Do the police spend too much time investigating the wrong kinds of crime?

[al78]

I'm not going to labour the point but a response is a response. If it's immediate, or 3 hours, or 3 years it is still a response. Whether it is satisfactory - as I stated - is obviously a different matter.

As for your last point, why would police be chasing up people for "non-crime" or "thought crime"? They probably are following up crimes, even if you don't think that time is valuable. Your post is coming off as a bit of a rant to be honest.

mods note - split from this thread

"non-crime" or "thought-crime" sounds like hard right wing interpretation of hate speech or inciting violence.

Hate crime | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

 

[TPO]

"non-crime" or "thought-crime" sounds like hard right wing interpretation of hate speech or inciting violence.

Hate crime | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

There has been a recent trend for views/actions not agreed with to be labelled (and treated) as if they were crime- JK Rowling is the obvious high-profile example, but COVID was the main thing that brought a similar attitude out it in spades. During COVID, we saw police going OTT about COVID rules- threatening to check shopping baskets remember? (I acknowledge that that came from the leadership, not the rank and file who were just confused as everyone else was). We saw more of that attitude amongst those in authority in their reaction to persons who expressed reasonable concern about some COVID measures e.g. mandating vaccine for children. There have also been some documented instances of police telling persons to "check their thinking" and recording that intervention as a "non-crime incident" on records.

Note I am not talking about ignoring "hate speech" (which is a crime)- I am pointing out the downsides and inappropriateness (IMO) of over-zealous responses and "wrong thinking" treated as if it were a crime. Irrespective of whether a person has a view we agree with or not, that's rather chilling- as well as taking scarce resource away from things that really are hurting people in real time.

Or chasing after young women up hills in Derbyshire, but they like low hanging fruit that poses no danger to themselves. Obviously there are exceptions, such as London Bridge.

Which was my main thought. After all, if you are a stressed police officer with targets for crimes reported vs crimes solved to reach, which ones do you go for- the soft targets such as the 2 ladies having a coffee on a walk, or the violent person under the influence of drugs who fights back (literally)?

I suppose wanting to look at the nuances, preserve free-speech and promote a level of personal responsibility does make me right-wing in the views of some, as "right wing" has become the go-to insult for shutting down someone who challenges the "accepted" views in any way (see COVID- and note the irony that one of those who challenged the "established" view regarding the COVID health passport proposals was Jeremy Corbyn).

The "guardian" type. The Guardian is aimed at a particular audience; I am not criticizing that per se- all of the newspapers and indeed all media takes a viewpoint and is biased in their own way- but I just wish they'd stop pretending they are not, and there be wider recognition that there would be wider appreciation of there being other valid viewpoints out there. It's the difference between the actual data points and the way the graph is presented.

However, having explained some of the nuances in my thinking, and to come back on topic, I still hold that the underlying need is for a police force focused on dealing with actual harm- people being hurt now, drugs, violent crime- knife crime particularly. A properly funded road/rail police who focused on actual crime on the network (including targeting knife crime and County Lines and being available in the evening hours to support traincrew) would make public transport much more appealing.

TPO

 

[43066]

"non-crime" or "thought-crime" sounds like hard right wing interpretation of hate speech or inciting violence.

Hate crime | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

The problem with that is that whether an offence constitutes a “hate crime” or not is solely determined by the perception of the victim. Therefore if my bike is stolen, if I perceive it happened because I’m a heterosexual white male (whether that was actually the case or not), it will be recorded as a hate crime.

So any crime could be recorded as a hate crime, which is obviously a nonsensical position and could well be leading to perverse crime statistics as crimes are routinely recorded as hate crimes where there was no intent along those lines. Crime should surely be determined (and punished) according to culpability for actual harm done, rather than someone’s perception.

Probably off topic to discuss much more on this thread, but the above is a very valid criticism of the current “hate crime” regime.

 

[stuu]

There have also been some documented instances of police telling persons to "check their thinking" and recording that intervention as a "non-crime incident" on records.

This is used where (typically online) speech crosses the threshold of hate speech/incitement but the police handle it by having a word rather than bringing a prosecution. It does not mean no crime has occurred.

In the same way that minor anti-social behaviour encourages others, or gives the impression of lawlessness, the same applies in other areas and unchecked online incitement gives exactly the same encouragement to others. It's obviously a bit more nuanced as one person's idea of free speech blurs into what someone else may consider outright hate. The police don't always get that right of course,

 

[TPO]

The problem with that is that whether an offence constitutes a “hate crime” or not is solely determined by the perception of the victim. Therefore if my bike is stolen, if I perceive it happened because I’m a heterosexual white male (whether that was actually the case or not), it will be recorded as a hate crime.

So any crime could be recorded as a hate crime, which is obviously a nonsensical position and could well be leading to perverse crime statistics as crimes are routinely recorded as hate crimes where there was no intent along those lines. Crime should surely be determined (and punished) according to culpability for actual harm done, rather than someone’s perception.

Probably off topic to discuss much more on this thread, but the above is a very valid criticism of the current “hate crime” regime.

Yes, unfortunately the wording of the hate crime law is not great. The example I am thinking of, the person in question took a case to the High Court to "prove" his innocence as it were. And recent court cases have confirmed the legality of "gender critical" opinions- it was a "gender critical" view that the person in the example I saw reported was told to "check their thinking" on. The cases arose in part because of such imprecision in the wording of the law (coupled to over-zealous police), however we at least now have some case law to clarify the position on that particular matter- no doubt a relief to some religious types whose holy books express views which others in society may find "hateful" (although one wonders whether "distasteful" becomes confused with "hateful"? Or how often the polarisation from social media turns a perception of "distasteful" into "it was hateful"?).

In the same way that minor anti-social behaviour encourages others, or gives the impression of lawlessness, the same applies in other areas and unchecked online incitement gives exactly the same encouragement to others. It's obviously a bit more nuanced as one person's idea of free speech blurs into what someone else may consider outright hate. The police don't always get that right of course,

But again, please don't try to conflate the holding of legally-allowed opinions with hate crime. Yes, it can be a difficult boundary, but freedom of religion, freedom of political view, freedom to vote in/out the politicians we want, freedom to join a trades union and take collective action- these are all linked to freedom of speech and hence to making sure we don't let that boundary become blurred by the over-zealous as that removes our rights by stealth. The politicians found it far too easy to do so during COVID (when parliament didn't sit and rather draconian legislation did not get proper scrutiny). And I politely suggest you are being a bit mischievous in conflating the clear criminal action of burning a bus-shelter down or breaking windows on a bus/train etc with the fine boundary between "hate crime" and a strong opinion that someone else doesn't like. (A closer analogy might be the police arresting a person stood next the the bus shelter which a box of matches in their pocket).

The notion of policing by consent is important, and is linked to the notion of priority of response/action.

I have worked in a regulatory role in the past. There was a clear recognition that we could NEVER prosecute ALL breaches of the law under our regulatory scope. So, someone, somewhere, (high up in the organisation) laid down a policy to decide which of those breaches were prioritised for enforcement. Then those of us on the front lines had clear guidance on what types of breach to pursue. It did vary according to [???mysterious factors], but we were obliged to follow those guidelines. We had a level of discretion- but not as much as you might think. I am reliably informed that it's the norm for police forces to have a similar prioritization process, of necessity.

So the police do at a senior level choose what to pursue, and if the general public are not in agreement we lose policing by consent. I suspect we came rather close to this during COVID in some cases.

TPO

 

[david1212]

There has been a recent trend for views/actions not agreed with to be labelled (and treated) as if they were crime- JK Rowling is the obvious high-profile example, but COVID was the main thing that brought a similar attitude out it in spades. During COVID, we saw police going OTT about COVID rules- threatening to check shopping baskets remember? (I acknowledge that that came from the leadership, not the rank and file who were just confused as everyone else was). We saw more of that attitude amongst those in authority in their reaction to persons who expressed reasonable concern about some COVID measures e.g. mandating vaccine for children. There have also been some documented instances of police telling persons to "check their thinking" and recording that intervention as a "non-crime incident" on records.

Note I am not talking about ignoring "hate speech" (which is a crime)- I am pointing out the downsides and inappropriateness (IMO) of over-zealous responses and "wrong thinking" treated as if it were a crime. Irrespective of whether a person has a view we agree with or not, that's rather chilling- as well as taking scarce resource away from things that really are hurting people in real time.


Which was my main thought. After all, if you are a stressed police officer with targets for crimes reported vs crimes solved to reach, which ones do you go for- the soft targets such as the 2 ladies having a coffee on a walk, or the violent person under the influence of drugs who fights back (literally)?

...

However, having explained some of the nuances in my thinking, and to come back on topic, I still hold that the underlying need is for a police force focused on dealing with actual harm- people being hurt now, drugs, violent crime- knife crime particularly. A properly funded road/rail police who focused on actual crime on the network (including targeting knife crime and County Lines and being available in the evening hours to support traincrew) would make public transport much more appealing.

The cynic in me says where there are targets to reach and boxes to tick effort will be put in where this is most likely to be achieved relatively easily.

For e.g. County Lines actually making arrests and prosecution is only a part because both presence and if on-train or station staff have a suspicion if the police are called there is a high probability of prompt attendance that is a deterrent but the deterrent part will not tick a box.