'hot spot' and the role of police is to determine why and alter approaches to policing in that area. So the crime number is a meaningful excdercise.

A police officer didn't arrive on the scene until some days after, because Jonathan didn't witness the criminal in his crime. He would have been visited within the next 24 hours or sooner, if that was the case.

Rule number one: Report the slightest crime near to your property, no matter how trivial and make it a hot spot.Make neighbours aware of this plan. Do not think for a second that you are a being a pain and police have better things to do than respond to your complaint.Complain to your local authority of any graffiti, litter or anti social behaviour and see the difference. Why should police, police an area of no crime?

Gary

Anonymous said...

Hooray for Wallenstein, spot on with his / her comment.

I too get frustrated when the police seem to show little interest in tracking down criminals, but you can't use an anecdote to prove a generality - I haven't been a victim of crime in the past year, but I was twice the year before that, but I don't conclude that crime in Britain has fallen by 100%!

And it does always amuse me when middle class people froth and gnash about the police being too busy stopping people like them who break the law to catch poor people who are breaking different laws.

Jonathan Sheppard said...

Gary - I wouldnt have been visited within 24 hours as the person from the police station told me on the phone "they are behind in following up crimes."

Two crimes at least were committed on the same street.

How many anecdotes make a trend?I provided many examples of the same thing happening in one town - as have others. Are they all wrong - or are police not actually free to get on with policing and detecting.

The post isn't having a go at police but the system which makes people lose faith in them.

Ken Dyer said...

Sounds like the police should be spending more time on actual policing and less on "high profile" deterrents like helicopters (I read an article recently which was trying to justify why £4.3 million had been spent on a new helicopter). Lets put this money into recruiting much needed human resourcs.

Ron Todd said...

Annon 2.33 pm

I had a different experience with the Hampshire Police in Southampton...

When the Hamshire police in Southampton were 'dealing' with my mugging I was left sitting in the Shirley Road station while the entire night shift ran about trying to find a car that the owner had lost after getting totally pissed and forgetting where he had last parked it. He was 'something' in the council I obviously was not.

Can I assume you were less obviously working class that I am?

Anonymous said...

Funny how they had plenty of time to pull my wife over earlier in the year while driving to the station at 6:00am to breathalise her and then let her go on her way as they thought she may have been speeding. That's easy to do. Visiting a victim of crime and actually trying to solve it seems to be too much trouble.

Number of people killed by stolen SatNavs each year: 0

Number of people killed by drink-drivers each year: 500 to 600

Jonathan Sheppard said...

Yes anonymous - however she hadnt had any drink whatsover you moron! Number of people killed by knives (also stolen from a house the same night)... no comment about that I assume??

Gary Elsby said...

Number of homes burgled by stolen SAT NAVS thousands (a guess) just press 'home'(they are always out!)

Anonymous said...

New Labour trolls seem to believe crime against property is acceptable and shouldnt be investiagted.

Look forward to seeing that on their electoral addresses.