One of the BBC’s brainless stories that doesn’t make sense.
How did they find this figure of more than 280,000 crimes, if the offences were unrecorded?
The article clearly states:
Unrecorded crimes are incidents that are reported to the police, but not recorded as offences, which often leads to no further action being taken.
Maybe they simply were not offences, just busy body, curtain twitchers, who have watched far too many TV (Copaganda) police shows. They always get their man on TV.
An example:
I look out of my window and see a couple of youths, got to be youths hasn’t it, hanging around, listening to music, wearing hoodies, they look like they are smoking something. could it be a joint (showing my age now).
I call the police and report them. The truth is, I really dont like young people.
Nothing is done. The police put the phone down and think, what a fucking waste of time, we have far better things to do.
so they dont record it, because it is not a criminal offence.
I do not want our police wasting their valuable time recording engagements with people. I want them to record criminal offences that meet the legal definition of a criminal offence.
I am sure, that if a crime has been committed the police would do their job, arrest you, take your finger prints and charge you. They dont just let you go and not record it.
And yet in Notts I’ve now been seeing police on the tram stops with like 10 tram staff making sure people are paying their 2 quid for a tram ticket. I really don’t understand why the police really care about a 2 quid tram ticket but won’t look for a stolen bike that cost 700 quid.
Most people probably think what’s the point. Policing like everything has been cut to the bone and when all you get is a crime reference number and an email saying the case is dropped in the same week it’s pretty evident that line of support is gone.
