Smoke And Mirrors.
October 25, 2007 by inspectorgadget
Last year, the Home Office declared that Ruralshire County had a problem with the ‘under-reporting’ of domestic violence. This, of course, was Ruralshire Constabulary’s fault.
The historical, cultural, social and financial pressures that prevented women from reporting domestic violence in 2006 were………. Ruralshire Constabulary’s fault. Not the offender, not the family, not the reluctant victim, not her friends or work colleagues who turned a blind eye. No. It was…………. Ruralshire Constabulary.
Because of this, we adopted an extensive strategy designed to increase the reporting of domestic violence. This has worked, and the number of recorded offences has risen. The Detective Inspector on F Division who ‘owned’ the project is very pleased and has been suitably rewarded with a positive ‘write-up’ in her staff appraisal.
The only problem is that the Detective Inspector who works down the corridor in Public Protection, also has a Home Office target to reduce the amount of domestic violence offences on F Division.
This has not worked due to his colleagues success in increasing the reporting of domestic violence. He is not pleased and has received a less than favourable ‘write-up’ in his staff appraisal.
The point is that one of them had to fail for the other to succeed. Such is the crazy world of police management in the 21st century. We shouldn’t compromise ourselves by getting involved in this cynical political manipulation of victims.
You couldn’t make it up. I suddenly feel the need to go and wash.
You’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t.
They were Bart Simpsons words from 1991 I believe, but from the victims point of view the words of UB40 would be more appropriate: Nobody knows me but I’m always there, a statistical reminder of a world that doesn’t care.
Like the reduction in delay of despatch times but the increased delay in attendance times ? Comms can hit their targets but response miss theirs. Targets and league tables, one man’s targets are another man’s failings. The right hand giveth and the left hand taketh away.
I’ve seen BP’s.
I always wonder why Police Bloggers or in fact any Bloggers dont get protection under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 or in fact some media protection regs.
Talking about police bloggers…my Viking got given a quiet word in his shell-like about his blogging activity, as a probie he hasn’t really got much weight behind him, so that the end of that. Having said that, he does blog about other things as well.
But it’s interesting timing.
‘Not the offender, not the family, not the reluctant victim, not her friends or work colleagues who turned a blind eye.’
There are assumptions implicit in that line that are tellingly indicative of contemporary liberal thought. Not all victims of domestic violence are female, not all victims are unwilling and not all perpetrators (perpetratresses?) are ‘offenders’. The possibility that the victim is ‘topping from the bottom’ is not obviously presented, at least not to Gruff, and the notion that all women are necessarily involved in multiple ’support networks’ that may collude in concealing a crime that may not be a crime ignores the possibility that, like a man, a woman may not need such networks.
It’s also tellingly indicative of contemporary mores that male victims of domestic violence, however it is conceived, tend to be ignored if not actually derided.
Crikey me Gruff their are some BIG words in their
Gruff’s got a good point. My late grandfather endured a married lifetime of abuse and assault. Despite being a physically fit and powerful man (he was a miner back in the days when they swung picks), he’d never hit a woman. My grandmother exploited this to the full, but he never complained. He just took it and suffered in silence. Blokes like that still exist, but I think they are now deemed to be perps - the women are always victims.
‘topping from the bottom’? Does that mean gaining ‘power’ by being a victim?
Sorry, it’s an expression I have not seen before
Yes, I am sure the D/I who increased her figures is mighty pleased, all achieved from behind a desk no doubt, since of course we can not front line patrol away nasty vicarious crime like domestic violence .It’s the perfect 21 C thinking on policing, change the definitions and have a file for it, bit like the attempts to lower the general standard of proof for rape “so we can secure more convictions ” and be seen to be achieving targets
That said before anyone thinks that Police take domestic violence lightly , they don’t it is as previously pointed out much more complicated that simply apportioning blame for what at the heart of it may be some form of assault. You do not mend society by changing reporting standards, I am afraid some crimes ,like the poor, will always be with us, one such thing is that couples fall out, plates get smashed and much worse , in reality all we can do is collect evidence and let the courts decide.
I have long since interested myself in Domestic Violence, commencing with my getting involved (as a cop) with some women (?Erin Pizzey?) who ran ‘domestic shelters’ (safe-ish houses) in Ealing in the early ’70s.
I found it sad that some officers were recently boasting about ‘zero tolerance’ for these cases, indicating that arresting the hubby was almost automatic. I totally support the strongest action being taken against thugs - particularly domestic thugs - but am saddened to see that what is a serious problem in many cases, is now yet another politically correct football.
Take the bloody politics out of it, and deal properly with each individual case. Please?
When we attend a domestic of any description whatsoever even the most trivial of arguments, a form has to be filled in. Worse than this someone has to be an offender and someone a victim even ifd they are as bad as each other. Morally and ethically wrong to make someone an opffender when they aren’t, but hey no one cares, its all about performance innit.
Whatapalava has an interesting point. I enjoy filling in the domestic violence reporting form when *both* of them have been locked up and they’re both making allegations. Who’s the offender and who’s the victim or . .. worse .. should I be filling two sets of forms in with exactly the same details but the offender and suspect boxes reversed (likely!).
Ha Ha, you really, absolutely, positively couldn’t make it up!
Not that i’m laughing at domestic violence mind you, it’s wrong and should be stamped upon, but it is frustrating when on the night you get (in chav speak) “I WANTS HIM CHARGED” followed the following week by “BUT I DU LOVES HIM REALLY AND WANTS TO DROP THE CHARGES”.
This detracts from the masses of men and women suffering abuse from real mental and physical abusers and are genuinely too scared to do anything about it.
There’s no comedy in domestic violence so I don’t know why I’m laughing at the above so much…. unless you live where I work then obviously it’s your god given birthright to knock seven bells out of your partner, only of course if your lagered up, thus providing you with the bombproof defence of “not meaning it.”
Inspector Gadget - keep up the good work and tell ‘em how it is. By the way, if you think that all we do is make comedy out of it all, you’re wrong. The reason we do this job is because we care, well, a bit anyway.
Not dissimilar to the conflict of targets between the police and CPS. Police are only interested in a charge for the detection and CPS are only interested in a case that will result in a prosecution as that is their target. So when a file goes to CPS for advice when there is enough to run the case CPS will say no if it is not a strong enough case so that it does not impact om their targets if the defendant is found not guilty at Court. Strange old world balancing (or cooking ) the books.
Uphilldowndale: I’m not sure whether you have inferred that I was implying that the ‘victim’ was deliberately ‘asking for it’ as mitigation of the ‘offence’ but I meant that making oneself a ‘victim’, either with the willing or unwitting consent of the ‘perpetrator’ is a way of gaining control over him.
One thing that I have noticed is typical of abusive women (at least those I have known) is that they are adept at painting themselves as victims and gaining sympathy, to the detriment of the men in their lives. Might that not be characteristic of some abused women also? There are relationships in which the stereotypical Neanderthal male visits unprovoked violence upon his defenceless female but I suspect that such cases are the minority.
The issue is complex and, as with definitions of obscenity and pornography, not one on which simplistic judgments can be made but people of both sexes are happy to continue relationships that may be defined by others as abusive. Ultimately the issue is one of consent and harm.
William, It wasn’t my intention to infer anything, I was just seeking clarification of an phrase I wasn’t familiar with.
The amount of extra work given to UK police officers is incredible. I moved to Ontario, Canada just over a year ago, and can illustrate a case in point with an event that happened the other night here.
It was a minor RTA, no injuries, car vs tree. A single officer turned up in a car after less than four minutes following the call (I made the call incidentally). He briefly spoke to the driver, got his license, registration and insurance details, and then went back to his car to deal with the incident. Using the computer terminal in the car he was able to check all the details, and get a transcript of the original call made to the emergency call taker. Of interest was the fact that I’d described the driver as “not approachable” so he retrieved my cell number from the computer and rang me to get clarification. I told him it was due to the drivers agitation, rather than being suspicious that he’d been drinking or taking anything.
He decided to deal with it by issuing a ticket with a fixed penalty fine for driving without due care. But my point is, he did ALL the work he needed to do at the roadside. He finished by closing the incident without even needing to go back to the station. He updated the computer, and closed the incident; now it’s up to the courts.
How much paperwork, I wonder, would a UK officer have had to do? How long would they have been stuck at the station? That officer had moved on, incident closed, in little under 40 minutes. The UK has just become a grind of paperwork to make some target or other and it’s become less and less about actual policing.
It is just ridiculous.
Just a point to Porcorosso and Whatapalava…. where I work domestic violence reports can be completed showing both parties as ’suspects’ if they are both to blame or as bad as each other.. or even if it cannot be ascertained WHO is to ‘blame’. The DVU staff tell me it makes their job massively easier if officers do this as it makes the whole situation much more transparanet. Similarly, our DVU state very clearly that they want the incident dealing with properly, and NOT just arrest the male. If the female is at fault, get her locked up!
Not Long Now - obviously you have someone in your DVU who has no interest in getting promoted!
Bulls eye PC Bloggs , bulls eye
In a similar vein to IG’s last story, here’s another: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/sun_says/article244723.ece (its the 2nd story, in brief)
Why is he free?
JAMES Santrey is a violent thug who tried to butcher a terrified police officer.
The decision to let him walk free with a suspended sentence is another breathtaking affront to justice by one of the many liberal lunatics masquerading as judges.
Santrey tried to stab PC Dameon Shaw at least six times with a kitchen knife. It was a miracle he wasn’t wounded or worse.
But the judge, Charles George, said Santrey had a “good heart”, wished him luck and sent him on his way.
Let’s get this straight: Anyone who tries to knife a PC deserves a long stretch inside, not the blessing of a lily-livered judge.
Without that deterrent, what earthly chance do our cops have?
Anyone know anything more about this story?