Law & Order in Freefall. Only 1% of bike thefts charged, never mind convicted.

[Deleted member 121]

Prove it. Do you have anything to prove that you actually had a bike? Is there evidence of the theft?

Easy. My door camera will show me leaving on my bike at a said time, I waved to my neighbour, my missus saw me off, waved to my kid on the school bus. There would be a reasonable conclusion I had my bike at around that time of day. Next....

 

[icowden]

Easy. My door camera will show me leaving on my bike at a said time, I waved to my neighbour, my missus saw me off, waved to my kid on the school bus. There would be a reasonable conclusion I had my bike at around that time of day. Next....

That's the hard bit. Finding the person that nicked it. Even with CCTV that's a tough ask.

 

[BoldonLad]

'Low life' surely you mean a poor misunderstood individual that hasn't had a chance in life due to the abhorrent state of the country caused solely by Government under funding?

It's not 'their' fault the Tories have turned everyone into criminals in the last 12yrs.

My apologies, you are quite correct

 

[Deleted member 121]

That's the hard bit. Finding the person that nicked it. Even with CCTV that's a tough ask.

Surely proving you own said nicked bike is the easy bit. In fact, I hadn't even considered it. Is insurance fraud of this nature prevalent and rife? Seems a bit limp. Is it a major factor in why the conviction rate is hilariously low? I understand actually finding a stolen bike is unlikely, that's well known and why bikes are an easy target for criminals.

 

[spen666]

Easy. My door camera will show me leaving on my bike at a said time, I waved to my neighbour, my missus saw me off, waved to my kid on the school bus. There would be a reasonable conclusion I had my bike at around that time of day. Next....

That merely will show at time of recording you were leaving on a bike.

Nor will it prove the bike was stolen

Wonder why their is such a low clear up rate of alleged crimes, when the alleged victim is unable to prove he even owned the item, let alone that it was stolen

I am being a little bit facetious in my answers above, but it is a good example of the sort of evidence needed to prove a crime took place and convict someone to the criminal standard of proof

 

[Deleted member 121]

That merely will show at time of recording you were leaving on a bike.

Nor will it prove the bike was stolen

Wonder why their is such a low clear up rate of alleged crimes, when the alleged victim is unable to prove he even owned the item, let alone that it was stolen

I am being a little bit facetious in my answers above, but it is a good example of the sort of evidence needed to prove a crime took place and convict someone to the criminal standard of proof

Yes, I understand that concept, but are there any statistics or official facts at all relating to bicycle theft reports and police refusing to investigate based on the fact that the alleged victim couldn't prove they had a bicycle at all? Is there any correlation then between the above and the extremely low and worsening charge rate, Or is this all just theoretical?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

what we do not know is the number of reported crimes are actual crimes

Nor do we know the true number of such crimes that go unreported.

 

[icowden]

Yes, I understand that concept, but are there any statistics or official facts at all relating to bicycle theft reports and police refusing to investigate based on the fact that the alleged victim couldn't prove they had a bicycle at all?

It isn't about them refusing to investigate. It's about them not having both an accused and sufficient evidence for the CPS to go to prosecution. Most of the time they won't find the thief. When they do find them there needs to be a solid body of evidence that he nicked the bike (e.g. bike in his possession, CCTV of him nicking it etc).

 

[icowden]

No crimes committed when Labour were in last, you clown!

Eh?
Maybe look at this:-
https://www.macrotrends.net/countri...e & statistics for,a 9.96% increase from 2014.

Labour were in power from 1997 to 2010. If we take a 5 year offset to allow for policies to change, implementation to actually happen (no magic wands) we see that from a spike in 2002 crime starts dropping year on year all the way to 2015 (that's 13 years). Then "call me Dave" gets in and we see crimes start to soar again as Sure Starts get shut down and mental health services get cut. In 2020 we see a dip due to pandemic.

So yes - there is evidence that fewer crimes were committed when Labour's policies were in effect.

 

[multitool]

The 97-2010 Labour government now seems like a golden era compared to what we have had for over a decade.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Eh?
Maybe look at this:-
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/crime-rate-statistics#:~:text=U.K. crime rate & statistics for,a 9.96% increase from 2014.

Labour were in power from 1997 to 2010. If we take a 5 year offset to allow for policies to change, implementation to actually happen (no magic wands) we see that from a spike in 2002 crime starts dropping year on year all the way to 2015 (that's 13 years). Then "call me Dave" gets in and we see crimes start to soar again as Sure Starts get shut down and mental health services get cut. In 2020 we see a dip due to pandemic.

So yes - there is evidence that fewer crimes were committed when Labour's policies were in effect.

A 5 year offset period, we obviously couldn't show anything but a downturn could we, I don't suppose the 'offset years' were an improvement over Labour possibly?

So if old Stammer does get in next time and the 'offset years' show an improvement who's responsible for that then?

Is this a 'sign of the times' as well maybe, have you checked the crime stats for when Maggie was in power for example?

 

[multitool]

I'm not a massive fan of crime record headlines. These things are often incommensurable because of changes in reporting methods, and, as ever, the innate complexity requires detailed study nor easy soundbite.

The one consistent factor is the association between crime and economic inequality.

 

[icowden]

A 5 year offset period, we obviously couldn't show anything but a downturn could we, I don't suppose the 'offset years' were an improvement over Labour possibly?

It takes time from putting a policy in place to seeing the results of that policy. This is why the dimmer Americans think Trump did well and Biden is gong badly. They fail to understand that Trump's administration happened under Obama's policies whereas Biden's is happening under Trump policies.

As an example. Lets say the Government agree to an increase in funding for Mental Health Services today. By the time that funding has been put in place it will likely be Christmas. At that point the NHS will start to recruit and open more clinics. That will take at least a year. The people accessing those clinics will start to get help over the next year or two and we will start to notice improvement in crime stats only when they have been collated the year after that.

 

[spen666]

Yes, I understand that concept, but are there any statistics or official facts at all relating to bicycle theft reports and police refusing to investigate based on the fact that the alleged victim couldn't prove they had a bicycle at all? Is there any correlation then between the above and the extremely low and worsening charge rate, Or is this all just theoretical?

Theoretical?
Erm no, its the basis of the criminal justice system that the state as prosecutor has to prove each and every element of the theft
You want more statistics? The rest of us would rather have police resources used to prevent crimes / obtain evidence to prosecute successfully crimes than producing statistics for Dave to argue on the internet about

 

[Deleted member 28]

It takes time from putting a policy in place to seeing the results of that policy. This is why the dimmer Americans think Trump did well and Biden is gong badly. They fail to understand that Trump's administration happened under Obama's policies whereas Biden's is happening under Trump policies.

As an example. Lets say the Government agree to an increase in funding for Mental Health Services today. By the time that funding has been put in place it will likely be Christmas. At that point the NHS will start to recruit and open more clinics. That will take at least a year. The people accessing those clinics will start to get help over the next year or two and we will start to notice improvement in crime stats only when they have been collated the year after that.

I get it now, Obama was really doing well but no-one knew, Trump 'appeared' to do well but wasn't really because it was Obama that did well and now Biden is in power he may or may not be doing well but because of Trump he 'appears' to be doing poorly?

So really unless Labour stay in power for at least 3 terms they can do whatever they like because it will always be the Tories fault, have I got this right?