It’s mad to record petty problems as crime, says police chief

I don't know why they can't just say "transwoman". It's not a dirty word, is it? It's certainly not worth compromising an investigation for.

Perhaps the Police need something like triage.

MangyInseam
Just because someone says, or thinks, he is being harassed, does not mean it's true.
Absolutely - just because someone says they were assaulted, doesn't mean its true. Just because some was burgled, doesn't mean its true. Just because some was robbed, doesn't mean it was true.

But the crimes would still be recorded at the point of the victim confirmation of the offence - unless you have substantial proof to show it hasn't happened. (so CCTV shows that they were not assaulted and just fell over for example)

With harassment - if the victim says that what ever course of conduct is giving them harassment - it will be crimed as harassment. So, an ex-partner constantly walking past someones house at all times of day & night may cause the person harassment. Another person might not be bothered by it. So, the first person it would be crimed - the second person who is not bothered, it wouldn't be crimed.

How these are investigated by police is up to the OIC or the force involved - ranging from full investigation from special units (murder squads, CID etc) to no further action being taken as its not in the public interest to pursue it - crimed and written off at source

But the crime recording of any incident has to comply with NCRS

Ereshkigalangcleg
As with many things Felix you don't understand the point being made.
The point being made is "It’s mad to record petty problems as crime, says police chief"

Well, define 'petty problem'. Because a petty problem for one person is a major event for another. If an ex-partner wanted to walk past my house day & night it wouldn't bother me in the slightest and it wouldn't cause me harassment. But to other people it would. If some scratches my car, it wouldn't bother me - but to others it would. Threats to kill over the phone wouldn't bother me - but to others it would.

And if these petty problems fall into a crime category - then under NCRS they have to be crimed.

I quite happily argue with chiefs and senior management about NCRS and other issues within the force. I work on the front line where as senior management don't

It would be interesting to have some comment from Felix et al on the police chief's comment, as I suspect it would not be so easy to accuse him of not understanding what the law is or what the procedures are.

There's a very loud "woosh" isn't there?

It's a good example of thinking that is entirely caught up in process with no ability to see the foundational principles or bigger picture.

Just because someone says, or thinks, he is being harassed, does not mean it's true.

My god, I wish people could use their brain, my 14 year old daughter has claimed several times her gym teacher harassed her. His "crime"? Expecting her to participate in class. Annoying, yes, but not a crime of any sort.

And sorry to say there are a heck of a lot of adults less mature than my 14 year old and a good number more manipulative.

As with many things Felix you don't understand the point being made.

WashAsDelicates
They weren't attack dogs - i don't think she was attacked by the police.
She was arrested based on the crime to be investigated. If articles needed to be seized, these can only be done under PACE if a person is arrested.

Unseelie
These examples have nothing to do with crime recording. The crimes are recorded - what the outcome is following the police involvement is another issue.

Your first 4 examples, I deal with regularly and so do most of my shift, so its not a case of the police doing nothing. The conviction rates can depend on a whole host of things. Most rape victims/survivors don't want to go through the court process and don't really care what happens to the suspect - they just want to put themselves first. Or should the police put more pressure on them to go to court and get the conviction rate up?

The police decide. At the moment, the situation is:

• Abusive man can harass and threaten a woman and her children and the police do nothing.
• physically violent teens can regularly beat and threaten a child and the police do nothing.
• Racists verbally and physically assault their victims and the police do nothing.
• men rape women and girls and the police mostly do nothing (1% of rapists are convicted).
• Aggressive male-bodied trans rights campaigners can verbally and even physically assault a much smaller woman - in front of police! - and the police do nothing.
• Male-bodied transwoman can complain an anonymous tweet hurt his feelings and he thinks it was probably from a particular woman. The police arrest that woman, seize all her computers (and her children’s school technology) and search it, and write up the tweet as a hate crime.

🤔 It’s at the stage now where many acts by the police could legitimately be challenged as ‘arbitrary.’

3 years ago. Thankfully he has since stopped.

@IcakethereforeIam this is the unfortunate and horrible side that happens when politicians and stonewall and their followers, and indeed any TW//TM who insist on pronoun changes etc, decide that people are who they say they are rather than what they actually are.

It truly is awful but certain people (men and woman) have been shouting from the rooftops about it for years but have been consistently been ignored. I hope they are found soon.

How do you mean - attack dogs?

If an incident is reported, its graded as to threat, harm and risk to determine what the response will be.

If its a minor, historic type of crime, then this can be investigated slow time by appointment & voluntary interview - depending on what the evidence is going to be

I was hoping GM Police were improving with the new CC, then they put out this press release:

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/police-issue-appeal-woman-44-25368093

It's been several days,, I don't know if Alice has been found safe. I hope so. It being screamingly obvious what Alice's true identity is, it's provoked mockery rather than concern. The press release could have sensitively acknowledged the trans status of the missing person, giving the idiots less to latch onto.

Anyway it's early days yet with the new CC. The Police may have their hand tied by official guidance, probably from the CoP. But I think it's counterproductive.

WashAsDelicates
Yes - but you still have to have an associated crime to go with it.
For example - racially aggravated common assault,

Imnobody4
No, drink drive is not a crime, neither is speeding. I think the only traffic crime is death by dangerous. You might get a conviction for drink drive, but the offence is still not a crime.

Harassment is a crime - so on balance of probabilities, if it passes the threshold for this crime (so someone says I am harassed by something), then a crime is recorded.

Its not a point of recording intelligence, this is handled separately. Its all about ensuring crimes are recorded correctly at the point of reporting.

Pixiedust1234
So, you might have a fight in the street and a member of the public phones in to report it (leave aside that its a state based offence for the time being). You would crime it as people have been placed in fear of violence who were fighting. But none of them are willing to support any kind of prosecution or provide statements, so there would be insufficient to charge as you have no evidence of people being put in fear. So it would be an undetected crime.

So, you might have enough to crime an affray, but insufficient to charge anyone with it.

Huh? What does the phrase enough to crime" mean?

And I would assume if you could be sent to jail (drink driving) then it certainly is a crime.

I'm getting confused. Drink driving etc is a crime but called a 'summary offence' and dealt with by magistrates court. It's still a criminal record. Same goes for harassment.

I think a lot of this extra data collection is about the idea of police collecting 'intelligence' to pre-empt escalation i.e. someone says something allegedly 'transphobic' can escalate to violence. Too much data is as bad as too little. Guidelines need to be much tighter.

Maybe there is a bit of confusion

All incidents are not necessarily crimes. For example, driving offences are not crimes (only death by dangerous). Drink drive is not a crime, drunk & disorderly is not a crime, resisting an arrest is not a crime.

Crimes have to fit within a certain category and then have to meet the threshold for that crime (National Crime recording Standards). And also the threshold to require an incident to be recorded as a crime is a lot lower for the charging standards for that crime.

So, you might have enough to crime an affray, but insufficient to charge anyone with it.

Is crime and incident being interchanged here? Just wanting to be sure we understand each other perfectly.

Hate incidents are certainly being recorded as hate crimes despite a judge saying it shouldn't be. One falls under a legal framework, one doesn't.

Not strictly true for crime reporting standards

Section 2 harassment 1997
A person must not pursue a course of conduct, which amounts to harassment of another, and which they know or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

You don't specifically need 2 occasions or more. If the victim states that this is causing me harassment, then the threshold for the crime is met

May not be enough to charge - but charging standards are not the same as crime recording standards

You also have mal comms if the victim states that they find the tweet grossly offensive. May not be sufficient to charge, but would be to crime.