Carry on Screening?
Screening out of incidents is nothing new. As much as Sergeants relentlessly pursue detections by proxy they also shield officers from a great deal in terms of spurious complaints from the public and incidents which do not constitute a criminal offence. Screening out of non-crime incidents is easier to justify than the screening out of those incidents where a crime has actually taken place. The former is far better suited to telephone resolution whereas the latter is not. The last thing a victim of crime wants to be told is that a police officer will not be attending and that they’ll have to be content with a crime report number. If I may be so bold as to infer based on the majority of the victims of crime I ever spoke with, many just want the opportunity to explain to a police officer what has happened to them and are far more concerned with having the personal contact and reassurance of knowing the police are there, listening to them and that they care than whether or not the offence against them is likely to be detected. I recall quite distinctly a study carried out by Sussex Police who contacted 5,000 victims of crime to gauge their level of satisfaction with officers’ performances and were asked what was their greatest expectation of the police. Top of the list was a swift officer response. Next was the expectation that officers would do what they say they are going to. Detections were not even mentioned.
As for police efficiency, screening out of offences certainly has the consequence of sorting the wheat from the chaff. Even if resources were plentiful, it is debatable whether sending an officer to an incident where there are no obvious lines of enquiry is a sensible use of a resource. However, is the potential for detection the only point and should it be the motivation? Would a police officer who is not subject to accountability distorting detection targets or crippling and unnecessary paperwork have any objection to attending an incident where there’s absolutely no potential for detection? I don’t believe they would. Any officer who believes in what the police stand for knows a crime is a crime is a crime. It is only the prevailing circumstances of fewer front line resources dealing with too many crimes, priority setting targets and excessive paperwork which makes such a practice necessary and even desireable. Anyone who has done or is doing the job on the front line knows the current system is no longer adequate and that there simply aren’t the numbers on the ground. They also know the fact that spending more time chasing silly targets to ensure accountability means they’re dealing more readily with those who they shouldn’t be dealing with while those who they should are able to act unhindered and with impunity. The Government have made the grave mistake of confusing detection with prevention. Prevention is the best form of prevention, not detection. All this at the expense of public faith, trust and confidence. This is the mark of deficiency, not efficiency.
We keep making decisions which merely manage the prevailing circumstances without the consequence of actually changing them and it is these circumstances which dictate police practices when it should be the other way around.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/11/npolice111.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/11/npolice211.xml
Johnno
Having been a repeated victim of crime myself, whilst in my own home, I personally, have always been extremely glad to see a uniform in response to my call for help.
On one occasion after an attack on my property in the early hours of the morning, Response Officers were unable to attend. I appreciated that all 999 calls had to be prioritised, and there were more serious incidents which needed dealing with quicker, but I spent 5 hours sitting in my living room, shaking in terror, fearing the individual (who was known to me) would attack again. Safer Neighbourhood Unit Officers arrived approximately 9 hours after the incident. I’d never been so pleased to see a uniform in all my life!
Personally, I would have preferred seeing a uniform within an hour of the incident, but understood why it hadn’t been possible. I never blame frontline Officers, 999 operators, or Police Station staff for the lack of service I received, I blame the Government.
In contrast, another incident where my property was attacked during the early hours of the morning by the same individual, Response Officers arrived within a couple of hours. Yet again, I’d been sat in my house, shaking with terror, pleading with the Police Station for someone to attend as the attack was more sustained. I was so relieved when the Officers arrived.
No arrests were made immediately after either incident, and obtaining convictions wasn’t easy for the Police Officer handling both cases. At the time of the incidents, during which I was petrified, the most reassuring thought for me, was the hope of seeing a uniform, having a Police Officer listen to my account of the incident, pertinent details being recorded in a pocket notebook, and just a verbal reassurance that it would be looked into.
I fully understand calls being screened as to whether a crime has been committed or not, but as an MOP, my greatest fear is that the person making the decision as to whether an Officer will attend or not, is not a serving Police Officer, but a civillian member of staff. Some calls are obvious as to whether a crime has taken place or not, but when I hear MOP’s describe youths kicking door mirrors off parked vehicles as “kids just being kids” when it’s actually criminal damage……..I have concerns.
The Law is impartial, civillians’ personal opinions aren’t.
I remember reading a piece by a journalist, who’s name I forget, about his experience of reporting a burglary. In this case an Officer did, eventually, attend and did what he could at the scene to investigate but both knew there was little to be done. The journalist described how he didn’t expect it to be cleared up but it was enough that the Police cared enough to “share the moment” helping restore a sense of normality.
When going to jobs I have often found that sometimes just by being there and doing what little we can is often enough. By showing an interest and doing what we say we are going to do we can leave people feeling better even if it doesn’t result in a detection. Yet by doing that we are minimising the chances of getting detections even if they are for less impactive offences.
It just goes to show the futility of trying to quantify and set targets for Police work when so much of the important part of it can be intangible.
hey,where are you from??can u email me please,thx
Oh boy, you’re going to get some comments on this one!