Wednesday, September 14, 2016

About those British crime numbers,

One of the biggest police forces in the country fails to record more than 38,000 reported crimes each year, including a quarter of violent offences.

Greater Manchester police (GMP) were graded “inadequate” at recording crime, and a watchdog found officers were also wrongly cancelling recorded violence, robbery and sex offences.
Several agencies giving "...a lack of knowledge amongst officers and staff about their responsibilities to record crime.” as the reason.

And while some crimes aren't being recorded,
The number of prosecutions brought for sexual offences has risen to its highest level ever, jumping 22.5 per cent on last year.
Be it noted there are a couple of problems with this.  One of them is
Ms Saunders warned of a "growing trend" of offences perpetrated on or through social media.
"The use of the internet, social media and other forms of technology to humiliate, control and threaten individuals is rising,” she said.
Considering the loose way 'humiliate' and 'threaten' are defined by some, that sets off some warning bells.  And then there's this:
However in recent months the CPS has been criticised for prosecuting cases than have ended in collapse.

In May a judge criticised a police officer and the CPS for their handling of accusations of gang rape against four agricultural students, which fell apart just as the trial was due to start. He said they bore responsibility for failing to disclose “game-changing” evidence to the defence teams of the men.
In plain language, "You had evidence that would cast doubt on the case, or clear the accused, and you hid it.  You wanted a conviction whether they were guilty or not."  Sounds like some of the prosecutors we want jailed here, doesn't it?
At the time, the police force said they and the CPS would review the judge’s comments “to learn the lessons of this case.”
How about you don't hide evidence that clears the accused?  How hard is that to learn?

That's bad enough; this case is worse, and is why I have real doubts of that 'sexual offenses' number:
An award-winning actress appearing in the upcoming sixth season of Game of Thrones has been outed as the woman who falsely accused Mark Pearson of rape after he walked past her. Souad Faress claimed that Pearson digitally penetrated her, violating her inside her underwear, for several seconds in the middle of Waterloo Station in London.

Despite video evidence showing the male artist had a newspaper in one hand and was holding the strap of his backpack in the other, he was tracked down using his electronic public transportation card and charged. Furthermore, Pearson was in range of sexagenarian Faress’ body, let alone her genitals, for no more than about half a second.
Yet it gets worse. Faress, to try and bolster her fraudulent account, said she screamed and no one helped her. CCTV footage conclusively disproved this. To boot, Pearson did not break stride, discrediting her other claim that he smashed into her shoulder. Most shockingly of all, the lying thespian could not even point him out in an “identity parade.” That did not stop the Crown Prosecution Service from prosecuting Pearson until its representatives were rebuked by the judge and a jury quickly exonerated him.
So, with video evidence that it didn't happen, the Crown Prosecution Service still tracked him down, charged, and tried him.  Which ought to result in criminal charges against the prosecutors.

And yet more:
The first leader of Britain’s National Police Chiefs’ Council, Sara Thornton, says that British residents cannot expect police to respond to burglary reportsanymore. Because of funding cuts, Ms. Thornton, the former Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, says that online abuse cases and allegations of “sexual assault” will take precedence.
Well, hell, maybe if the CPS wasn't wasting money prosecuting innocent people, you'd have some more cash for investigating actual CRIMES?  Which, by the way, do not include  "He posted/tweeted something that hurt my feelings!"

No comments: