Another "alleged" ,"mythical" police sham.

[Darbees 10]

What you fail to appreciate is that for people such as Fareast, Ruby and myself a fall in the crime rate of 40% since 1995 is barely perceptible compared with the increase in crime we have seen since our childhood in the 1940s, 50s and 60s.

 

I have little doubt that the sharp increase in crime since the 1970s, particularly robberies, burglaries and personal violence is associated with drug addiction and drug peddling.

And the breakdown of discipline in school and the home.

[Rotherhamer 10]

Just as well he didn't have a gun. Remember Tony Martin he was the victim of burglars and ended up in prison himself. Sometimes the law is an ass.

Your right there ..sometimes the law is an ass..Tony Martin should still be locked up..it was pre-meditated murder,nothing else.

[Fareast 10]

I think the number of unreported crimes in the past is, by its very nature a very difficult thing to evaluate. There was a certain amount of ' rough justice ' dished out but isn't that still the case today ?

One thing, however, we can be sure of and that is the overwhelming evidence that a hell of a lot of crime goes unreported nowadays.

One example :- In our city centres, all over the U.K. every weekend there are reportedly so many punch-ups, acts of vandalism and robberies that the police admit they can only cope with the major incidents. How many hundreds of thousands of crimes in a year does that add up to, I wonder ? At one time, our city centres were more or less quiet after about 11 p.m. and even after the advent of nightclubs there was not the same level of bad behaviour that there is now.

The truth, I suspect, is that our society has gone a long way downhill as regards violence, stupidity, boorishness and greed ------hence the condition on our streets. I'm still puzzled why so many people still refuse to recognise this ?

[rubydazzler 11]

The truth, I suspect, is that our society has gone a long way downhill as regards violence, stupidity, boorishness and greed ------hence the condition on our streets. I'm still puzzled why so many people still refuse to recognise this ?

I think we're actually beating our heads against a brick wall. The people who've lived through the last 30 or so years seem to only be able to parrot 'statistics' and accuse everyone else of lying about their experiences. Perhaps they really think that things are getting better?

 

Because these same people are going to be the ones in charge, things will never get much better. So we might as well stop, the relief is tremendous!

[Darkoak 10]

I also think that people were MORE likely to report crimes when I was young and also the police were more pro-active thus they actually prevented things like random violence and vandalism by their mere presence. They patrolled on foot and therefore were more likely to hear/see a crime in commission that whizzing by in a patrol car. They even used to do things like checking shop doors and even house doors in the night whilst on patrol.

 

It may be a rose blinkered view as I was quite young through all of this period, but I'm sure everyone was a lot more law-abiding then. Especially us younger ones, discounting the fights between teddy boy gangs and mod and rockers, of course.

 

No, Cyclone, I'm not at all happy with your attitude. Do the words 'I was wrong in what I said and I apologise' stick in your craw?

 

I'm afraid that you are looking through rose-tinted specs, Ruby.

 

In 1988 when I joined the job at West Bar, we would regularly 'turn out' 5 Sergeants and upwards of 30 Constables into an area that largely constituted the inner ring road, plus the Park Hill, Hyde Park and Wybourn Estates. Therefore, many were on foot patrol (which I enjoyed), so checking that shop doors were locked and windows intact were part and parcel of your duties. Woe betide you missed a 'break' because your Sergeant would you give you some right grief the following day!!

 

And yes, you're right, there was plenty of times that you would hear (or even see) a 'break in progress' and catch the thieves in the act. What a thrill that was and, occasionally, still is!

 

But times have changed. Burglars and thieves now use cars to do their grafting and those who don't are rare. Having said that, I don't know where the aforementioned numbers have gone?

[rubydazzler 11]

I'm a bit confused now, Darkoak. On the one hand you appear to be agreeing with me and on the other you accuse me of wearing rose tinted spectacles ...

 

I'm actually talking about 20 or 30 years before your time, though. And although the areas you mention were always considered a bit like the Wild Frontier, compared to today (when even areas such as Woodseats, Hillsborough and Norton seem a lot more Wild West that they used to with their kiddy gangs posting pix on websites brandishing guns and meat cleavers) in retrospect, they seem quite orderly.

[Wildcat 10]

What you fail to appreciate is that for people such as Fareast, Ruby and myself a fall in the crime rate of 40% since 1995 is barely perceptible compared with the increase in crime we have seen since our childhood in the 1940s, 50s and 60s.

 

I have little doubt that the sharp increase in crime since the 1970s, particularly robberies, burglaries and personal violence is associated with drug addiction and drug peddling.

 

There is some truth in what you say. But I don't buy the majority of the arguments being put forward to support that argument and I do think it is exaggerated. My own personal experience of the 70s was admittedly in a different city (south London) but of an area more dangerous and more scarey than the same location is today. But that is just personal experience and whilst it gives me an inclination to deny a rise in crime, it is I am fully aware a subjective opinion.

 

I have tried to find some historic facts to see if they will shed any light on the subject and any long term trends. I have found this page on wiki giving homicide death rates per 100,000 which gives stats going back to 1900. Homicide has the advantage of not being subject unlike other crimes with issues around reporting rates. Looking at the stats the homicide rate started out around 1 per 100,000. There was a fairly steady decline until the late 60s with a rise immediately after the second world war for a few years perhaps to do with post traumatic stress (that saw 1952 with levels of homicide around those at the turn of the century and returned to later at the end of the 70s). After the sixties it began to rise again until by the late 70s it was back to 1900 levels. It continued rising until it reached a peak of 2 in 2002, the last date that the wiki page lists. I say continued rising the period 1974 to 1994 yearly the figures went up and down fluctuating around 1 per 100,000. This does support what you Rubydazzler and Fareast have been arguing, but the rise is not as great as you might have expected. Looking deeper in to the figures those given for 2002 are artificially high because about a fifth of them were the victims of Harold Shipman Ref. Since then it has fallen by about 25%, back to around the levels they were in 1997. Table 2.04

 

Trying to work out what has caused the recent rise and more recent decline is the difficult bit. Increasing availability of guns (linked to drug smuggling), availability of drugs, better forensics to distinguish between natural causes (Shipman a prime example), media portrayals of violence, increase in relative poverty, divorce rates etc may and probably do all play their part.

 

But we need to keep things in context. Homicide rates may be up 40% from 1952, but we are still towards the bottom of the table and more than 3 times safer than a US citizen. Which doesn't indicate to me the society falling apart type comments that these threads usually attract. That is not to say we shouldn't be concerned, but we should also be pleased the recent trend has been in the right direction.

[Cyclone 10]

Maybe the perceived increase is mainly down to an increase in national reporting and a better detection rate of actual murders.

[Cyclone 10]

I also think that people were MORE likely to report crimes when I was young and also the police were more pro-active thus they actually prevented things like random violence and vandalism by their mere presence. They patrolled on foot and therefore were more likely to hear/see a crime in commission that whizzing by in a patrol car. They even used to do things like checking shop doors and even house doors in the night whilst on patrol.

 

It may be a rose blinkered view as I was quite young through all of this period, but I'm sure everyone was a lot more law-abiding then. Especially us younger ones, discounting the fights between teddy boy gangs and mod and rockers, of course.

 

No, Cyclone, I'm not at all happy with your attitude. Do the words 'I was wrong in what I said and I apologise' stick in your craw?

 

They would, but that's because they are your words.

 

You can't prove I'm wrong, I can't prove I'm right. But as a 2nd hand anecdote, it stinks like week old fish. In my opinion your aquaintance lied to you. You're defending him quite strongly for someone you won't even call a friend.

You can dislike my attitude all you like, but I've worked with the police for the last year and I've not come across a single attitude that is even close to what would be required for your 2nd hand anecdote to be true.

 

Maybe you should refrain from posing questions like this

 

Are you suggesting that he was lying to me?

If you're going to throw a big strop when someone says that the answer is yes.

[rubydazzler 11]

snip for brevity

Still running true to form, I see. Your avoidance technique is nothing less than I've come to expect from you. As words of apology are still stuck in your craw, I have no choice but to adhere to my original appraisal of your attitude.

 

Back to the topic. Obviously, I'm still the only person that thinks the mods have gone too far with their own interpretation of and alteration to the thread title. Unless, of course, they did it in consultation with the OP? Can we be enlightened, please?

 

The police do have a serious image problem right now, almost comparable with the one that Gordon Brown has. The readiness of people to believe these, as Cyclone wiishes us to believe, "lies" is sadly, evidence that police credibility is at an all time low. I'm not totally blaming them for this state of affairs as I believe that the Government is responsible for most of it, by imposing targets and refusing to back good old fashioned coppering, but at the same time wanting to impose ridiculous new laws such as extending the time limit for detention, which no one actually wants or needs.

 

However, the police don't help themselves by some of the actions that they do or do not take, and we all know first hand of some, not necessarily serious, but tending to confirm already held views of the tendency to ignore certain things, probably in the forlorn hope that they'll just go away.

[happyhippy 11]

AM note

 

If anyone has any problems with how any thread is moderated, please use the helpdesk.

 

Cheers all.

[Longcol 602]

I think we're actually beating our heads against a brick wall. The people who've lived through the last 30 or so years seem to only be able to parrot 'statistics' and accuse everyone else of lying about their experiences. Perhaps they really think that things are getting better?

 

Because these same people are going to be the ones in charge, things will never get much better. So we might as well stop, the relief is tremendous!

 

For myself I reckon things are better now than the period 87 - 95 give or take - certainly in this neck of the woods burglary and car crime are non existent now compared to 15 years ago (burgled 3 times in a year, my Dads car robbed and similar up and down the road).

 

What we have these days is 24 hours a day news on the box with crime, crime, crime - 24 hours a day internet with crime, crime, crime - and the Tory press with crime, crime, crime (I mean, what other "positive" news could the Mail give to its hardcore readership from 97 - 2005 apart from immigration / asylum).

 

My lads have been able to walk to school and back for 12 years or so without ever getting in a fight / being robbed etc - now back in the '60's I was picked on regularly because I was big for my age.