Blowing the whistle: The inside story of how targets make policing worse - Crime - UK - The Independent

Blowing the whistle: The inside story of how targets make policing worse - Crime - UK - The Independent

FINALLY! The truth is out : The Police HAVE been cooking the books of crime for years!

Crime and detections have been perniciously fiddled for years!

 

It seems that finally, the truth is out that the police reported crime and detection statistics have been ruthlessly and perniciously fudged and fiddled for years!

 

In a Daily mail article by Jack Doyle http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2267518/Overall-level-crime-falls-record-low-fears-raised-400-000-offences-logged-police.html police are accused of exaggerating the falls in crime. 

 

The FT, Telegraph, Channel 4 and the Guardian all reported similar articles:-



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6826ab58-6614-11e2-bb67-00144feab49a.html#axzz2J5fTq96o
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9823775/Police-exaggerating-fall-in-crime-rate.html
http://www.channel4.com/news/police-accused-of-exaggerating-drop-in-crime-rate
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics-england-wales

 

Regular visistors to this site will know I have been demonstrating this for a number of years in the attempt to get someone with the courage to do something about it, to listen and act. Many reports and articles published here, both in prior posts and in greater detail in the view our reports section, illustrate the extent of the scandal and how it is done.

 

Alan Travis of the Guardian scratches the surface with his comment...

[The figures show] a 41% drop in crime between 2002-03 and 2011-12 for police recorded crime figures, compared with a 26% drop in the crime survey results over the same period.
Statisticians say one explanation for the difference may have been pressure on the police to downgrade incidents in the face of a targets culture. The study says the police figures may overstate the actual long-term fall in crime, especially since 2006-07.

The ONS statisticians say they can't be certain what lies behind this difference but that it could point to a gradual erosion of police compliance with national crime recording standards. Alternatively, it may be the result of "a natural correction" to an over-recording of offences by the police in the early years of the new crime reporting standards. The statisticians say that in the absence of independent audits since 2006-07 it is not possible to give an definitive answer.

The truth is even more explosive and scandalous.

Rodger Patrick, a retired Detective Chief Inspector from the West Midlands Police and a good friend of this site claimed in the Telegraph that manipulative methods are tacitly approved of by senior officers, police watchdogs and the Home Office.

 

The techniques – dubbed “gaming” – are used to create the illusion that fewer crimes are being committed and that a bigger proportion are being solved.

 

The claims will inflame the debate about crime statistics after recent figures suggested that crime fell four per cent in the second quarter of last year.

 

The techniques identified by Dr Patrick include:

 

“Cuffing” – in which officers make crimes disappear from official figures by either recording them as a “false report” or downgrading their seriousness. For example, a robbery in which a mobile phone is stolen with violence or threats of violence is recorded as “theft from the person”, which is not classed as a violent crime.

 

“Stitching” – from “stitching up”, whereby offenders are charged with a crime when there is insufficient evidence. Police know that prosecutors will never proceed with the case but the crime appears in police records to have been “solved”.

 

“Skewing” – when police activity is directed at easier-to-solve crimes to boost detection rates, at the expense of more serious offences such as sex crimes or child abuse. This is a major area of statistical manipulation disguised under the heading "Alternative Disposal Methods".

 

“Nodding” – where clear-up rates are boosted by persuading convicted offenders to admit to crimes they have not committed, in exchange for inducements such as a lower sentence.

 

Dr Patrick, who researched the subject for a PhD, said: “The academics call this ‘gaming’ but front line police officers would call it fiddling the figures, massaging the books or, the current favourite term, ‘good housekeeping’. It is a bit like the police activities that we all thought stopped in the 1970s.”

 

The article cited lots of real life examples and one detective, who declined to be named, said: “Name any crime and I’ll tell you how it can be fiddled.”

 

As a retired Police Officer, for over 5 years now, I have been the author of this blog that specifically exposes the fallacious recording of crime statistics and crime detections over the last twenty years.  

A couple of years ago, I was interviewed on the Politics show about the cuts to police numbers http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00c96jz

On the Thin Blue Line I have written many detailed reports and articles exposing the scandal of crime statistics in the UK and these can be viewed via the “View Our Reports” section. I have had many exchanges with Senior Police Officers, Government Ministers, including the former Policing Minister Nick Herbert on the subject of manipulated crime statistics. Unfortunately, no-one seems to have the courage to publicly prize the lid off this can off this particular can of worms for fear of reducing public confidence in the police still further.  

Do I believe we are enjoying the lowest levels of crime? Definitely not. Do I believe that Chief Constables and Senior Command Teams have suppressed and manipulated crime statistics AND detections for many years for political and personal financial gain…. without doubt.

 

For a flavour of the content on this site have a look at this link which also contains links to many articles penned on the subject  http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/chief-police-officers-and-home-office.html
 
Here is a simple scenario backed up by facts that illustrates the point succinctly.
 
Imagine you are the CEO of a national company with 43 branches (There are 43 police forces in England & Wales). Realistically, you would think that the 43 branches would perform differently. Some would be extremely successful, performing well. Also rans might just be ticking along, but there would also be a bunch of branches that under perform.

Prior to the last Labour Government, this was the case with the 43 police forces. Some were effective at controlling crime levels and increasing detections. Others ticked along while a number had clearly lost control of crime on their patch. Tony Blair and his Home Office ministers introduced performance targetting, which rewarded Chief Officers and their higher level command teams with bonus payments to reflect reduced crime and increased detections. Chief Officers, many with £150k plus packages were paid as much as 15% on top to report reduced crime. Hey presto! Within a few short years ALL 43 FORCES suddenly reported massive reductions in crime and increases in detections. Was this all achieved through more effective policing methods or by embracing the culture of "Gaming" as described above? I'll leave you to come to your own conclusion. Knowing the facts I know what I believe.

The examples illustrated here are merely the tip oif a very corrupt iceberg in policing. I lay no blame at thje door of the frontline officers. They are told how to police. The fact remains that a root and branch exposure of this crime of the century, perpetrated by the most senior police officers is required. Chief Officers will of course refute any such allegations, protecting their career and pension. However there is plenty of front line officer evidence in the reports on this site that confirm that the statistics are not to be trusted.

The scandal has more worrying consequences than have been publicised. 

• Knowing or at least suspecting that the books of crime had been well and truly cooked over the years, this Coalition Government chose to use the fallacious crime statistics as a key motivator for including policing in the comprehensive spending review that led to the massive cuts in police resources and frontline officer numbers.
• The police are meant to protect life and property, prevent and detect crime. That is their function, to protect you, me and those who are near and dear to us from the criminal fraternity. This is what the majority of committed police officers want and joined the job to do. Reducing numbers based on fiddled crime statistics ignores this issue completely and endangers the lives and threatens the safety of us all.
• Politicians believe what is in their interests to believe and disregard the rest. FACT. They are not really interested in protecting the public whose votes and taxes keep them in office. They are only interested in spinning the numbers out to represent what they want the public to believe.

Will the appointment of locally elected police commissioners make a difference? Don't hold your breath on that one. Until the 43 newly appointed officials act as one on this, you can bet that they will consider their own career prospects before opening this can of worms.

For years now, I have advocated that it would take a courageous politician to stand up and be counted and rip this fiasco of crime statistics apart. Decreasing crime is a vote winner, however suspect the numbers. Until that brave person steps forward, confidence in the justice system will never return. The public are no longer fooled by the lies that have been perpetrated. Far better to clear the decks, admit that the numbers are crooked and flawed, then start again with a clean slate. Only then will we know what level of support is truly needed to police the community that way it wants and deserves.

Politicians, Police Commissioners, Her Majesties Inspector of Police... To you all I throw down the challenge... Do you have the honesty, integrity and courage to discover and expose the truth?

For all our sakes, I hope so.

Steve Bennett
Retired Police Officer
Thin Blue Line

Paul McKeever - Police Federation Chairman - Rest In Peace

Paul McKeever - May You Rest In Peace

It is with a heavy heart and great sadness that I heard the news of the passing of Paul McKeever.

A lifelong serving policeman, Paul gave everything to the service. He fought long and hard for the rights of the federated ranks, never shirking the challenges presented by this and previous Governments that threaten the livelihoods of our beloved officers.

Paul was a true gentleman. He bravely stood up to the Home Secretary and spoke passionately at the 2011 conference in defence of the troops.

I met with Paul on a number of occasions and was in regular contact. He was a keen supporter of the police blogs as a means of attempting to draw attention to the plight of the frontline officers. He was eloquent and educated in his often vociferous exchanges with senior officers and Government Ministers and there can be no doubt that he will be sadly missed by everyone who had the good fortune to meet and work with him.

Paul was just two weeks away from retirement, having announced his departure last summer. At the time he said: "I cannot stay within a service that is having the Office of Constable attacked, police officers denigrated and public safety put at risk." He had also accused Theresa May of being "on the precipice of destroying a police service that is admired and replicated throughout the world".

Pauls brave words and noble actions sum up the feeling within the service. The burden carried by Paul placed obvios strains on a good man who genuinely wanted the best for the service and the public it serves. He believed, as many do, that Mrs May and this Government treated the service in a despicable and undeserved fashion. Shame on you all.

Paul never gave up his part in the fight to bring justice to the killers of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. Let us hope that one day justice will be seen to be done.

Our thoughts and condolences at this sad time to his wife Charmian and their daughter Henrietta.

A Fed rep since 1992, he was a trustee to the Police Dependents Trust, Chairman of the National Police Memorial Day Trust and a Director of the Metropolitan Police Friendly Society.

Outside policing, he was a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and the Royal Institution. He was also a member of the Institute of Directors.

He enjoyed hill walking and took many trips to the Tyrol region of Austria and walked on the Downs with his spaniel, Hetty. He also enjoyed the Telegraph crossword and watching Harlequins, West Ham and Celtic.

A condolence and tribute page has been created on the Police Federation website. Anyone wishing to send messages of tribute and condolence can do so by emailing: Tributes@polfed.org.

Thank you Paul for everything you gave in all your proud years.

God bless and may you rest in peace.

Steve Bennett
Retired West Midlands Police Officer

WHERE ARE THE POLICE? 2012 UPDATE

Two years forward from our research and article about what the Police actually do, it seems very little has been accomplished in returning frontline officers to what they would rather be doing, preventing and detecting crime. See our previous post and the PDF document "Where are all the police officers" in the link in the sidebar.

http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2010/08/where-are-all-police-officers.html

Bobbies on the beat

Sep 28th 2012, 15:14 by M.S.

REPRINTED FROM THE ECONOMIST

http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2012/09/policing-britain#comments

WHAT do the police actually do? There’s an assumption by most sentient (ie, TV-watching) beings that they should be either out catching murderers or collaring hoodies who heave stones through old ladies’ windows. The police themselves will tell you they still waste far too much time ticking boxes and filling in forms.

A new study by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC)--whose respected head, Sir Denis O’Connor, retires on Sunday--suggests that frontline police do, in fact, spend about 80% of their time on activities related to crime, however tangentially. But they should focus more on preventing crime, it concludes, not just huffing up to the scene afterwards. That this should need saying, nearly 200 years after Robert Peel pronounced crime prevention the central task of policing, is a story in itself.

The first problem, the HMIC maintains, after sifting through 4.6m substantive incidents recorded by six forces and observing 36 shifts, is that the police don’t actually know what they are supposed to be focusing on. All six forces had different mission statements and only one referred explicitly to preventing crime. In part because the policing mission is ill defined and in part because other agencies may be slow or reluctant to respond, police resources go on looking after the elderly, the ill and the abandoned when an ambulance fails to turn up or social services proves to have closed at 5pm.

Another problem is that the training of most officers dwells more on using police powers legally than on using them to fight crime effectively (CID training is an exception). In initial training just one module out of 190 is on evidence-based approaches to crime prevention, and it is not reinforced later in practice.   

A third, the HMIC says, is that the police on the street often don’t get good information about the incidents they have to deal with, so they either deal with them poorly or take too much time doing it properly. This is partly a matter of patchy and poor kit, partly a matter of mindset--what information they do receive tends to be reactive rather than predictive. Both gaps were stunningly in evidence during the riots in August 2011.

There are certainly flickers of inventiveness. A basic command unit in one of the forces studied has pioneered a technique of “predictive mapping” on burglaries to deploy staff to high-risk areas at specific times, and along with other measures this has brought about a significant fall in that type of crime. In the run-up to the Olympic games, another force pulled together intelligence gleaned by monitoring sentiment and mood across social media and made it available to officers to deter criminal gangs and homegrown extremists. But such examples stand out. More typically the reliance on experience over knowledge encourages a “craft-based professionalism” that helps forces get by but doesn’t help them get ahead of demand.

All this matters because the police, like everyone else, are being required to improve or at least maintain their levels of service with less money, and no one doubts that more budget cuts are coming. Some of the lower-hanging fiscal fruit has been plucked; forces have started sharing facilities, outsourcing activities and laying off staff. But their most important assets are sworn police officers, and how effective they are, individually and out of the station, will be crucial in achieving more with less. With so much reform in the air—an overhaul of police pay and condtions, elected police and crime commissioners, a new College of Policing, and innovation forced on forces by fiscal necessity­—the HMIC is surely right to urge a renewed focus on defining, training and equipping frontline police officers to act effectively in the field as independent professionals.

Incidentally, the HMIC figures show that 17% of recorded incidents to do with public safety and welfare (which make up 40% of all incidents) were hoax calls or abandoned calls to emergency services. That sounds like an awful lot. Expensive, too.

POLITICAL POLICING - CRIME COMMISSIONERS

Much has been written about the thorny subject of Locally Elected Crime Commissioners, the elections for which are due to be held on 15th November 2012. We will not enter into the rights and wrongs of the idealogy, rather we will watch with interest and say only: "Res Ipsa Loquitor" - Let the facts speak for themselves.

The point of police and crime commissioners, we are told, is to increase the democratic accountability of the 41 police forces in England and Wales outside London.

Ministers felt police authorities were not sufficiently responsive to the demands of an anxious citizenry. Chief constables needed someone with electoral clout to connect them to the people, to keep them honest.
Elections will be held in November and the first potential candidates are emerging. The concern, however, is that this American-inspired model of police accountability may not translate easily into English or Welsh.
The principles enshrined by the father of our modern police force, Sir Robert Peel, are to be found in the General Instructions given to the first Metropolitan Police officers in 1829.

Number five of nine states that it is the duty of officers "to seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing".

British tradition has it that, to retain its legitimacy, the police service cannot allow itself to be politicised. Accountable, yes. Political, never.


How then, can the Government claim that the service will not become politicised, when the vast majority of candidates so far putting themselves forward for the respective roles, are from one of the political parties?
Look at the list for yourself, then see the table below to see which party looks set to take control of policing in your area.

http://www.police-foundation.org.uk/files/POLICE0001/Policy%20work/PCC%20Candidates.pdf

	Con	Lab	Lib	Indep	English Democrats	UKIP	Other
Avon and Somerset	2	2	3
Bedfordshire	5	3
Cambridgeshire	5	2		2	1		1
Cheshire		2		1
Cleveland		5		3
Cumbria
Derbyshire	2	4		2
Devon and Cornwall	7	2		1
Dorset	2	1	1	2
Durham	2	3		2			1
Dyfed-Powys
Essex	4	2		1	1
Gloucestershire	5	1		2
Greater Manchester	1	4	1	1	1
Gwent		3		3
Hampshire	7	2
Hertfordshire	3	1
Humberside	1	5
Kent	8	2		4
Lancashire	3	4					1
Leicestershire	5	4		2
Lincolnshire	2	2		1	1
Merseyside		4
Norfolk	3	2		1
North Wales		3		1		1
North Yorkshire	7	1		2
Northamptonshire	1	3		2
Northumbria	2	8	1				1
Nottinghamshire	2	4
South Wales		2		1
South Yorkshire		4
Staffordshire	2	2
Suffolk	3	2
Surrey	2	1	1	1
Sussex	7	2		4			1
Thames Valley	3	2					1
Warwickshire	3	3
West Mercia	4	1
West Midlands	2	3	1
West Yorkshire		1		2
Wiltshire		1
	105	103	8	41	4	1	6

Whilst there is an equal split of candidates between the two main parties, it is evident that those splits are not as equal in the respective force areas, suggesting the political colour of policing in certain forces looks set to be dominated by political persuasion.

So here's the dilemma. How can you increase the democratic influence upon chief constables without undermining their independence?

The government's answer is to separate the strategic from the operational, with a layer of oversight to make sure it happens that way. Commissioners will formulate the policing plan, leaving chief constables to decide how best to achieve it with a panel of local politicians and lay members to ensure fair play.

But many police leaders remain profoundly uneasy about what will happen in practice. "All chief constables are quite cautious as we go into this period," says Sara Thornton, vice-president of the Association of Chief Police Officers and head of Thames Valley.

"individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing” Sir Robert Peel's 1829 instructions to police

It now appears certain that elections for commissioners next November will include candidates badged to political parties. Former Labour ministers have said they will stand and some Conservatives look set to campaign on a Tory ticket.

Democracy and political tribalism are so intertwined in the UK that hopes the elections could be conducted in a non-partisan, practical, grassroots way have been dashed. Although independents will fight for votes, they fear party machines will crush all but the most well-known local candidates.

This has led to even greater anxiety that the huge constituencies - some well over two and a half million souls - will see their police priorities influenced by the core voters from the political heartlands of a successful party candidate.

The neighbourhoods where people are least likely to vote are the same communities with the greatest risk of crime. If democratic accountability is about reflecting the views of those who vote, independent policing is about protecting the lives of those who do not.

Will the checks and balances of the system ensure their needs are not ignored? And what happens when the commissioner's democratic mandate clashes with the chief constable's independent principle?


And is there a risk commissioners might ignore the needs of those who didn't vote for them? The architect of this new model, Tory peer Lord Wasserman, thinks not.

"If anybody ignores great chunks of their community and allows crime in particular council estates where there are very few voters to rise, I think he will be exposed and he will be hammered," he tells me.

Who by?

"I'm relying on the community activists, I'm relying on the media, but I'm relying on far more than that. I'm relying on the community, and I want the community to feel that it has a role to play, and I think this will happen."

That, perhaps, is the real question posed by the introduction of police and crime commissioners. Is our local democracy good enough to keep them honest?


Two points spring to mind in conclusion. 


1. Whatever the Government say, politicization of the service looks inevitable. An already fragmented service will face the future difficulty of one force adhering to the political preferences of the elected commissioner, whereas its neighboring force may be playing by completely different principles. Regardless of the alleged honorable intentions of the Home Office with its printed objectives for the project, the temptation to influence decision making along political agendas will become irresistible. 
2. Locally Elected Crime Commissioners are appointed to follow the Home Secretary's focus on the reduction of crime which carries with it the implicit increase in detection's. For a number of years now, we have tried to educate readers about the "Crime Of The Century" (see previous posts). Crime statistics have been fiddled mercilessly and disgracefully for many years by successive Chief Officers and their management teams. Whether for political, career or financial gain, the fact remains that the public have been conned into believing that crime is reducing and detection's are increasing at a greater rate than is actually experienced. Indeed, it has even been suggested that the fallacious and dramatic drop in crime was largely responsible for policing NOT to be ring fenced in the comprehensive spending review. We have all witnessed events since then, with swingeing cuts to essential front-line services. With the books of crime being so corruptly "cooked",  we would maintain that actual crime figures and genuinely low primary detection rates that sit behind the fiddled set, would have forced any Government to take heed of protecting not decimating the service. 


Rephrasing the question above, Is our local democracy good enough to MAKE them honest?