The Consequences of Brexit (part 2)

[sgtkate]

If you don't you can read up on it here,

 

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/our-work/crime-data-integrity/crime-recording-process/

 

Are we arguing the same point? Sometimes I get very lost with who is arguing for and against what...

 

I'm saying that recorded crimes MUST have evidence they took place. I.e. if I ring 999 a say someone has hit someone else it wouldn't be recorded as a crime unless there was evidence it took place, i.e victim statement, CCTV. So my point was that all the people who are trying to claim that the huge spike in racist RECORDED crimes was just people whinging more is absolute ********. Is that what you were also saying?

 

Just for others benefit here's the relevant text from that link:

 

2. Deciding if a crime should be recorded

 

The HOCR require:

 

 

“An incident will be recorded as a crime (notifiable offence)

1.For offences against an identified victim if, on the balance of probability: a.The circumstances as reported amount to a crime defined by law (the police will determine this, based on their knowledge of the law and counting rules), and

b.There is no credible evidence to the contrary.

 

2.For offences against the state the points to prove to evidence the offence must clearly be made out, before a crime is recorded.”

 

Because the rules place an obligation on the police to accept what the victim says unless there is “credible evidence to the contrary”, the following reasons are insufficient to justify not recording a crime:

•the victim declines to provide personal details;

•the victim does not want to take the matter further; or

•the allegation cannot be proven.

 

In relation to the balance of probability test, the National Crime Recording Standard (which is reproduced within annex A of the HOCR) notes that:

 

 

“In most cases, a belief by the victim (or person reasonably assumed to be acting on behalf of the victim) that a crime has occurred is sufficient to justify its recording as a crime, although this will not be the case in all circumstances. Effectively, a more victim orientated approach is advocated.”

 

“An allegation should be considered as made, at the first point of contact, i.e. the stage at which the victim or a person reasonably assumed to be acting on behalf of the victim first makes contact with the police, be that by phone, etc. or in person. If an alleged or possible victim cannot be contacted or later refuses to provide further detail, the Crime Recording Decision Making Process (CRDMP) should be based on all available first contact information.”

[harvey19]

Are we arguing the same point? Sometimes I get very lost with who is arguing for and against what...

 

I'm saying that recorded crimes MUST have evidence they took place. I.e. if I ring 999 a say someone has hit someone else it wouldn't be recorded as a crime unless there was evidence it took place, i.e victim statement, CCTV. So my point was that all the people who are trying to claim that the huge spike in racist RECORDED crimes was just people whinging more is absolute ********. Is that what you were also saying?

 

Just for others benefit here's the relevant text from that link:

 

No credible evidence to the contrary is the relevant phrase.

When referring to a Huge rise we need to evaluate the statement.

What figures are we talking about. A rise from 1 to 2 is an 100% rise.

Are we talking nationwide or isolated areas.

What is the nature of the crime.

What is the seriousness of the crime.

Were there included reports of immigrants offending against British.

Can it be proved a crime has been committed.

Just by repeating a phrase without investigating the facts will only cause fear and alarm.

I am not saying people were not abused or had unwelcome remarks made to them or in their hearing but if there were assaults or that type of offence committed were there any prosecutions or convictions.

Edited January 27, 2017 by harvey19

[tinfoilhat]

No credible evidence to the contrary is the relevant phrase.

When referring to a Huge rise we need to evaluate the statement.

What figures are we talking about. A rise from 1 to 2 is an 100% rise.

Are we talking nationwide or isolated areas.

What is the nature of the crime.

What is the seriousness of the crime.

Were there included reports of immigrants offending against British.

Can it be proved a crime has been committed.

Just by repeating a phrase without investigating the facts will only cause fear and alarm.

I am not saying people were not abused or had unwelcome remarks made to them or in their hearing but if there were assaults or that type of offence committed were there any prosecutions or convictions.

 

So no prosecution or it didnt happen? Really?

[harvey19]

So no prosecution or it didnt happen? Really?

 

Of course some crimes never lead to a prosecution but I posed the question in relation to the phrase, Huge increase. Proportionality is what I am referring to.

Let me ask you a question,

If a person reports something did it really happen ?

Edited January 27, 2017 by harvey19

[Litotes]

Would you understand me if I expressed myself in tensor notation?

 

I'd like to think so - please can you try?

[chalga]

No credible evidence to the contrary is the relevant phrase.

When referring to a Huge rise we need to evaluate the statement.

What figures are we talking about. A rise from 1 to 2 is an 100% rise.

Are we talking nationwide or isolated areas.

What is the nature of the crime.

What is the seriousness of the crime.

Were there included reports of immigrants offending against British.

Can it be proved a crime has been committed.

Just by repeating a phrase without investigating the facts will only cause fear and alarm.

I am not saying people were not abused or had unwelcome remarks made to them or in their hearing but if there were assaults or that type of offence committed were there any prosecutions or convictions.

 

What you are doing here is questioning/arguing against, the law of the country,as set out in the document quoted,with regard to the recording/reporting of something happening that is to be recorded as a crime.

The laws are not set up for the benefit of you,they are for the benefit of everybody,the fact that you are questioning them is irrelevent,the victims and the police are doing what they are supposed to do,what have you got against that?

[tinfoilhat]

Of course some crimes never lead to a prosecution but I posed the question in relation to the phrase, Huge increase. Proportionality is what I am referring to.

Let me ask you a question,

If a person reports something did it really happen ?

 

Have you bumped your head or something? How many burglaries go unsolved? Friday night punch ups? Vandalism? I could go on but instead I'll ask you how many reported crimes go unsolved.

[L00b]

Of course some crimes never lead to a prosecution but I posed the question in relation to the phrase, Huge increase. Proportionality is what I am referring to.

Here you go, official stats from the ONS:

Although the Home Office publication covers hate crimes recorded by the police between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2016, an annex to the publication examines levels of hate crime (specifically racially or religiously aggravated offences) around the EU referendum on 23 June 2016. The annex showed a sharp increase in the number of racially or religiously aggravated offences recorded by the police following the EU referendum, before falling back to pre-referendum levels. The number of racially or religiously aggravated offences recorded by the police in July 2016 was 41% higher than in July 2015.

Can we consider your proportionality issue solved, and the point made, yet?

 

Or do you want to continue arguing about whether +41% year-on-year is "huge" or not?

 

EDIT: while I'm in this thread, have another consequence.

Edited January 27, 2017 by L00b

[Obelix]

 

EDIT: while I'm in this thread, have another consequence.

 

And so it begins.... inevitable, irreversible and as more do it even more unstoppable.

 

Get your money out now whilst you still can..

[retep]

Here you go, official stats from the ONS:Can we consider your proportionality issue solved, and the point made, yet?

 

Or do you want to continue arguing about whether +41% year-on-year is "huge" or not?

 

EDIT: while I'm in this thread, have another consequence.

 

And another,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/barclays-to-keep-global-hq-in-london-no-matter-outcome-of-brexit-a7547546.html