I honestly fail to understand all the fuss over the Judicial decision not to incarcerate burglars. It is perfectly understandable in light of the fact that, in London, the burglars are not even going to be apprehended in the first place.
Burglaries in London are only going to be investigated if the crime is “deemed solvable”, according to new guidelines for the Metropolitan Police.
What they mean by ‘deemed solvable’ is if the investigating officer actually finds the felon climbing out of a householders window wearing a zorro-mask and holding a bag marked ‘swag’. Short of that, they can’t be bothered. A complaint to the police from a householder that a burglar has assaulted them may stir the sediment in their feet and, naturally, they will still whip themselves instantaneously into a frenzy of righteous froth should a burglar ever complain that a householder has assaulted him. After all we can’t have people getting away with that sort of thing, can we.
However, mass voluntary redundancy is not on the agenda just yet:
Crimes which will be given priority must come under four categories: serious crimes like murder and rape, major incidents, hate crime and incidents that are the priority of a particular borough.
‘Priority of a particular borough’ and ‘hate crimes’ are largely synonymous and is likely to lead to victims of burglary or theft fabricating an element of racist abuse in order to get their complaints taken seriously. Thus the incidence of ‘hate crime’ will dramatically rocket and prompt politicians to hastily enact even more anti-hate legislation.
Also, I wonder how long it will be until ‘low-profile’ (i.e. non-politically sensitive) murders and rapes are quietly dropped from the agenda?
Hopefully though, some sections of the public wll begin to appreciate that the police, like all other nationalised industries, are indifferent to their customers. Equally, they may begin to re-evaluate the assumed social contract which the state is now unilaterally shredding.
In the long term, this may be good news. Though not such good news, I fear, in the short term.
All I wonder is: when are the Brits going to raise holy hell with their MPs and local government officials? What is WRONG with you people? Are you becoming another Massachusetts or California?
Bear, California and Massachussetts are becoming Britain… You can still own firearms in both states, albeit heavily regulated, and you can still (mostly) defend yourself. Not so in the UK
Bear, California and Massachussetts are becoming Britain… You can still own firearms in both states, albeit heavily regulated, and you can still (mostly) defend yourself. Not so in the UK
The clear-up rate for burglary in 2001 was 12% nationally. There’s reason to think the Met figures were below 10%.
I think we can safely assume that only 10% of burglaries would be “deemed solvable”. After all, that’s the percentage solved now. Sure, some crimes with obvious leads don’t get solved, but the clear-up rate is boosted by confessions to crimes that the police hadn’t originally had any leads to (but linked to after other arrests).
The Met press release doesn’t give any evidence about the success of the pilot scheme, and the Home Office don’t seem to offer up any data. But it seems implausible to me that a policy that effectively says “we won’t investigate careful burglars” is unlikely to prove effective.
What’s more, the government and the police have tried to make more of the impact of burglary on the victims. But what will be the psychological impact of beign informed the state doesn’t give a damn on an OAP who’s lost their medals, or television, or mementos of a dead child or spouse? And how can the government maintain their stance on the use of force in self-defence if the state has officially abrogated its role in crime prevention in 90% of cases of one of the most common types of crime?
Oh, and…
And let us not forget that this doesn’t just cover burglary, but also serious cases of assault in the street and other brutal crimes of violence.
Additionally, who can believe that there will not be a visible two tier service, with the rich and famous far more likely to receive a through investigation than the average citizen: after all, if the theft of an Oscar, or an assault on a politician’s child were not investigated because of a lack of leads, there would be massive adverse publicity. Conversely, a mugged pensioner will be just another local news story. The double standards, though not explicit in the proposal, are manifest, and can only reduce public confidence in a police force that solves less than 16% of recorded crime.
I may rant about this some more here later.
How is anybody qualifying for homeowner’s insurance in London? You’d think the insurance companies would be raising holy hell. On the upside it frees up more Police to sit in front of CCTV monitors. That program has worked out soo well.
Dennis P: you are right, but only to a point. Try defending yourself with deadly force in California. Your chance of being busted and tried for at the very least manslaughter are in direct proportion to how the DA is feeling that morning, whether or not it is an election year, whether you are white and shoot a member of a protected minority, and finally, your status (ie: are you a cop, a politician, or in a positio of influence) in the community. I have experience with this involving a close family member. At least the Brits come right out and SAY “screw the law abiding”.
The point I was trying to make is that in the US, California and Massachusetts too, you have a presumed right of self-defense. In the UK this no longer exists. whether or not the DA tries you is up to the DA, in England you almost certainly would be tried.
“Also, I wonder how long it will be until ‘low-profile’ (i.e. non-politically sensitive) murders and rapes are quietly dropped from the agenda?”
a lot of them already are… prostitutes are regularly murdered, but they aren’t acceptable ‘victim’ figures, so no-one (including the police apparantly) pays much attention.
Also, on the debate that’s been going on here, does anyone have figures on what percent of crimes are solved by various police forces round the world? Is 16% an abysmal figure, or just par for the course?
I think that the police are doing the right thing by prioritising their workload with regard to their resources. Murder is much more important than burglary and so valuable effort must be directed towards that first. I assume that all the apparatus for persecuting motorists will have already been dismantled as of even less importance to the public good. No? I wonder why?