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

[WashAsDelicates]

Front page of today's Times.

If a patient with serious health issues declared to their GP they were sure they had cancer, they would be examined properly by a professional.
But their belief that they were suffering the disease would not be recorded on NHS statistics until it was actually confirmed.
That is the analogy used by Sir David Thompson, chief constable of the West Midlands, to highlight “mad” crime recording rules, because the approach taken by the police is the opposite.

For example: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4665079-caroline-farrow-update

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.’

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Perhaps the Police need something like triage.

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.

They weren't attack dogs - i don't think she was attacked by the police.

They were used as tools by somebody who wanted to persecute her. 'Attack dogs' is a metaphor.

She was arrested based on the crime to be investigated.

What crime? Posting something online that the other person did not like? Even if the post they were offended by was genuinely criminal (inciting violence or whatever) there was no need to arrest her, nor to examine her tech.

"Did you post on abcd.com website at time on date?"
"No."
"Can you prove that?"
"I was playing organ at church."

Vicar confirms. Job done.

What crime was she arrested for? Harassment, Mal comms?

So, what if her tech was examined and contained all the evidence needed to prove the offence? - Do we just ignore that.
Would the victim have cause to say the police failed to investigate?

Would the victim have cause to say the police failed to investigate?

There is no victim. Only a man who is intent on harrassing many women and continually uses the police to do so.

There’s something going very wrong in the UK at the moment.

Actually, scrap that. I was wrong when I said there was no victim. Caroline is a victim. The police are committing a criminal act in arresting her. I hope they will be brought to justice eventually.

He can more or less say what he likes now. He retires next month

Felix125
Surely a complaint has to have details. If I report a burglary surely I have to give details, what was stolen, where from.
At the point of a complaint of malicious communication the police will be told what was said and issues around freedom of speech should also kick in. Being offended is not evidence a crime has been committed. Someone tweeting something you don't like is not a crime.

The point is the guidelines are being misinterpreted or need more clarity. That law should not be used as a tool for harassment.

Imnobody4
Unless you have been burgled and nothing has been taken - then you will have no details of anything taken. For example, you come down stairs to find an unknown person in your house eyeing up things - sees you and runs off. If you phone in, it will still be crimed as burglary based on your account.

Being offended is not a crime, but being harassed is. So receiving Tweets etc that you find harassing will be a crime, as you have a victim confirmation that its is harassing them.

How that is investigated is a different matter - from 'written off at source' to arrest & prosecution. But the offence will still be crimed under NCRS rules.

What would the test for harassment be?

As I say, receiving death threats directed at me isn't an issue. I get loads daily, but it doesn't bother me, so nothing is crimed as I am not harassed by it. But other people will be harassed by it and want it crimed.

Where do you draw the line?

PriOn1
There is a victim - as you have a person who contacts police to say they are a victim and details what has occurred. If those details meet the threshold for a crime, then a crime is recorded under NCRS

This may be a bit off topic, but I'm curious about a distinction Felix125 made between offences, such as drink driving, which are classified as non-crimes, and those, such as harassment, which are classified as crimes.

I can't find any information about this distinction, though I have learned that offences are classified as recordable or not, imprisonable or not, and by whether they are triable by magistrates (summary offences), judge and jury (indictable offences), or either way. For example, drink driving is a recordable, imprisionable, summary offence, whereas harassment is recordable, imprisionable and triable either way.

Can anyone point to a source that explains the crime/non-crime distinction?

Given that he mentioned NCRS then I guess he is referring to recordable crimes. From what I can tell though, NCRS has been superseded by HOCR. Perhaps Felix could confirm that?

I think there's a clash between common usage of terms and the precise technical meaning that might be used within policing. Of course drink driving is a crime, in that it's legislated against and if you're convicted of it you will suffer various penalties. That's what the general public would call a crime. The fact that it wouldn't be "crimed" by the police doesn't change the public understanding of it as a crime.

I'm confused. What happened to alibis?

The police could see the date/time stamp on the "offensive" post. She said she was in church. There's a whole church full of people who could confirm her whereabouts at that date/time. There was absolutely no need for the arrest! Geeze.

Felix125
Do you agree with the current system? The point that is being made is that trivial incidents being recorded as crimes gives a misleading picture of the prevalence of such crimes particularly in the area of hate crime.

For NCRS purposes only crimes with a victim are recorded which is why drink driving does not appear it is still a crime.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/counting-rules-for-recorded-crime

2.2 An incident will be recorded as a crime (notifiable offence) for ‘victim related offences’ if, on the balance of probability:
(a) the circumstances of the victims report amount to a crime defined by law (the police will
determine this, based on their knowledge of the law and counting rules); and
(b) there is no credible evidence to the contrary immediately available.
2.3 A belief by the victim, or person reasonably assumed to be acting on behalf of the victim, (explained further at 3.6 ii), that a crime has occurred is usually sufficient to justify its recording.

There is a victim - as you have a person who contacts police to say they are a victim and details what has occurred. If those details meet the threshold for a crime, then a crime is recorded under NCRS

Nope, the person you are calling a victim is a vexatious claimant. If the police really no longer have any recourse to plain old common sense when it comes to such claims, then what is the point of them? No wonder the public are losing all faith.

I work for a different type of government agency (not in the UK). We have vexatious claims made all the time. Part of my job is to assess whether those claims have any validity.

If you take the word of everyone who reports, then you are creating an entirely false picture and you are failing to do the job you are paid to do..

There's a difference, I would have thought, between making an allegation and reporting a crime.

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.

Wow. They don't really care what happens to the suspect? They just want to put themselves first?

Or they don't have any trust in the police, the courts and the CPS to deliver justice and they decide there's no point in putting themselves through it for a tiny possibility of achieving justice?

A reminder that this person with his nuanced and compassionate take on rape victims says he's a police officer.

A reminder that this person with his nuanced and compassionate take on rape victims says he's a police officer.

I was thinking, as I typed my post, about the fact that this is the result when you remove agency from (for example) teachers and the police. When you create blanket rules and nobody has any discretion to think and make judgements, then those who remain will include many who just don’t give a shit and you lose many, decent people, who can’t work within a system that they can see is corrupt and straightforwardly doesn’t work.