IT'S OFFICIAL! POLICE CHIEFS ARE TO BLAME FOR BUREAUCRACY IN THE SERVICE

Theresa May Home Secretary

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8502708/Theresa-May-blames-police-chiefs-for-red-tape-burden.html

The Home Secretary said a “great deal” of bureaucracy faced by officers on a daily basis is generated by their own force. She suggested that even when some national forms and targets have been scrapped to ease the burden, forces still required the information at a local level.

She said police leaders must now do more to cut paperwork as she announced a series of measures to reduce red tape. It includes handing more charging decisions to the police, allowing some offenders to be charged through the post and giving officers more discretion in how they prioritise calls. The moves should free up to 2.5 million police hours a year.

In a speech in London on Monday, Mrs May said: "I have made a clear commitment today that the Government is determined to get rid of the unnecessary bureaucracy generated from the centre. But this commitment must be matched by police forces themselves. A great deal of the day-to-day bureaucracy that police officers encounter is actually generated by their own force".

"So I want police forces across the country to follow our lead. Every single senior police officer should be asking themselves what they personally are doing to rid their officers of red tape. If we've scrapped a form at national level, then there had better be a really good reason for keeping it at local level. If we've done away with a target nationally, then stop chasing it locally. If we've got rid of a national regulation, then don't bring in a local replacement."

The Home Secretary's speech is reprinted below.

The deal: one year on



Monday, 09 May 2011


This speech on police bureaucracy was delivered by Theresa May on 9 May 2011.

'Last year in my very first speech as Home Secretary, I offered the police a deal - more freedom to do your work; in exchange for greater accountability to local people. It is now one year since I made that pledge. Today, I want to update you on what we have done so far; and I want to talk about the next steps in fulfilling that deal.

Progress in Public Accountability


We have made good progress.


The legislation for Police and Crime Commissioners has passed through the House of Commons and will shortly enter committee stage in the House of Lords.

Police and Crime Commissioners will bring real public accountability to policing. Unlike invisible police authorities, your commissioner will be somebody you’ve heard of; somebody you’ve voted for; somebody you can hold to account; somebody you can vote out if they don’t help the police to cut crime. But they will in no way affect the operational independence of the police.

Commissioners will not manage police forces and they will not be permitted to interfere in the day-to-day work of police officers. A protocol setting out the relationship between Police and Crime Commissioners and Chief Constables will make this clear – we will publish a draft of the protocol to inform discussion of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill during committee stage in the House of Lords.

Let me be clear - the duty and responsibility of managing a police force will fall squarely on the shoulders of the chief constable – as it always has done.  Indeed, we are giving chiefs more power to appoint their top teams. If they are going to be the ones held to account for their force’s performance, then they should have genuine responsibility for their force.

The new model of democratic accountability for the police will begin in May next year. But for neighbourhood police officers we’re making this public accountability happen right now. We are mandating forces to hold regular neighbourhood beat meetings. These meetings will give local people the chance to scrutinise the work of their local police. People will be able to raise their concerns: what are local officers doing about the drug dealing in the local park? What’s happening about the pub where all the trouble is? And the police will have to respond. Beat meetings will make the new sense of public accountability a day to day reality for people up and down the country. And they’ll make public accountability a day to day reality for tens of thousands of police officers as well.

To make this accountability work, we have already given the public access to the country’s first-ever nationwide street-level crime maps. Armed with this information, people will really be able to hold their officers to account for their performance. Since launching in January, the police.uk website has received over 410 million hits. That just shows the enormous appetite the public have for information about policing and crime in their local area. And it shows just how desperately keen people are to play their part in keeping their communities safe.

These reforms add up to a massive transfer of power from the government, to the people.They will be in charge, and every police officer – from chief constables, to the officer on the street – will have to answer to them. For a public service, in a democracy, that is exactly how it should be.

Progress in slashing bureaucracy

But giving power to the people is only half of the deal. This new, democratic accountability means we can do away with the bureaucratic accountability of the past. So we will free the police to do their job. And we’ve made progress here too.

I have said loud and clear that the days of the bureaucrats controlling and managing the police from Whitehall are over. The Home Office will no longer scrutinise and supervise police performance and come up endlessly with new schemes and initiatives. So I've responded to incidents like the Cumbria and Northumbria shootings, not with a gun crime summit, or some hasty new legislation, but by respecting the operational independence of the police.

And I've responded to the violence at protests in London, not by criticising the police or coming up with some new draconian anti-protest Bill, but by letting the police get on and do their job. Indeed, the police do an excellent job, as we saw again during the Royal Wedding. I’ve also put in place plans to end the ring-fenced funding which restricts the police’s flexibility. From 2013, when police and crime commissioners will set their first budgets, I will end the ring-fencing of all of the central policing grants that we have not already stopped, save only for counter-terrorism.

And I’ve scrapped the Policing Pledge and confidence target, the PSA targets, the key performance indicators and the Local Area Agreements. I want police officers chasing criminals, not chasing targets. So I’ve given the police just one single objective – to cut crime.

After years of bureaucratic control from Whitehall, which wrapped the police up in red tape and undermined their professional judgement, the message to the police is clear – this government trusts you to fight crime.
That’s why we have already restored police discretion over certain charging decisions, saving up to 50,000 police hours per year.

That’s why we’ve scrapped the national requirement for the stop and account form, and cut the reporting requirements for stop and search, saving up to an estimated 800,000 police hours per year.

And that’s why we’ve issued new health and safety guidance that supports officers who do the right thing – when police officers put themselves at risk to protect the public, they shouldn’t be worrying about breaching the rules.

We’ve also given a clear signal to our partners across the Criminal Justice System – and this message is getting through.

So Sir Denis’s own organisation - Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary – will now focus on light touch monitoring and inspection and on incentivising local accountability and transparency. They will reduce the burden of inspection on forces by acting as a single gateway.

We’ve worked with the Independent Police Complaints Commission to implement a radical new approach to police complaints.

This will encourage front line supervising officers to deal with most complaints quickly and informally themselves, rather than relying on lengthy bureaucratic procedures that so often fail to satisfy the public. Most of the time people want a simple apology – not a lengthy form to fill in.

And we’ve also started a programme with the Ministry of Justice, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Courts to streamline the processes across the system that generate unnecessary paperwork and waste police time in the station and at court.

Commitment to go further

But this is just the start. I’m determined to go further and faster.

I want to get rid of even more of the grinding bureaucracy that wears officers down and stops them doing their important work. Dealing with a simple burglary can require 1000 process steps and 70 forms to be completed as a case goes through the Criminal Justice System. That can’t be right.

Today I can announce a raft of reforms that we estimate could save over 2.5 million police hours every year. That’s the equivalent of more than 1,200 police officer posts.

These reforms are a watershed moment in policing. They show that we really mean business in busting bureaucracy. First, we have restructured the police performance development review process. This move will not only save time, but will also improve police management. And it could save up to 1.5 million police hours per year.

This month we will launch an 'assumption of competence' model. This is based on the simple premise that most trained and experienced police officers and staff are competent and their line manager’s observation will therefore provide most of the management evidence needed.

This shorter and more straightforward PDR process will change a bureaucratic burden into a sharp and meaningful conversation about performance, development and skills.

If this is accepted by all forces we estimate it could cut the time spent on each officer or staff member’s PDR from 10 to 2 hours each year.

We’re also working with the police to streamline other aspects of their HR. For example, until January there were over 35,000 different role profiles – definitions of skills, standards and qualities – for officers and staff across the service. And the role profile for a constable alone could reach up to 70 pages.

The new Policing Professional Framework is drastically reducing the number of profiles and is also simplifying them so that now the role profile of a constable can fit on to one side of A4.

Second, risk management. We need to move away from the tick box, cover your back culture – where the response is rigidly prescribed according to the type of problem reported. And instead we need to adopt a more sensible way of managing risks to the public.

For example, more efficient call-handling, often by staff rather than police officers, and active assessment of risks could mean more effective grading of incidents.

This would see more officers dispatched to the genuine priority incidents; allowing less urgent matters to be resolved by phone, or by an officer attending at a later time. Of course, if something is urgent it should be treated as such, but we estimate that a more sophisticated approach to assessing and managing risk could save up to 860,000 hours of police time.

Third, we will champion a simplified crime recording process. As a starting point, this means challenging forces to simplify their own practices, but I don’t want to stop there. At my request, the National Statistician is currently reviewing crime statistics. I do not want to pre-empt her report, and indeed she is discussing her emerging findings with experts today, but I specifically want to look at reducing the number of crime categories and merging some similar crime types.

This would help officers when they come to fill out crime reports, saving them time and reducing the amount of data they have to collect for more minor crimes. We estimate that this could save up to 95,000 hours of police officer time each year.

I am clear that the public need to have transparent and trusted information on crime – and our crime maps have already helped with that – but we need to be smart about how we deliver it.

Fourth, Sara Thornton, the Chief Constable of my own local force Thames Valley, is leading work on behalf of ACPO to review the police service’s doctrine and guidance. This work, which will be completed by March 2012, is likely to reduce over 600 pieces of current guidance to an approved set of fewer than 100. This should lead to significant savings for officers as they will no longer have to read and learn all of this guidance.

But just as important, it will send a clear signal that the professional judgement of individual officers is valued and it is expected.  This is a great example of a service led contribution to cutting police paperwork.


But let me make clear, individual forces must not respond to this valuable work by re-inventing 43 versions of the national guidance that has been scrapped – we are not removing these burdens only for them to be reintroduced at local level.

Fifth, we will pilot going even further in restoring charging decisions to police officers, a step we are taking because of the Crown Prosecution Service’s views of the positive and effective ways in which the police have responded to the reforms I announced last year.

Rising to the challenge, the CPS and the police have worked together to ensure that officers are properly supported and victims are properly protected as we cut back bureaucracy. And across the country, instead of waiting around in custody suites, officers are already saving time because of the changes we have made.

So now, following discussions with the CPS and the police, we will go further. We will pilot doubling the number of charges transferred to police officers, giving them responsibility for nearly 80% of charging decisions, including shoplifting cases. This will save even more officer time, stopping them from having to ring up the Crown Prosecution Service to make the decision for them, or having to bail the offender to come back at a later date. This dramatic shift would further enhance officers’ discretion and once again demonstrates the trust we put in our police officers.

If the pilot is successful and is rolled out fully, it could save up to an estimated 40,000 more hours of police officer time.

We are also looking at introducing a range of measure to provide a new, simpler and potentially quicker way of bringing a defendant to court for a prosecution. This includes postal charging and requisitioning.

For appropriate police bail cases, this will allow officers to send a written charge by post, requiring the defendant to attend court on a specific date to answer the charge, rather than calling the suspect back to the police station for charging. This could save up to another 40,000 police officer hours annually.

Finally, if we’re serious about tackling police bureaucracy, that will also mean looking at some difficult and sensitive areas. Let me be clear - I will always put public safety first. But some of the processes that have been allowed to grow up do not help the most vulnerable.

Domestic violence is one of my key priorities. That’s why in March we published an Action Plan on tackling Violence Against Women and Girls. That’s why we have provided over £28 million of stable Home Office funding until 2015 for local specialist services. That’s why we have provided £900,000 until 2015 to support national helplines. And that’s why we have implemented legislation for multi-agency Domestic Homicide Reviews after every domestic murder.

I am clear that domestic violence must be taken seriously. In recent years the police have made great strides in how they deal with these crimes, with expert teams of officers who do tremendous work.

But the bureaucratic burden of existing processes too often stop those experts from giving help to all of the victims of this awful crime. Too often officers have to spend time filling in forms which may not be necessary or double entering data that could and should have been captured just once. They can only do so much – they can only help so many victims – when there is so much duplication, double-entry and wider bureaucracy.

By ending these wasteful processes we can free officers to reinvest time and resources in safeguarding those who need help - including those, like domestic abuse victims who are under 18, who may have previously been neglected. This isn’t about saving money – it’s about delivering a better service to vulnerable people.

This sort of approach would enhance public protection, not lessen it; it would improve the police response to these crimes, not hamper it.

ACPO have initiated a review of police domestic abuse processes with other relevant organisations. We will work with them to ensure best practice is effectively shared and seized upon by forces. And we will of course be working with NGOs with expertise in this area.

The next step will be to pilot the proposals in a number of police forces. If the pilots are successful, and if these improved measures are then rolled out across the country, they could achieve significant benefits, allowing more police time to be re-invested in those most at risk.

Overall Package

The overall package of reforms I have outlined today is a radical leap forward for policing. I know Home Secretaries and Policing Ministers have talked about cutting bureaucracy in the past. But they have not followed it through, and the police have seen more bureaucracy, not less.

The progress we have made in the last year, and the detail of the measures I have announced today shows that we are serious about slashing bureaucracy. As I said, these measures could realise savings of over 2.5 million police hours – or more than 1,200 police officer posts - every year. They will make a real difference to real police officers in their real work.

Working with the Police

The reforms I have announced today have been developed in close partnership with police professionals. Many of the suggestions stem from work by HMIC and, of course, Jan Berry has previously made excellent suggestions in this area. Chris Sims, the Chief Constable of the West Midlands, is now leading for ACPO on the reducing bureaucracy agenda and he is doing an excellent job. Tomorrow, the Policing Minister Nick Herbert will be addressing a joint Home Office/ACPO conference, alongside Chris.

At that conference Nick will be discussing with police officers exactly how we can make these changes happen in every one of our 43 forces. Because it will be key for the reforms I have outlined to be carried through by individual forces and individual officers at the local level. The potential rewards for the police are enormous, but they must make them happen.

Nick will also be making further new announcements about the wider bureaucracy and efficiency savings we are planning across the Criminal Justice System as a whole. This is the great benefit of having a Minister who spans the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice – he can look strategically across the whole system to redesign the processes that waste so much officer time.

Challenge to Chiefs

I have made a clear commitment today that the government is determined to get rid of the unnecessary bureaucracy generated from the centre. But this commitment must be matched by police forces themselves.

I have instructed my officials to exhaustively check each and every requirement that the Home Office generates, so that I am satisfied that there is nothing – and I do mean nothing – that my department does which unnecessarily adds to the burden.

Any police officer that knows of government bureaucracy that we should get rid of should write to me or to Nick Herbert and we will make sure it is looked at.

But a great deal of the day to day bureaucracy that police officers encounter is actually generated by their own force.

So I want police forces across the country to follow our lead. Every single senior police officer should be asking themselves what they personally are doing to rid their officers of red tape. If we’ve scrapped a form at national level, then there had better be a really good reason for keeping it at local level. If we’ve done away with a target nationally, then stop chasing it locally. If we’ve got rid of a national regulation, then don’t bring in a local replacement.

That goes for police forces, but it will also apply to Police and Crime Commissioners, Community Safety Partnerships, the Courts, the Crown Prosecution Service, Probation and everyone else in the Criminal Justice System.

Particularly in these tough times, we need to cut out every possible cost and save every possible minute of wasted time. And that challenge extends beyond bureaucracy.

Because of the financial crisis left behind by the last government, police forces are having to make savings in their back and middle office functions to protect their frontline crime fighting capabilities. But this must be done intelligently – there’s no point in a police force cutting its HR function if that just means the burden falls on warranted officers instead – that is not a saving at all. Forces need to remove the burden altogether.

There are examples across the country of chief officers who are already making sensible savings to protect the frontline: in Avon and Somerset they are using outsourcing to make significant savings. Essex and Kent are sharing IT directors. Hampshire and Thames Valley Police are doing the same. These are all examples of chief officers using their professional judgement to best deploy their resources in the fight against crime. They didn’t wait for the Home Office to tell them what to do – they got on and did it. This is the challenge to chief officers. But it’s also an enormous opportunity.

Because they’ll no longer have the Home Office looking over their shoulder, they will be truly freed to show what they and their forces can do. Because there will be much less paperwork, they’ll be able to get their officers back on the fight against crime.

Changing the Culture

Dealing with police bureaucracy isn’t just about cutting out unnecessary forms – as important as that is. It’s also about redesigning whole systems and whole ways of doing things. That sort of transformative change can come from the bottom up – from forces themselves – as well as from the top down. But even more than this, it’s about changing the prevailing culture.

When the first response of the previous government to a tragedy was to change the law, have an inquiry, write more guidance, second guess the officers involved – it’s no wonder that we ended up with a tick-box, compliance culture in policing. Well times have changed.

I know that police officers can only ever judge a situation as they find it. When they confront a violent offender, when they go into a dangerous situation unarmed, when they put their lives on the line to protect the public, police officers have to make split second judgements under the most extreme pressure. If police officers do something wrong then they will always be responsible for their actions, but this government will always back officers who do the right thing.

The police are in the business of stopping tragedies before they happen. And it’s those successes that happen day in, day out that never get reported in the media. But unfortunately, despite the police’s best efforts, sometimes things do go wrong. I understand that and I will never blame the police for making decisions that they believed at the time were right.

We’ve stopped the weary cycle of over-reaction, inquiries, blame, legislation, codes and guidance, and blanket remedial training for all. We will take a different approach – we will trust the police.

Conclusion

So we’re delivering on the deal.

We’re keeping our promise to the police to get the government out of the way of policing, and we’re keeping our promise to the public to put them back in charge. We’ve done away with the diktats, we’ve scrapped the central targets, and we’re ripping up the red-tape.

We’re giving power back to the people through directly elected Police and Crime Commissioners, beat meetings and crime mapping. But this is not the end of the road, it’s just the beginning.

We won’t change cultures, attitudes and processes over night. Getting rid of the paperwork is as hard and grinding a task, as actually filling out the pointless forms in the first place. But I am absolutely determined to see this through.

I will lead, but police Chiefs need to lead too.

I want to see a police force trusted by the public, responsive to their needs; professional, respected and effective. I want officers out from behind their desks and back on the streets.

I want to see police officers with the discretion to do what they think is right; free from the interference of Whitehall, free to do their job, free to fight crime.


Thank you.'

COMMENT

It is the Chief Officers who must accept responsibility for the mess the service is in and Theresa May is handing them the means to put some of it right. Will they respond or defy her as so many have done already by clinging on to the pledge and performance targets as if they were the very source of life (which for many Chiefs, in receipt of thousands of pounds in performance related bonuses for many years, it was!).

Can we expect to see the rot removed from the recorded crime and detections process? We think that particular nut will prove harder to crack with so many Chief Officers out to protect themselves first and foremost.

That is the culture that must be reversed if real reform is to be delivered. Attention to all ACPO and Chief Officers that might read these pages. YOU must demonstrate loyalty to the troops above all else. These are the people that keep you in work, they deserve better than the disgraceful conduct and betrayals they have endured at your hands. You have many bridges to rebuild, start now before it's too late.

WOULD YOU RETIRE FROM THE POLICE SERVICE THEN RETURN AS AN UINPAID VOLUNTEER?

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2011/05/04/west-midlands-police-ask-officers-forced-to-retire-to-return-as-volunteers-65233-28634863/

West Midlands Police ask officers forced to retire to return as volunteers

Hundreds of the country's most experienced police officers who were forced to retire under a legal loophole are being encouraged to return to West Midlands Police force as unpaid special constables.

Six retired officers, all with more than 30 years experience with West Midlands Police, said they had been sent letters asking them to return in similar roles but as volunteer special constables.

Martin Heard, who was forced to retire at the end of March after 32 years with the force, said he was shocked when he was asked to consider coming back to do the same job for free.

Two weeks after being forced to leave, he said: "I had a letter through the post from the police, my former employers, asking me if I'd consider coming back and doing the same role as a special constable, as a volunteer

"I was shocked. On one hand they're saying they don't need me, and then they're asking me to come back in the same role."

Mr Heard, whose work in the All Saints area of Wolverhampton earned him the "Copper's Copper" award last October, now plans to start work as a delivery driver for a catering company in his home town of Bromsgrove next week.

He said he was "devastated" at being forced to leave the force. "It was a bit of a kick in the teeth really," he said.

At least 13 police authorities have chosen to implement regulation A19, a power which says officers who have served 30 years or more can be "required to retire" if their retention would "not be in the general interests of efficiency".

But Britain's most senior police officer, Scotland Yard commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson, has said the controversial provision was a "horribly blunt tool" which he "hopes" not to use.

A total of 3,260 officers with 30 years experience or more could be affected by plans to implement regulation A19 of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987, according to figures released by Mrs May last November.

The police service needs to cut its wage bill after the Government said funding would fall by 20% over the next four years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/04/forcibly-retired-police-officer-return-volunteers

Forcibly retired police officers invited to return as volunteers

Labour says police forces are forcing 2,100 of the most experienced officers into early retirement, some of whom are then being asked to rejoin on a voluntary basis.

Police officers with more than 30 years experience who have been forcibly retired because of budget cuts are being asked to return as part-time volunteers, Labour has disclosed.


The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said 13 police forces have so far confirmed plans to force more than 2,100 of the most experienced police officers in England and Wales into early retirement by 2015. A further nine forces are considering similar action.

Chief constables have no legal powers to make police officers redundant, but can forcibly retire those with more than 30 years service with 28 days notice under an obscure A19 provision of the police pension regulations on grounds of efficiency of the force.

A Labour survey of current police budgets reveals that 13 out of the 43 forces, including the West Midlands, North Yorkshire and Surrey, have already decided that 2,124 officers should be compulsorily retired using the A19 regulation by 2015 in order to make up for 20% cuts in Whitehall police funding.

The issue was raised at prime minister's questions by the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, who cited the case of PC Martin Heard, who is being forcibly retired after 32 years as a neighbourhood officer in Wolverhampton.

Heard received the "Copper's copper" award from the Police Federation last year, and some weeks after he was forced to retire, he got a letter asking him to rejoin the force as a special constable on a part-time unpaid basis.

He was among a group of experienced officers being retired under A19 due to meet the home secretary, Theresa May, today. Others included Detective Constable Tim Kennedy, a recognised specialist in serious acquisitive crime, Sergeant Dave Hewitt, who is 48, with 32 years service, and is one of the youngest officers in the country to be retired, and Inspector Mark Stokes, a leading specialist in crime prevention.

Cooper said Heard was not alone in being asked to rejoin on a voluntary basis, adding: "You couldn't make this up.

"Senior, experienced officers are being forced out by the pace and scale of the Tory-led government's cuts, then asked to come back and do the same job for free because everyone knows they are needed in the fight against crime."

In the Commons, Miliband claimed the policing cuts demonstrated that the prime minister had broken his pre-election promise to send any cabinet minister who came to him with proposals to cut frontline services packing.

Cameron told Miliband: "Decisions about police numbers will depend on the decisions made by individual chief constables in individual parts of the country.

"The point I would make is that we see, in case after case, that there are far too many police officers in back-office jobs doing paperwork and carrying out corporate development work who should be on the front line.

"Responsible chief constables are getting these police officers out on the front line to fight crime, and crime under this government is falling."

He accused Labour of "complete and utter hypocrisy" over police numbers, citing Alan Johnson's admission when he was home secretary before the general election that he could not guarantee numbers would not fall in the event of the party remaining in power.

"The question is not should the budget be reduced – of course the budget has to be reduced," said Cameron.

"The question is who is going to cut the paperwork, who is going to get rid of the bureaucracy, who is going to trust the local managers to make sure we get police on the front line? These are steps we are taking, and steps his government never took."

Blue Line Comment

Forcing some of our most valued and experienced officers to retire is bad enough. With all due respect being pad to the good work of the specials, asking officers who have put 30+ years of commitment and experience into the job to come back on an unpaid basis is a really insulting and disrespectful kick in the teeth. It is also a measure of the arrogance and ignorance of senior officers who would even consider such an insulting proposition. Seems like more of a political gesture than a serious operational suggestion to us.

WARNING! WARNING BULLSHIT ALERT! - Latest Crime Statistics Released

The Bullshit Button!

Introducing the Bullshit Button. You will see a lot more of it over the coming months. Every time we see more bull$#@! appearing in the media about crime statistics going down, police detections improving, or some other patently fallacious content about policing, you will see the button.

Rank and file police officers up and down the country know the fact and fiction about policing.

If every officer could firmly strike a bullshit button connected to the Home Secretary, the media and the general public, every time they heard or witnessed another pile of fictitious nonsense being trotted out by 'they who must be obeyed', the continuous ringing would be heard across the country reminiscent of the WWII air raid sirens.

What has prompted us to create the bullshit button? The latest drivel of Crime Statistics, released earlier this week are a work of fantasy to make the brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Anderson stand back in awe.

As usual, the media, clamouring for titbits of useless trivia, have their say :-

The Telegraph   "300,000 fewer crimes last year as household burglary falls"
The Daily Mail  "Crime down by 6%... but number of sex offences continues to soar"The Independent "Crime total down by 3%"
The Guardian "Recorded crime falls despite rise in sexual offences and knife-point robbery"The BBC "Recorded crime continues to fall in England and Wales"

The Police Superintendents Association have two bites of the cherry. The first release states ‘These are encouraging figures once again and show that our officers and staff are continuing to prove their dedication in driving down crime in our communities. Some critics often choose to question the validity of police recorded crime or even BCS statistics but trusted academic research figures released yesterday by Cardiff University show violent crime figures falling significantly and a clear picture is emerging of continuing falls in crime, particularly violence and antisocial behaviour. Public trust and confidence in the police remain strong, something we should celebrate. The public can have confidence that our commitment to protect and serve our communities remains as strong as ever.’

The second release went a stage further, attempting to pre-empt any crititism from outside quarters. Entitled "The Sound Of Silence" the piece asks us not to question the validity of the BCS and the police fifures, reminding us that the Home Office has such faith in the statistics that it has announced an independent review of how crime statistics are recorded!!

The release goes on to say that when a respected academic institution (Cardiff University) also published research this week that reveals that violent crime has fallen by almost 11%, there surely must be some confidence in the figures.

"The Lady Doth Protesteth Too Much Methinks" One can "insist so passionately" about something not being true that people suspect the opposite of what one is saying.

With due respect to the honoured fellows at Cardiff, they are not present on the front line of every shift of modern policing to witness how crime statistics are suppressed, manipulated and disguised to portray the picture the Chief Officers demand. It is unlikley that they will have had access to internal processes or honest communication with rank and file officers to verify their findings.

Having served as frontline uniform response, CID experience, supplemented with three years of detailed analystical research, supported by hundreds of comments from serving officers, I am of the opinion that the crime statistics review is long overdue if we are ever to see factual and ethical crime recording resulting in transparency and honesty.

The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

This is the 9th Principle of policing written by Sir Robert Peel, recognised as the founder of the British service. How Sir Robert must be spinning in his grave to witness how today's Chief Officers have chosen to interpret this principle in such a scandalous manner. Indeed they have perpetrated the "Crime of the Century"  - "Cooking the books" of crime to convey the false impression that crime is falling and detections are adequate.

Crime Of The Century

Our detailed first report on police recorded crime exposes the scandal in detail. Supported with evidence from front line police officers, concerned that their integrity is being continually threatened by senior command strategies to suppress and disguise the true crime picture. There are literally hundreds of examples of how the practice of "Gaming" (manipulating, suppressing and mis-reporting crime) has become a woven part of the police procedural fabric.

Crime Of The Century II

Coming soon..... the scandal of police detections! Revealing how the 28% published detection rates are yet another reason for bashing the bullshit button! When the report is uploaded you will see the evidence for yourself. We hope that the When Crime Of The Century II - The Scandal of police Detections in England & Wales is uploaded, we hope the National Statistician takes note and is courageous enough to unearth the truth.

Here are just a few of the comments from police officers.....

  

"You can change crime figures because you can reallocate crimes to something that’s not measured. If it’s not measured then fantastic, you can rub your hands. That’s great as long as you do it within the rules but how close do you sail to the wind?"

"Say I have my bosses saying ‘look we have got too many robberies what can you do about it?’ So you start looking at these reports of robbery and suddenly they become a theft with an assault, not a robbery. There is pressure to reclassify crimes to fit statistics".

"The 24/7 response are pulled out with work yet our Local Policing Unit head, who is held accountable for crimes and sanction detections on his area, has dedicated a uniformed officer to look through the crimes to see if any can be reclassified. Doing nothing else than that...looking for burglary dwellings that can be classed as damage. There are other people looking at robberies that can be classed as theft persons because the stats are good for thefts".

The Home Secretary is concerned that public trust in crime statistics produced by the Home Office has declined to such an extent that it is no longer possible to have a debate about alternative criminal justice policies on the basis of agreed facts about trends in crime. Terms of reference for Smith review, November 2006

The regulatory bodies of HMIC, IPPC and the IOC have been fully aware of the corruptive influence of Gaming, but all have failed in the execution of their responsibilities and duty to expose the full extent of the problem to the public, evidenced by the lack of any individual or force being brought to account for the activities.

Mushroom Management (1)

Does this sound familiar?

Restrict employee access to information and decisions (keep them in the dark). When information is conveyed, it is incomplete, inaccurate, or full of marketing hyperbole (throw shit on them). Large, hierarchical, process-bound organizations are frequently guilty of the most egregious forms of "mushroom management."

A management philosophy prescribing to the theory that to best motivate your employees, you must at all times:
1. Keep them in the dark.
2. Feed them full of shit.

This form of management applies to every situation where management is involved. Be it passing on critical information to employees, or informing people of policy change and announcements. The entire purpose is to be as vague and unresponsive as possible. The ultimate culmination and success of this management style can be found when people draw comparisons to management and a black hole. Where resources and information go in and nothing comes out.

Mushroom Management (2)


Mushroom Management is an allusion to a company's staff being treated like mushrooms: kept in the dark, covered with dung, and, when grown big enough, canned (fired). The connotation is that the management is making decisions without consulting the staff affected by those decisions, and possibly not even informing the staff until well after such decisions are made.

This phenomenon is an anti-pattern most commonly found in organizations which have a strict hierarchy and barriers to cross-organizational communication (especially those with a stovepipe organization) but can be found in any organization.

The Mushroom Theory of Management - Keep them in the dark and feed them bullsh*t!

I make no apologies for the rant. It is time the truth came out about crime statistics and police detections. The rank and file are completely and utterly fed up with the lies and deceit that have been foisted upon them and the public. The Chief Officers are so far into this nonsense, they have even started believing their own spin.

The research into detections for our next report is even more damning than the suppression, fudging and manipulation of recorded crime. It details how the Chiefs would have us believe that they are detecting 28% of recorded crime.  From our detailed investigation into the statistics and listening to officers comments, we can say here and now, that whilst there are some major successes and achievements within the detection numbers, 28% is . . . . .

Until then, if you see any reports about police detections from Senior Police Chiefs, we suggest you get ready to thump the button!

A career thug was shipped back to Britain from Australia, so why can't we do the same thing?

Clifford Tucker arriving at Heathrow

Courtesy of :-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1378728/Australian-career-thug-shipped-Britain-thing.html

On the other side of the world, a migrant convicted of the attempted murder of a police officer is deported, on the grounds he poses an ‘unacceptable risk’ to the native population.

Few would describe the Australian government’s decision as anything other than common sense.

After all Clifford Tucker, a British citizen, had abused Australia’s hospitality. By throwing him out, justice was undeniably done.

Consider, however, what would have happened if Tucker – a career criminal jailed for 12 years for shooting and seriously wounding a police officer – had been a foreigner committing crimes in Britain.

There is precisely zero chance that our courts – or the interfering judges in Strasbourg – would have agreed to his removal in the interests of protecting the British public.

Instead, they would have found that, because he moved here from his home country when he was young, Tucker had a ‘human right’ to a family life in his adopted nation. Since he had three children his hand would have been strengthened even further.

Depressingly, these are the rules we live by thanks to the European Convention on Human Rights and Labour’s Human Rights Act.

No matter whether a person is living here illegally, or what heinous crimes they commit, if they can evade the authorities for long enough, our courts will let them stay for ever. Housing, benefits and every other right enjoyed by law-abiding British citizens will inevitably follow.

In other words, compared to Australia, America and dozens of other countries, British justice is a soft touch.

Witness how, in a case with chilling similarities to that of Tucker, Learco Chindamo was permitted to remain in Britain despite killing London headmaster Philip Lawrence.

Instead of Chindamo being sent home to Italy once his sentence was served, an immigration tribunal ruled – to widespread horror – that because he had been here since he was a small child, he had a human right to remain here. The fact he posed a danger to the public was seemingly irrelevant.

Or consider the case of Aso Mohammed Ibrahim who knocked down a 12-year-old girl in his car in Darwen, Lancashire, and left her to die. Ibrahim, an Iraqi who had been refused asylum here, was driving while disqualified, and after Amy Houston’s death he committed a string of further offences.

However, an immigration tribunal ruled that because Ibrahim had children in Britain he had a right to a ‘family life’ in the UK.

Not a thought was given to the human rights of the family whose lives he had destroyed.

In a further shocking case, Rocky Gurung, a Nepalese who killed the son of a Gurkha war hero by throwing him into the Thames on a drunken night out, was permitted to stay here so his right to a ‘family life’ could be protected.

After prison, Gurung persuaded judges that it would breach his ‘right to family life’ if he was sent back to Nepal. This was despite the fact he was single and had no children.

Last year, a total of 200 foreign prisoners avoided deportation by claiming their human right to a ‘family life’ in Britain. The Home Office has confirmed that the ‘right to a family life’ is now the most popular claim used by criminals who successfully avoid deportation from the UK – overtaking the right to ‘protection from torture’ which they might face when returning home.

If faith in our legal and immigration systems are not to be fatally undermined, this has to stop. Britain must regain control of its own destiny in the same way that Australia does.

The fact that we are shackled to the European Convention on Human Rights of course makes this harder.

But the truth is that this is entirely possible. Under the Convention, unlike the rights to protection from torture or inhumane treatment, the right to a family life is not absolute.

It states that there can be no interference with the right to a family life ‘except as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security [or] public safety… for the prevention of disorder or crime’.

It is only Strasbourg’s judges and our own courts which slavishly follow their rulings who let foreign criminals claim the right to a ‘family life’ to stop being deported from Britain.

The question now is whether David Cameron, who promised to take the toughest possible line against foreign criminals, will take a stand against this judicial activism.

As Tory MP Dominic Raab says, it is one thing to argue against deporting an individual to a state which permits the use of torture but it makes a mockery of British justice to let hundreds of criminals and suspected terrorists claim a human right of family ties to avoid deportation.

‘This is merely a novel expansion of human rights by the UK courts and Europe,’ Mr Raab argues. ‘It is time they were put in their place.’

MPs could easily initiate legislation in the British Parliament to remove the contentious ‘right to a family life’ protection.

Inevitably, any new law would be challenged in Strasbourg where unelected judges would undoubtedly find against Britain.

But then what? Because the judges do not have the power to enforce their judgments (in a deliberate move to protect member states from abuse of power by Strasbourg, they can only huff and puff against countries who defy their rulings).

Admittedly, the Council of Europe could threaten to revoke the UK’s membership but it has consistently failed to expel Russia and Turkey who have been guilty of most flagrant abuses of human rights law.

So it is inconceivable that Britain would be sanctioned for deporting killers and rapists to their original countries – even if it does mean leaving behind a ‘family life’ in Britain.

The same is true of Europe’s ruling that UK prisoners should be entitled to vote – a judgment in clear defiance of the wishes of our own democratically-elected Parliament.

Indeed, there are currently 8,600 rulings by Strasbourg which have been defied by European countries.

Mr Cameron, whose government is now responsible for looking after British-born gunman Clifford Tucker following his expulsion from Australia after 40 years and making sure he does not harm the British public, must say that enough is enough.

We have plenty of nasty foreign-born criminals like Tucker living here. It is high time they were placed on a plane home, whatever the judiciary may say. Failure to do so will mean Britain remains a safe haven for the world’s worst criminals.

As of 8th April 2011, prison numbers were at 85,361.

• Foreign nationals represent 14% of that number - 11,950
• It costs the UK tax payer £40,000 per inmate per year, that is a staggering £478 million

This would pay the wages of 13,658 police constables. How would you prefer your hard earned and paid taxes to be spent? 

To read the original article and comments click the link below.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1378728/Australian-career-thug-shipped-Britain-thing.html

and another ...

Why 47 dangerous criminals on the run can't be named: Because of their human rights, of course! 

Forty-seven dangerous fugitives cannot be named by officials – because of their ‘human rights’.

 

They include criminals convicted of child sex offences, murder and rape. All have breached the terms of their licence and should have been returned to prison.

 

They are assessed by officials as being at ‘high or very high risk’ of committing further criminal offences. But the Ministry of Justice has refused to name them.

 

Critics said the human rights of offenders were being put before those of ordinary members of the public.

 

Details of the scandal first emerged 18 months ago when officials revealed more than 1,000 criminals were at large despite having been recalled to custody. Among the total were some who have been on the loose for up to 25 years after police failed to track them down.

 

The most recent Ministry of Justice figures show 960 have not been found, including two rated as level four – the highest risk to the public – and 45 rated level three. The group of 47 includes two murderers, two paedophiles, a rapist and ten robbers.

 

Police should find 75 per cent of recalled prisoners classified as ‘emergency’ cases within 74 hours and three-quarters of standard recalls should be completed within six days.

 

Details of all offenders who had not been returned were compiled following the murder in London of two French students, Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez, in 2009 despite the killer being recalled to jail.

 

Dano Sonnex, who had been serving eight years for a stabbing and a number of knifepoint robberies, had been mistakenly freed under low supervision when documents revealing his true danger to the public had not been shared by officials.

 

Opportunities to return the 23-year-old to prison were then squandered or missed. When an arrest warrant was finally issued, it took police a further 16 days to get round to knocking on his door.

 

By that time, Mr Ferez and Mr Bonomo were dead, knifed to death by Sonnex earlier that day.

 

Tory MP Philip Davies said human rights should not be used as an excuse to hide the ‘hugely embarrassing’ revelations.

 

‘It’s absolute madness. Once again it appears to put the human rights of dangerous criminals ahead of the rights of law-abiding people to know who is at large.

 

'It must be in the public interest to put the names of these offenders in the public domain.’ Ministers have now ordered a review of the policy of releasing criminals’ details.

 

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: ‘This Government is committed to transparency and there should be a presumption that such information is published unless the police object for specific operational reasons. Recapturing high-risk offenders will always be a priority.

 

‘Over the past 10 years, in more than 99 per cent of cases where an offender has been recalled, the individual has successfully been returned to custody.’

 

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378454/Officials-REFUSE-killers-child-sex-offenders-human-rights.html

SAVE 12,000 POLICE OFFICERS JOBS NOW!

More than 54,000 European Union citizens have been convicted of crimes — including murder — in the past two years according to an article in The Daily Telegraph.

Poles and Romanians are the worst offenders according to the figures, adding to concerns over the impact of the two most recent EU expansions. And because of EU rules on freedom of movement, only those sentenced to at least two years in prison face deportation after they complete their punishment.

Less than a week ago, separate figures showed crime committed here by all foreigners had almost doubled in two years. Police last night warned that foreign criminals were putting extra pressure on already stretched resources because language barriers could delay even routine procedures.

One police leader said last week that a simple caution could take six hours to issue to a foreign offender who did not speak English.

Under data exchange systems in the EU, police here notify another member state if one of its citizens has been convicted of a crime. Figures from the Association of Chief Police Officers showed that last year 27,056 such notifications were made and 27,379 in 2009. That is the equivalent of 520 a week or 75 a day.

In 2010, 6,777 Poles were convicted of crimes and 4,343 Romanians.

They were followed by citizens from Lithuania (4,176), Ireland (2,423) and Latvia (1,938). It means, with the exception of Ireland, the worst offenders came from countries that joined the EU in either 2004 or 2007.

There were no details available regarding the offences committed or sentences. However, the figures will include the case of Piotr Zasada, 33, a Pole who received a life sentence for murder in October after he stabbed his ex-girlfriend Katarzyna Ryba and threw her out of a second-floor window in Bournemouth, Dorset.

David Cameron promised to introduce powers to deport more foreign criminals, in a speech made before the Tories came to power.

In January this year, Learco Chindamo, the Italian killer of headmaster Philip Lawrence, was charged with robbery only months after he was released from prison. He had been allowed to stay after he successfully argued that to deport him would infringe his human rights.

A Home Office spokesman said: "We are committed to removing foreign lawbreakers from the UK. We removed 5,235 foreign national prisoners in 2010."

Europeans convicted in Britain (2010)

Austria 58
Belgium 23
Bulgaria 296
Cyprus 162
Czech Rep. 783
Denmark 61
Estonia 181
Finland 58
France 1,032
Germany 360
Greece 102
Hungary 290
Ireland 2,423
Italy 706
Latvia 1,938
Lithuania 4,176
Luxembourg 3
Malta 70
Netherlands 516
Poland 6,777
Portugal 1,842
Romania 4,343
Slovakia 361
Slovenia 24
Spain 267
Sweden 104
Total 27,056


Or, put another way 1% of recorded crime in 2010 resulted in the conviction of Europeans. 1% may seem a small price to pay, but remember, these are only offences where offenders were caught and convicted. many thousands more offences are undetected. Police detections for 2010 were 10% worse than 2009, due in part to the increased pressure of immigrant crime.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8439117/EU-migrants-commit-500-crimes-a-week-in-UK.html
 
See also:-
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2010/01/uk-immigration-2010-uncomfortable-truth_12.html
 
The current unrestricted, uncontrolled immigration has led to higher crime rates, demand for more housing, extra strain on the environment, traffic congestion, longer hospital waiting lists, lower educational standards, higher income tax, lower wages, high unemployment, a loss of British identity, a breakdown in community spirit, more restrictive policing, higher council taxes, a shortage of council homes, higher levels of stress and unhappiness and a fragmented community.
 
These are some of the consequences of the uncontrolled immigration we have witnessed in recent years, a massive financial burden on the taxpayer that should be spend on UK solutions, a broken criminal justice system, prison overcrowding, a broken society with a rapidly eroding sense of national heritage and culture.
 
The problem of immigration has nothing to do with race, creed or culture. It has everything to do with overcrowding and a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. The Labour Government immigration strategy of ethnic cleansing was devised and implemented with the deliberate intention to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions. It was done to destroy what it means to be culturally British and to put another 'multicultural' identity in its place. And it was done without telling or asking the British people whether they wanted their country and their culture to be transformed in this way.
 
IMMIGRATION AND CRIME
 
Take a look at the foreign nationals in our prisons:
Population in prison by nationality – 30th June 2009


• All nationalities 83,454
• British nationals 71,231 85%
• Foreign nationals 11,350 14%
• Not recorded 874 1%


The Foreign National Prison Population is represented by :


• Africa 2,897 3%
• Asia 2,456 3%
• America 302 0.36%
• N America 137 0.16%
• Europe 3,617 4%
• Middle East 595 1%
• Oceania* 52 0.06%
• W Indies 1,289 2%
• Other 5 0.01%

*(Australia, New Zealand, Fiji) (We have the numbers by individual country).

14% of our prison population is foreign nationals. The Prison Service states that each prisoner is housed at a tax payer cost of £30,000 per year. That is a staggering total of £340,500,000 per year.

When key criminal justice and immigration facts for England and Wales are compared alongside each other, the picture becomes clear. The net migration figure (the inflow less the outflow) has more than doubled in the last ten years.

If these foreign criminals were returned to their country of origin, this would solve the prison overcrowding problem, and empower our courts to impose correct sentences for UK offenders who, all too often get away with a judicial slap on the wrist. Issues associated with immigration add further massive burdens on our police and judicial system, not only in financial terms (including the many millions required to provide interpreter services), but also with regard to the additional crime committed by this sector of the community.

There are those that say (including certain diversity obsessed Chief Officers of Police), that crime has not risen disproportionately when measured against the population increase. HOGWASH! The fact remains, that these are additional crimes committed by visitors to this country, who abuse the hospitality and generosity extended to them. At the moment, the criminal fraternity, including the law breaking element of the foreign national community is laughing at the farce of British justice.

Recorded crime has reduced, however as we have reported from these pages previously, in the article "Top Cops Are Fiddling The Crime Figures" recorded crime statistics can no longer be given any credence.

The increased prison population is a measure of the success of our front line police officers. The startling statistic, supporting our view that immigration has a major impact on crime, is the percentage of prisoners that are foreign nationals. This figure has stood at 14% for 5 years, having doubled since labour came to power, costing the taxpayer a staggering £1.7 Billion across the period.

We have compiled the recorded crime, police strength, population growth, prison population and foreign national and immigration statistics for the years of Labour Government. The composite picture when all the statistics are viewed together is a sad indictment on how they have decimated the social fabric of our nation.

We want Britain returned to the way it has traditionally been. Britain always will have ethnic minorities and most have no problem with this as long as it does not change nor seek to change the fundamental culture and identity of the indigenous majority.

The unrestricted, uncontrolled situation contributed to higher crime rates, increased pressure on the police and criminal justice system, prison overcrowding, a demand for more housing, an extra strain on the environment, traffic congestion, longer hospital waiting lists, lower educational standards, higher income tax, lower wages, high unemployment, a loss of British identity, a breakdown in community spirit, more restrictive policing, higher council taxes, a shortage of council homes, higher levels of stress and unhappiness and a fragmented community.

A measure of immigration and cultural diversity is indeed good for a country. Sadly, the immigration strategy of the Labour Government had nothing to do with enhancing British culture and society by broadening the mix. It was implemented for perverse political reasons that risk the destruction of its defining character altogether.

Other countries would not tolerate millions of immigrants taking over their society and miminising the value of its tradition, heritage and culture. Japan would not do it; China would not do it; India would not do it; Pakistan would not do it – so why should Britain?

Each nation has the right to maintain its own traditional culture and identity. The right of India to remain Indian, the right of China to remain Chinese, the right of Pakistan to remain Pakistani and the right of Saudi Arabia to remain Saudi does not mean that any of these nations have to “hate” anybody else. All it means is that they wish to preserve their identity and national existence.

This is all we want for Britain – the right to be British and the right to openly celebrate events like Christmas that we have celebrated for centuries, without fearing the imaginary offence this might cause. Is this such an extreme request? Is this so unreasonable? – NO! In fact, it is perfectly normal and completely in line with the rights granted to every other nation and in accord with international law.

14% of our prison population is foreign nationals.
Prison population at 8th April 2011 = 85,361 (97% of spaces)
549 are housed in Immigration Removal Centres
Almost 12,000 are foreign nationals
Immigrant Crime costs £4billion per year
At £30k p.a. each foreign national in prison costs £360million per year.

This is the equivalent of keeping 12,000 police officers in their jobs, on the streets. Does anyone else think we have our priorities massively wrong in this country?

27,056 EU criminals convicted. 12,000 foreign nationals in our prisons, of which only 3,617 (4%) are Europeans.

How many other countries would stand for the nonsense of tax payers forking out millions to keep foreign convicted prisoners in our jails whilst our police officers jobs are on the line?   

Related Article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8426609/Concerns-over-foreign-crime-wave.html

Concerns over foreign crime wave

A foreign crime wave is sweeping Britain after arrests of migrants almost doubled in just two years.

By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor 7:00AM BST 05 Apr 2011

Police arrested more than 91,000 foreigners suspected of crimes last year – the equivalent of 250 a day – compared with less than 52,000 in 2008.

Rural areas, which have seen large influxes of new migrants, have been particularly hit with one force seeing arrests soar from just 27 to almost 5,000 since 2006.

The figures, released under Freedom of Information, have fuelled concerns over how Labour’s immigration policies have impacted on communities and services.

And the true figure could be twice as high as less than half of police forces responded.

Chief constables have already warned that a rising number of foreign criminals has put huge pressure on resources such as officer time and translation costs.

One rank and file leader last night revealed it can take an officer up to six hours just to issue a caution to a foreign offender who does not speak English.

The growing trend comes as the police service faces cuts of up to 20 per cent over the next four years with thousands of officers likely to be lost.

One MP last night described the figures as “deeply concerning” while police chiefs warned a “growing number of new communities” has made crime patterns more complex.

Information from 19 police forces show that in 2010 some 91,234 non-British nationals were arrested for crimes including murder, burglary and sexual offences.

That was a 76 per cent increased on the 51,899 arrested in 2008.

The rise coincides with a sharp increase in the number of migrants coming to live in the UK since the European Union expanded in 2004 to take in eight former Eastern Bloc countries including Poland.

Arrests of foreigners made by the Metropolitan Police increased from 24,264 in 2008 to 58,870 in 2010 – up by 143 per cent.

Rural areas also showed huge increases notably Cambridgeshire Constabulary which made 27 arrests in 2006 and 4,803 in 2010.

Durham Constabulary suffered a 629 per cent rise from 65 in 2006 to 474 in 2010 and Humberside Police increased by 138 per cent up from 865 to 2,055.

Arrests by Kent Police increased by 283 per cent from 1,075 to 4,119, while Surrey Police saw a rise from 1,959 to 2,079 – up six per cent.

If the trend was repeated across all 52 forces in the UK it is estimated that over 750,000 foreign crooks have been arrested since 2006.

Hugh Robertson, Conservative MP for Mid Kent said: "These figures are deeply concerning for anybody who lives in Kent and place a very unwelcome extra burden on our police forces.”

Nick Cowan, crime researcher for think tank Civitas, added: "To some extent with an open labour market you are going to end up with some undesirables which is a shame.”

Pete Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said migration has had a "huge" impact on police resources. He said: "It is a problem when you get someone in who can't speak English and we wait hours for an expensive interpreter to hear their side of the story. Even in trivial cases where you might be giving just a caution officers could be off the street for five or six hours – which is a massive expense."

A spokeswoman for Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said the high amount of foreign crimes has added pressure to already "stretched" police resources. She said: "The growing number of new communities has certainly brought greater complexity to the pattern of crime and have contributed to already stretched resources. As police, we have to adapt all the time to deal with new and emerging problems. However we pride ourselves on our strong relationships within our local communities and the way we deal with the issues that emerge."

Julian Huppert, MP for Cambridge, added: "Cambridge is experiencing rapid growth and we need Government investment if we are to manage that growth effectively."

Cllr Geoffrey Heathcock, a former JP in Cambridge, added: "The volume of violent crime linked to foreign nationals is deeply troubling and is another factor in the whole story of why the county, with a growing population pressure, needs a significantly better deal from the Government."