Police and crime commissioners say they have been given no information on how the 20 per cent cut to murder and other crime types demanded by the prime minister and home secretary will work.
Liz Truss proposed the targets in July during her successful Conservative Party leadership campaign, when police sources lambasted the plans as “incoherent”.
The new home secretary, Suella Braverman, confirmed the government was pursuing the policy with a letter to all police forces in England and Wales last month.
In her speech to the Conservative conference last week, she said: “The prime minister and I want to see homicide, serious violence, and neighbourhood crime fall by 20 per cent.”
No further information has been given about how the fall will be judged, whether it will be per force or nationally and how it will be implemented.
At a press conference on Thursday, members of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) said they had not been formally consulted on the plans.
Matthew Barber, the Conservative PCC for Thames Valley, said: “I haven’t seen any detail on that … there needs to be a discussion about what crime we are talking about, the baseline is crually important, and the timescale.”
Mr Barber, who is the APCC’s joint lead for performance, said that under the previous policing minister Kit Malthouse a “crime performance board” looked at homicide reduction but did not set a numerical target.
“I would envisage that body will be revised as a talking point for sensible negotiation around what those targets would be,” he added.
Kim McGuiness, the Labour PCC for Northumbria, called for focus and investment on preventing crime amid fears that some types will increase during the cost of living crisis.
She said: “So far we’ve had no detail [on the 20 per cent cut]. We need to be very very wary of targets without any proper rationale and thought about the way we prevent crime in order to drive down the numbers.”
Several senior police figures have voiced concerns about the plans, after previous policing targets were scrapped.
A 2015 report found that previous crime targets created “perverse incentives to mis-record crime” and caused police to respond to some offences selectively “to the detriment of other calls”.
It was commissioned by the then home secretary Theresa May, who said at the time: “Targets don’t fight crime, they hinder the fight against crime.”
The proportion of crimes solved has been dropping in recent years, with prosecution rates currently at a record low of just 5.6 per cent of all offences while police-recorded crime is at a record high.
Official reports have warned of a national shortage of detectives, and said Boris Johnson’s push to recruit 20,000 extra constables in three years is “creating an inexperienced workforce”.
Writing for The Independent last month the chair of the Police Federation, which represents more than 120,000 rank-and-file officers in England and Wales, said it was “disappointing and dangerous, to see policies which have failed so disastrously in the past be promoted and presented as brand-new ideas”.
Steve Hartshorn warned: “Crime cannot be controlled by a government issued, headline-friendly diktat asking police forces to cut serious crimes such as homicide by 20 per cent or else face action.
”Law and order must be free from the ebb and flow of politics and although policing may have to adhere to targets, the public doesn’t – and if we focus on one crime to satisfy a target, at the expense of another, the public lose out.“
When she announced the plan in July, Ms Truss said: “People across our country want criminals locked up, and crime prevented, so they feel safe on their streets,” Ms Truss said.
“It’s time for the police to get back to basics and spend their time investigating real crimes, not Twitter rows and hurt feelings. People can trust me to deliver and these league tables will help hold the police to account – making our streets safer and our country more prosperous.”
… Like crime commissioners can fix anything or do anything other than steal a living.
Maybe they meant cut criminals by 20% and they’re planning to start chopping them off at the shins?
They will give criminals 20% extra buying stolen goods hoping their money will last longer thus lowering their need for money and lowering crime, simple hey!
If I was a massive cunt (and in government power) I’d reclassify most c and b drugs to class a, I’d get the figures I wanted while being seen as being tough on crime.
The media and politicians really need to stop spinning the narrative that cops spend all their time dealing with Twitter rows. It’s complete and utter BS.
Cops (frontline) spend most of their time dealing with non crime incidents which are a result of Tory cuts to other services. Police HAVE to pick up the short fall, they don’t have a choice because there is a risk of harm and they can’t go unattended. The main example being mental health calls, concern for safety, etc.
obviously the government is going to make crime illegal.
Easy, they’ll simply stop counting financial crime as a crime, or only count crime that leads to a conviction, because if there is no conviction in a court of law how can we really be sure a crime was even committed?
Just in case that wasn’t obvious, the above is clearly bollocks, its like saying that no crime was committed in the Jack the ripper case because no one was caught or convicted, see? Obvious bollocks, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s the governments new strategy. Has the bonus of showing a fall in crime rate as police funding falls.
Does this mean they’re finally going to start addressing the systemic social and economic issues that lead to crime in deprived areas?
Does it fuck.
EASY: stop recording 20% of the crimes – make it much harder to even report them. Job done.
League tables sure sounds like a good way to let people know where it’s easier to get away with crime, unless there’s funding to support those at the bottom.
To be fair they can promise the moon on a privatised stick, they won’t be in long enough to implement anything. Of course Braverman could end up PM but then she’d probably just go scorched earth and make herself the head of a paramilitary police state.
12 comments
Ad free version:
Police and crime commissioners say they have been given no information on how the 20 per cent cut to murder and other crime types demanded by the prime minister and home secretary will work.
Liz Truss proposed the targets in July during her successful Conservative Party leadership campaign, when police sources lambasted the plans as “incoherent”.
The new home secretary, Suella Braverman, confirmed the government was pursuing the policy with a letter to all police forces in England and Wales last month.
In her speech to the Conservative conference last week, she said: “The prime minister and I want to see homicide, serious violence, and neighbourhood crime fall by 20 per cent.”
No further information has been given about how the fall will be judged, whether it will be per force or nationally and how it will be implemented.
At a press conference on Thursday, members of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) said they had not been formally consulted on the plans.
Matthew Barber, the Conservative PCC for Thames Valley, said: “I haven’t seen any detail on that … there needs to be a discussion about what crime we are talking about, the baseline is crually important, and the timescale.”
Mr Barber, who is the APCC’s joint lead for performance, said that under the previous policing minister Kit Malthouse a “crime performance board” looked at homicide reduction but did not set a numerical target.
“I would envisage that body will be revised as a talking point for sensible negotiation around what those targets would be,” he added.
Kim McGuiness, the Labour PCC for Northumbria, called for focus and investment on preventing crime amid fears that some types will increase during the cost of living crisis.
She said: “So far we’ve had no detail [on the 20 per cent cut]. We need to be very very wary of targets without any proper rationale and thought about the way we prevent crime in order to drive down the numbers.”
Several senior police figures have voiced concerns about the plans, after previous policing targets were scrapped.
A 2015 report found that previous crime targets created “perverse incentives to mis-record crime” and caused police to respond to some offences selectively “to the detriment of other calls”.
It was commissioned by the then home secretary Theresa May, who said at the time: “Targets don’t fight crime, they hinder the fight against crime.”
The proportion of crimes solved has been dropping in recent years, with prosecution rates currently at a record low of just 5.6 per cent of all offences while police-recorded crime is at a record high.
Official reports have warned of a national shortage of detectives, and said Boris Johnson’s push to recruit 20,000 extra constables in three years is “creating an inexperienced workforce”.
Writing for The Independent last month the chair of the Police Federation, which represents more than 120,000 rank-and-file officers in England and Wales, said it was “disappointing and dangerous, to see policies which have failed so disastrously in the past be promoted and presented as brand-new ideas”.
Steve Hartshorn warned: “Crime cannot be controlled by a government issued, headline-friendly diktat asking police forces to cut serious crimes such as homicide by 20 per cent or else face action.
”Law and order must be free from the ebb and flow of politics and although policing may have to adhere to targets, the public doesn’t – and if we focus on one crime to satisfy a target, at the expense of another, the public lose out.“
When she announced the plan in July, Ms Truss said: “People across our country want criminals locked up, and crime prevented, so they feel safe on their streets,” Ms Truss said.
“It’s time for the police to get back to basics and spend their time investigating real crimes, not Twitter rows and hurt feelings. People can trust me to deliver and these league tables will help hold the police to account – making our streets safer and our country more prosperous.”
… Like crime commissioners can fix anything or do anything other than steal a living.
Maybe they meant cut criminals by 20% and they’re planning to start chopping them off at the shins?
They will give criminals 20% extra buying stolen goods hoping their money will last longer thus lowering their need for money and lowering crime, simple hey!
If I was a massive cunt (and in government power) I’d reclassify most c and b drugs to class a, I’d get the figures I wanted while being seen as being tough on crime.
The media and politicians really need to stop spinning the narrative that cops spend all their time dealing with Twitter rows. It’s complete and utter BS.
Cops (frontline) spend most of their time dealing with non crime incidents which are a result of Tory cuts to other services. Police HAVE to pick up the short fall, they don’t have a choice because there is a risk of harm and they can’t go unattended. The main example being mental health calls, concern for safety, etc.
obviously the government is going to make crime illegal.
Easy, they’ll simply stop counting financial crime as a crime, or only count crime that leads to a conviction, because if there is no conviction in a court of law how can we really be sure a crime was even committed?
Just in case that wasn’t obvious, the above is clearly bollocks, its like saying that no crime was committed in the Jack the ripper case because no one was caught or convicted, see? Obvious bollocks, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s the governments new strategy. Has the bonus of showing a fall in crime rate as police funding falls.
Does this mean they’re finally going to start addressing the systemic social and economic issues that lead to crime in deprived areas?
Does it fuck.
EASY: stop recording 20% of the crimes – make it much harder to even report them. Job done.
League tables sure sounds like a good way to let people know where it’s easier to get away with crime, unless there’s funding to support those at the bottom.
To be fair they can promise the moon on a privatised stick, they won’t be in long enough to implement anything. Of course Braverman could end up PM but then she’d probably just go scorched earth and make herself the head of a paramilitary police state.