The police exist for the public, so should provide a service people want
Few of us regard being burgled as minor, yet officers seem to have a different set of priorities
The BBC is axing Crimewatch after 33 years. It seems an appropriate time to end the series when the police are investigating fewer burglaries, thefts and assaults. Furthermore, future programmes would have to reflect the changing priorities of law and order. Do you recognise this dead former prime minister and can you tell us where he was on October 18 1963? Does this Twitter troll’s account belong to someone you know? Can you identify the voice behind this disrespectful transgender comment overheard in the Coach and Horses pub last Tuesday night?
OK, I exaggerate in order to make a point or two. The first is to concede, as we must, that the police do indeed have to investigate crimes that simply did not exist just a few years ago. Parliament has decreed that so-called hate offences are considered worthy by the general public of arrest and conviction, even if it involves dragging a street preacher off a soapbox for quoting Leviticus railing against sodomy.
MPS have introduced so many new crimes over the past two decades that it is hardly surprising the police say they can no longer properly investigate such minor irritations as having your house broken into, especially when their budgets have been cut. On top of that, successive governments have imposed ridiculous amounts of paperwork on the police, keeping officers stuck in stations rather than out in their neighbourhoods on patrol (not that many do that any more). Promises to cut red tape are rarely followed through.
It is fashionable to blame the police for warped priorities and they do themselves no favours when they are seen playing on dodgems in their ubiquitous high-viz jackets at a funfair in Hull. What struck me about that photograph was not that the officers were cavorting around when they should have been on duty. They are entitled to a bit of fun. But why were so many needed – 40 over eight days?
Who decided so many should be deployed to police a fair? Surely half a dozen constables – preferably not in yellow jackets (why do they wear them when they have a uniform?) – could adequately patrol an event where most people are likely to be well behaved. Sometimes entire cities do not have that many officers available for duty at the weekend.
As the Metropolitan Police guidelines to officers revealed this week, many crimes are not given the priority that most people think they deserve. Thousands of offences are no longer investigated unless they meet certain assessment criteria. Inquiries only proceed if the victim can positively identify the perpetrator, or there is conclusive CCTV evidence – which itself is only looked at within a certain time-frame – or forensics can be easily obtained or violence is involved. Minor thefts are essentially ignored.
The police have always had to evaluate which crimes merit investigation and which don’t. The notion that in the past all offences were vigorously followed up with a prosecution is simply wrong. First-time miscreants would routinely be given a dressing-down, often at the police station, and sent home with a warning.
What has changed, however, is the type of offence that is now considered “low level”. Few home owners would regard being burgled as a minor misdemeanour. It is a violation of our private domain and can feel like an assault. Yet police forces in England make 14 arrests on average for every 100 break-ins. In the West Midlands it is just seven in every 100. The number of burglaries has declined dramatically since the mid-1990s, largely because of improved security measures. With fewer to investigate the proportion of arrests to recorded crimes should go up, yet it has been falling.
Chief officers say they are struggling to cope with budgetary restraints, but that is true only up to a point. This change in priorities has been apparent for decades. Yesterday, the police in England reported a rise in “hate crimes” of 29 per cent. Yet 20 years ago such an offence did not exist and the “crime” is often just someone expressing an opinion. I suspect that most people would rather the police prioritised burglaries, thefts and assaults over offended sensibilities. Of course, if violence is involved then that is a crime and always has been, whether or not “hate” was a factor.
But we have created a nexus of new offences which the police feel obliged to investigate and, to be fair, they are encouraged to do so by prosecutors and politicians. Moreover, it is often easier to spend the day surfing the internet than to walk the beat or track down a burglar. It’s easier for the criminal as well, which is why many felons try their luck with online fraud from the comfort of their bedrooms.
It all means that so many police officers are now attached to specialist units set up to investigate these “new” crimes that fewer are available for old-fashioned policing. The police have been hit by budget cuts along with the rest of the public sector; and if our politicians insist they do so much more they should be given the resources to carry out those wishes.
Priorities apply to the Government, too. Is it really sensible, therefore, to spend £11 billion on overseas aid – and guarantee its budget by statute – while skimping on law and order at home? The first duty of the state, after all, is to protect its citizens. On the other hand, if the police were given more money to recruit additional officers is there any guarantee it would be spent wisely? While I sympathise with the chief constables who have to do more with fewer officers, they also need to show they understand what is important for their officers to do and what isn’t.
Watching the last episode of Victoria on ITV on Sunday was to be reminded of the towering political figure of Sir Robert Peel, the founder of the Metropolitan force. His Nine Principles of Law Enforcement set out in 1829 are still the basis of policing today even if they are not always adhered to.
“The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police existence, actions, behaviour and the ability of the police to secure and maintain public respect,” said Peel. Above all, they act only with the consent of the people; and part of that contract requires them to fulfil the functions that the people want.