• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

The Thin Blue Line

What happens when you spend more money reacting to crime than preventing it.
Historically the police can't measure how many crimes they prevented other than lowering crime recording. Hence why they concentrate on arrests and solved crime rates, conviction rates, responce times.

I sat on a meeting once where a senior police officer argued neighbourhood watches increased crime figures and the fear of crime. In theory you could actively reduce some crime figures by reducing neighbourhood watch. Ie if we don't know about it then it's not recorded
 
I guess its reacting but also trying to deter crime by making prison sentences longer.
Yeah but that's been proven not to work. Making sentences tougher has just put more people in prison. Instead of filling up prisons to the point that police are asked not to solve crimes, how about address the reasons people turn to crime. Young people are joining drugs gangs and at the same time the government cuts funding to youth services. These kids are more likely to end up in a gang. Poverty, education and job prospects are a huge reason, we have more people and children in poverty, education keeps getting cut and people feel they have no viable path in life.
 
Historically the police can't measure how many crimes they prevented other than lowering crime recording. Hence why they concentrate on arrests and solved crime rates, conviction rates, responce times.

I sat on a meeting once where a senior police officer argued neighbourhood watches increased crime figures and the fear of crime. In theory you could actively reduce some crime figures by reducing neighbourhood watch. Ie if we don't know about it then it's not recorded
My point was less about police actually and fixing the issues in society that cause people to commit crimes in the first place.
 
My point was less about police actually and fixing the issues in society that cause people to commit crimes in the first place.
I get you, my reply was really based on why the Police don't focus on cause. Everyone seems to just want to be tough on crime less so the causes.
 
Yeah but that's been proven not to work. Making sentences tougher has just put more people in prison. Instead of filling up prisons to the point that police are asked not to solve crimes, how about address the reasons people turn to crime. Young people are joining drugs gangs and at the same time the government cuts funding to youth services. These kids are more likely to end up in a gang. Poverty, education and job prospects are a huge reason, we have more people and children in poverty, education keeps getting cut and people feel they have no viable path in life.
Yup that was my point.
 

Sadly, just confirmation that CPS will never prosecute these senior officers for their incompetence.
I think the problem is proving it was intentional and not incompetence. If incompetence was a crime then most of the Tory party would be locked up.
 
And corruption?
I'm not disagreeing. However, there is a difference between knowing it and proving it to meet a legal threshold. I don't like it and I feel they should face the consequences. However, when the judicial system is already at the point of collapse, I can understand not prosecuting a case they will most likely lose just to satisfy public opinion. That's not how justice works and it would set a dangerous precedent.
 
Just stinks really. They tried to prosecute Duckenfield for Hillsborough despite his lies. This just further erodes faith in the police and they can fall below the standard of a reasonable police officer, in public office. They definitely fall below that of civil liability threshold.
 
Just stinks really. They tried to prosecute Duckenfield for Hillsborough despite his lies. This just further erodes faith in the police and they can fall below the standard of a reasonable police officer, in public office. They definitely fall below that of civil liability threshold.
Didn't they prosecute Duckenfield and a jury found him not guilty of Gross negligence manslaughter. A coroner ruled there were serious failings by numerous people. These facts alone would have made it difficult for Duckenfield to be protected for the criminal offence of misconduct in a public office.
 
Last edited:
Didn't they prosecute Duckenfield and a jury found him not guilty of Gross negligence manslaughter. A coroner ruled there were serious failings by numerous people. These facts alone would have made it difficult for Duckenfield to be protected for the criminal offence of misconduct in a public office.

They did. But it still adds to the general feeling that the establishment won't prosecute or juries find them guilty in public office. Duckenfield should never have been match commander that day - he had no experience of crowd control management at a major football match. He was out there after Brian Mole was removed due to a prank by officers from his police station on a new officer.
 

Latest posts

Top