Topic ID 3275
4 POLICE of assorted varieties putting postcards on cars to warn them of theft. Would they be better off saving the printing costs and deploying the police to 'police' the shoplifters? If you are daft enough to leave stuff on full display then expect the worst, would the postcard make people avoid it?
Reply ID 47192
Totally agree. Yet another example of inappropriate deployment of resources within the Police force.
Reply ID 47194
Its probably going to take up less time handing out some leaflets, than deal with looking into the crimes.
Reply ID 47196
The purpose of the police is to prevent crime, not to catch criminals. To that end, this is much more efficient than relying on the vain hope of assigning an officer to watch every car in Hertfordshire. Car theft is common this time of year because so many boots are packed with a few hundred quid's worth of Christmas shopping. Obviously many people don't think of that without a prompt.
Reply ID 47197
They'd do better to buy a few pre-Christmas slots on the back of the sticky pay-and-display tickets in Hertford's car parks or on the petrol pump handles when we fill up. Or advertise on the supermarket trolley handles in Tesco and Waitrose. [:)]
Reply ID 47199
A simple, obvious and excellent idea James
Reply ID 47272
1.Could the postcards have been donated to them by an organisation. I'm sure that if there had been real policing issues to be dealt with at the time they would have taken priority. 2. Aren't the general public always bleating on about never seeing police out in the community? Surely if they were out and about putting these things on cars they were out of the cop shop and a visible deterrent.
Reply ID 47274
Anorak - the donating organisation you seek is actually Herts County Council. That's where your council tax is sent.
Reply ID 47281
quote:I would imagine printing a few hundred flyers would be much cheaper than advertising on petrol pump handles.
Originally posted by James007
They'd do better to buy a few pre-Christmas slots on the back of the sticky pay-and-display tickets in Hertford's car parks or on the petrol pump handles when we fill up. Or advertise on the supermarket trolley handles in Tesco and Waitrose. [:)]
Reply ID 47283
quote:Not to catch criminals!! - Are you sure? [:(][?]
Originally posted by shunt
The purpose of the police is to prevent crime, not to catch criminals.
Reply ID 47287
quote:Absolutely. The latter is a secondary function.
Originally posted by Moulderquote:Not to catch criminals!! - Are you sure? [:(][?]
Originally posted by shunt
The purpose of the police is to prevent crime, not to catch criminals.
Reply ID 47289
Shunt is right. The definition of the role of the police is "the prevention and detection of crime" in that order
Reply ID 47297
quote:...but the current Policing Plan 2007-2008 states that the purpose of the constabulary can be achieved by 'Bringing more offenders to justice' - regardless of whether this is achieved by arrest or summons, do the offenders not have to be caught first? Is it not the police that catch them?
Originally posted by buzz
Shunt is right. The definition of the role of the police is "the prevention and detection of crime" in that order
Reply ID 47299
quote:So it is a function then - albeit, as you claim, a secondary one? The police still catch criminals?
Originally posted by shuntquote:Absolutely. The latter is a secondary function.
Originally posted by Moulderquote:Not to catch criminals!! - Are you sure? [:(][?]
Originally posted by shunt
The purpose of the police is to prevent crime, not to catch criminals.
Reply ID 47300
quote:Indeed they do, but in this context, it was suggested that to try to prevent crime, rather than wait for it to happen and then apprehend the offenders, was somehow a waste of police resources, whereas it is actually their primary brief and too frequently forgotten by police and public alike. The risk of being caught is intended as a deterrent to crime, as is sentencing in court. It is a seemingly small difference in emphasis, but an important one if we are to retain policing by consent. A high arrest rate indicates a poor police force. A lack of criminals to apprehend, a sign that they are doing a good job.
Originally posted by Moulderquote:So it is a function then - albeit, as you claim, a secondary one? The police still catch criminals?
Originally posted by shuntquote:Absolutely. The latter is a secondary function.
Originally posted by Moulderquote:Not to catch criminals!! - Are you sure? [:(][?]
Originally posted by shunt
The purpose of the police is to prevent crime, not to catch criminals.
Reply ID 47301
Indeed - the first two posts in this thread do appear to be ill-informed. High Visibility Policing is a very useful tool.[^]
Reply ID 47304
I am totally in agreement to Bobbies on the beat. But 4??????????? Maybe the visability would be better shown in the Town trouble areas.
Reply ID 47327
If loaded cars were deemed to be a high risk... then deploying Police Officers on foot with postcards fulfils TWO crucial roles. 1) The general public are educated and warned... which leads to a reduction of the risk in the future. 2) The Police Officers are highly visible in those same areas of risk. Therefore this year there would probably be far fewer break-ins to cars as the Police Officers being present are a very real deterrent!!! Result: A reduction in crime, which is far better than creating some needless victims and then looking for, and locking away, some criminal opportunist! (It will also look good on the "league tables" year on year, if the force are seen to have reduced a specific crime type from one year to the next) Each crime not committed, also leaves two happier families that year! The victim's family, and the criminal's family. I'm working on the maybe flawed assumption, that most car crime of this nature is opportunistic, and the so called "criminal" in this case isn't one yet! They are maybe short of dosh and a present for their kid, and see something that catches their eye... something which potentially ruins everyone's Christmas. If the thing to catch their eye isn't there... or the Police ARE there (or both even), then it wouldn't cross their mind, and another struggling person isn't turned to crime. Once you've done it once, I'm sure it is like a slippery slope, with them saying "just one more, then I'll stop". If we are stopping people turning into to criminals in the first place, then there are less people for the Police to catch, and less crime being committed. Surely if they reduced crime to ZERO, then there would be NO criminals left to catch, but the deterrent would still need to be maintained, hence that HAS to be the ultimate aim of the force, even if it is an unachievable goal. No crime, leads to no victims, which has to be better than catching "criminals" AFTER the crime, and therefore creating victims too. As long as they DO still catch criminal's too then in my opinion they are doing their FULL job.
Reply ID 47330
That seems preety accurate to me Bengeo bloke! Not sure the bit about the criminals family is true tho! It probably just means they will be picking their scrote up from a different police station in an another town later that day. Dispersal other than prevention is probably more accurate when it comes to scum bags prowling car parks!
Reply ID 47336
I thinks it's probably unsafe to think of criminality as something separate, as if criminals are a different species or type. A small percentage of society is totally dishonest and an equally small proportion, totally honest. The majority are honest unless tempted. That temptation, or a lack of it can make a difference to how a life goes.
Reply ID 47337
That is fair comment shunt. However criminality is a very general term. Unless i live in a different world, is it not also fair to say that the majority would not dream of breaking into someone elses car??? Surely anyone making such a deliberate criminal act is part of that small minority that are responsible for the majority of crime. I prefer to think of these people, who at best are a thorn in the side and at worst make peoples lives a misery, as seperate from the rest of us. Not all crime is a question of honesty. Judging by comments made on the thread regarding the assault at Baroosh whereby the victim almost lost an eye due to a fight which was no doubt over something preety juvenile. The people making these comments in response surely would consider themselves seperate from someone capable of such mindless thuggery?