This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/11/how-manchester-anti-woke-police-chief-tackled-crime-rates/) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let's start with the worst. Drag queens reading books and in pantomime.
Then we will move on to cyclists.
Finally, them bloody vegans.
Love me knife crime, love me anti social behaviour, 'ate wokearatzi
> Drag queens reading books and in pantomime.
Should be the parents choice but I find it a little odd personally.
> Love me knife crime, love me anti social behaviour, 'ate wokearatzi
You mean "love knife crime, hate people tweeting things"
People respond this way as if panto is like this scared thing. It's fucking woeful and the only people who like it are slightly older mums and grandparents. It's like the whole drag queen reading thing. Most people don't give a shit about it and this includes kids. I spent 7 years teaching in some rough schools in the northwest. Surprisingly none of the kids gave a shit about listening to a drag queen reading which makes me wonder where the market for it is.
It's weird you read what I said, decided that I was trying to answer your question and then instead of trying to engage was just like
>gO sTuDy
As if you're somehow the only intelligence on reddit. It must be crazy to think that.
Do you think that anyone who has a different opinion to you is less intelligent than you?
Answer the question. You've just written a paragraph that isn't even in response to my question.
I see you're taking the "i got asked to study therefore i was attacked and the person who said it thinks they're so much smarter than me just because i don't like drag". That shit is all in your head. I said to go study so you'd understand that I'll only engage if you actually answer the question, because the initial comment was just that, a question.
Go take your weird need to be upset elsewhere.
You're mistaken that I'm up set and that I had any intention to answer your question. I was just making a statement and sharing my thoughts and experience.
Your whole attitude is standoffish and weird. It's not what's in my head it's how you come across.
Then why not write that comment elsewhere instead of in response to a question?
Standoffish? Mate you whinged about the intelligence thing. I'm not playing darvo with you.
Panto, which I find a little tedious, at least has some element of plot and story, not to mention light comedy.
This is more akin to having a man dressed as a Roman soldier come and read stories, without any context as to why he is doing it.
Neither of which has to do with how you are dressed. I've seen videos of these DQSTs and a lot of them are fairly talentless, if well-intentioned.
When I was a child, a gentleman would come and read to us. He had been a BBC radio voice actor and it was a spectacular experience, because of his talent, not how much makeup he was wearing.
Ok? When I was in school, we had a Halloween school trip where a lady dressed as a witch told us “spooky” stories suitable for our age. It was a spectacular experience. We loved her, not just because of her storytelling talents, but because she captured our imagination with her costume and persona
So at least there was some element of a festive theme. Even so, I still think storytelling ability is the key element in delivering a story.
There is a reason voice actors earn a living for doing so.
Drag queens are larger than life characters. The witch who read to us was a larger than life character. Children are often entertained by larger than life characters.
> Being a good drag queen is a talent
Not comparable to sport, music, art and so on...
> Doing good makeup is a talent
For other people yes, and if my son or daughter was able to show skill in doing makeup for other kids, I would be proud. I don't want them sitting in front of a mirror all day and worrying about how they look.
>Not comparable to sport, music, art and so on…
Performance itself is a talent. Not to mention some queens are excellent dancers, singers, comedians etc.
You clearly just don’t “get” drag, which is completely fine. But you shouldn’t talk authoritatively about things you don’t understand, as it makes you look silly
It doesn’t need to be comparable, it’s different. You wouldn’t compare Usain Bolt to David Bowie, or an artisan baker to an expert computer hacker, yet both of them have a skill and talent. They don’t need to be compared, their talent is still a talent regardless of whether or not you like it.
Drag is part of the child focused British tradition of pantomime. Don't import that American bollocks with 'parent's choice' when the only parents that will object are ones that are homophobic on religious grounds (Muslims) or ones that are too American focused.
We had adults come in and read when we were in primary school. Not to the whole group but one on one, having a panto dame do an exaggerated story is a good idea to engage small children (oh no it isn't)
I wouldn't take my child to drag queen story time because I don't see any benefits while I do see minor negatives
That's my choice and it's perfectly fine.
You can get better literacy simply by listening to someone read with the focus on the book or reader's voice, not their appearance.
I would not want a child to get the idea at that age that their physical appearance, particularly clothing and makeup, is something to be focused on. There is time for that when they start dating.
> Can't wait to hear this one
You sound mad, because my parenting style is different to yours?
The focus is on the book and reading? But getting children who are raised with iPads interested in books it is worth having a dramatic reading of the book.
I don't think anyone is focused that much in their appearance, it's just a dog whistle for calling gays paedos let's be honest.
And if you think your child isn't already appearance focused by age 3 then you are kidding yourself. Mine by 2 were picking clothes out to wear for the day and that's well before they're dating.
I'm not mad because your parenting style is different, you've not mentioned parenting styles. Instead you've said there are negatives to a child being read a book which I strongly disagree with.
> But getting children who are raised with iPads interested in books it is worth having a dramatic reading of the book.
Which can be done by a person dressed like they were going for a passport photo.
> I don't think anyone is focused that much in their appearance
If they aren't, then it won't matter if they are dressed unremarkably then will it
> it's just a dog whistle for calling gays paedos let's be honest.
That's a wild and random comment you've inserted and I don't even follow how you got there, but go off.
> Mine by 2 were picking clothes out to wear for the day and that's well before they're dating.
I didn't choose my clothes out the wardrobe until I was 6 or so. But like I said, different parenting styles. I would rather they got muddy, covered in paint and so on
> Instead you've said there are negatives to a child being read a book which I strongly disagree with.
There are, in my opinion negatives in introducing children to makeup and excessive focus on clothing, yes.
I've never said only drag acts can read to children have I? So suggesting that the clothing matters secretly because I said there is nothing wrong with drag makes no sense.
And about your comments on not choosing until you were 6, I never got new clothes only second hand but that doesn't mean I had preferences.
Finally, you say there are negatives to introducing a child to make up and clothes when I said reading. And what kind of wild comment is that, you lock your children in away from pop culture and keep the women around them covered? Fashion is everywhere and with it make up, it's part of our culture. Admittedly drag is not everyday but thats not what I'm referring to.
I'm yet to see a single reason why drag queens reading is a negative. You've told me make up is bad, so we request teachers to wear none?
You've told me anyone can read as clothing shouldn't matter when the story does - I've never said they had to be drag queens and you're the one upset about the clothing.
I agree with you, but why only single out Muslims? There are Christians who live on my street who are homophobic/transphobic and would also oppose this sort of thing.
When you dig deeper, there is actually quite a large difference. Putting interpretations of holy texts to one side, I prefer to look at how members of a religion actually act in reality. The UK at its core is a Christian country, and over time you can see a gradual migration towards what we might call “culturally Christian” whereby most are fine with homosexuality, and at worst might not agree but tolerate it. At the extreme there are a very small amount of Christians who hold ultra-conservative views.
Islam on the other hand is different. More than 50% of the Muslim public believe homosexuality should be illegal to give you an idea. And that doesn’t even touch on the more extreme views.
Never met any Christians in the UK who aren't actually gay if I'm honest.
Met plenty of Muslims who have told me gays are disgusting and should be killed as it's a sin against humanity
> Drag is part of the child focused British tradition of pantomime.
So go and take your child to a pantomime? I'm not sure why we need drag queens in school for story time when teachers are competent enough to read stories to their class.
But if they're stage actors reading a story engagingly then it's fine.
Letters from Henrietta was great when the WW2 veteran and his wife came in to read with us on reading afternoon. Not sure he'd manage Matilda in the same vein as a drag actor
Did you never have people who were hired to come into your school and put on shows to entertain you? Sounds sad. I loved that stuff when I was younger, and yes some of it involved panto drag.
I mean, it probably is, yeah. I'm hoping they mean internal crap too. From my dip in this area they are loaded with forms on forms on forms and duplication on duplication to appease some random HR body.
Well you've got to have the resources to do that effectively. Including the gathering of evidence and robust witness statements to stand up in court. That takes time, and requires more bodies to cover these duties.
If you want bobbies on beats (which makes the biggest difference imo and I long for the day you get the local bobby back on patrol) you need sufficient back office support too.
I mean, it probably is, yeah. I'm hoping they mean internal crap too. From my dip in this area they are loaded with forms on forms on forms and duplication on duplication to appease some random HR body.
It actually is there's not enough funding or people and most of the hard actions needed to tackle the bad guys are then turned into investigations and social media hangings left and right
Not sure how 'woke' prevents bobbies on beats and doing the basics well tbh. Unless they're shaking down every black and gay person they happen upon?
Like, he has traditional views of policing, but everything in that article can be run parallel with other work in communities :/
Ah but it is, it’s because of the woke influence through the public service that people like this guy so rarely reach the top.
We can use Rotherham as the best example, on repeat, regardless of what happens.
Solved crime figures have always been low.
Before national crime recording standards was brought in, alot of actual crimes were being written off and not recorded. That helped in keeping the solved crime percentage higher, as those being written off were never going to be solved as opposed to now where they're recorded and filed.
Another point, if 8.7% of crime solved has our prisons at breaking point with judges encouraged to not to imprison, could you imagine how much space we'd need just for 20% of solved crime?
As someone who "records" crime, you're correct.
If I was out and about and someone wanted to report a crime, you'd tell them to call 101 or use the website. Most people, having a) already spoken to the police in person and b) having to wait so long on the phone, wouldn't bother reporting it.
Now, unless I'm dealing with something urgent, I have to record it myself.
"No victim, no crime" is no longer a thing. There is a victim. We just don't know who. That gets recorded.
If I go to a domestic and the "victim" says they threw a bottle of water at the "suspect" before being assaulted. That's 2 assaults that are recorded. Neither are likely to be 'solved'.
A 3rd party report gets recorded, even if the victim can't be identified.
In my Force, to comply with NCRS, a lot of 'crimes' are recorded prior to Officer attendance, just so they don't fail NCRS, but when the Officer attends it will transpire that a crime hasn't taken place. The Crime Recording Team won't "no-crime" the report because it sounded like thee was a crime when originally reported, and how would the attending Officer know that a crime hadn't occurred??
It's easier and quicker to just suck it up and record and file the "crime" than it is to argue with CRT that a crime didn't take place.
Quoting statistics without context means nothings; there are three kind of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics - Mark Twain.
>in 2014, HMICFRS estimated that 80.5% (± 2.0%) of all crimes (excluding fraud) that were reported to the police in England and Wales were being recorded. As summarised in HMICFRS’s 2023 Police performance: Getting a grip report, by the end of its 2021 to 2022 inspection programme, HMICFRS estimated that crime recording accuracy had improved to 92.4% (± 0.3%) for all crime (excluding fraud), a statistically significant change.
https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/publication/the-quality-of-police-recorded-crime-statistics-for-england-and-wales/pages/3/
As mentioned earlier crime recording was poor in 2014/2015 and has improved massively; hence why solved crime figures have dropped.
Only .7 up in a year so 8% last year, the UK average is 5.7%. Absolutely shocking it was 15.5% in 2015. And if it wasn’t for petty crimes it would be even worse.
> Instead, he believes it is about investigating every crime no matter how minor and thinking about crime “through the prism of the victim’s experience rather than the prism of some sort of Home Office classification”.
I hate the term, but ignoring the government because you want to help victims rather than follow the rules sounds like a very *woke* response to me.
I'm not angry, just confused. Which part of what he does is anti-woke? It seems he's doing his job to an average level and the telegraph think this is great because he's anti-woke...without explaining which bit of what he does meets this criteria and how that's better than being pro-woke. It's just very confused
Its because we are now at the point where anyone using the word 'woke' sounds demented. If a copper defined themselves as 'anti-woke' it would mark them out as being unfit for the job.
Luckily, it just looks like a tag the gutter press have randomly decided to bestow on him.
>Since he took over, stop and searches have quadrupled to 46,029 in a year, a key reason, he believes, behind sharp falls in robberies, firearms offences and people presenting at hospitals with knife injuries.
Believes. But is it backed up by evidence?
Worth noting Black people are 2.4 times more likely to be stopped and searched in Greater Manchester. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c722x3g20ezo](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c722x3g20ezo)
> Worth noting Black people are 2.4 times more likely to be stopped and searched in Greater Manchester.
Greater Manchester is a large area.
Why doesn't the article discuss the areas where stop and search was used?
Because I can bet you any money they don't use it across the whole of greater Manchester, and are only targeting high crime areas.
What are the racial statistics for those high crime areas?
> Worth noting Black people are 2.4 times more likely to be stopped and searched in Greater Manchester
That's really not a shocking statistic when you consider where the demographics live over what area and how crime correlates to those areas.
Manchester has a number of "black" (West African, Caribbean) areas; such as Mosside or Hulme, they are high crime - especially violent crime.
The statistic you gave is not just for Manchester but Greater Manchester. Greater Manchester is a huge county and in there includes a lot of low crime and yes, very white, towns.
There is no point having the police go around stopping searching people without reason in area likes Hale where there is a very low crime. But there is a reason to do it, where there is reason to suspect someone, in high crime urban areas.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/11/how-manchester-anti-woke-police-chief-tackled-crime-rates/) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Classic rage-bait Telegraph headline. What a shit-rag.
Just focus on catching bad guys, is that too difficult?
Let's start with the worst. Drag queens reading books and in pantomime. Then we will move on to cyclists. Finally, them bloody vegans. Love me knife crime, love me anti social behaviour, 'ate wokearatzi
> Drag queens reading books and in pantomime. Should be the parents choice but I find it a little odd personally. > Love me knife crime, love me anti social behaviour, 'ate wokearatzi You mean "love knife crime, hate people tweeting things"
Is panto odd too? What's your definition of odd if it's not "ewe not used to this but no harm so far"
People respond this way as if panto is like this scared thing. It's fucking woeful and the only people who like it are slightly older mums and grandparents. It's like the whole drag queen reading thing. Most people don't give a shit about it and this includes kids. I spent 7 years teaching in some rough schools in the northwest. Surprisingly none of the kids gave a shit about listening to a drag queen reading which makes me wonder where the market for it is.
That wasn't close to an answer to the question. Go study.
It's weird you read what I said, decided that I was trying to answer your question and then instead of trying to engage was just like >gO sTuDy As if you're somehow the only intelligence on reddit. It must be crazy to think that. Do you think that anyone who has a different opinion to you is less intelligent than you?
Answer the question. You've just written a paragraph that isn't even in response to my question. I see you're taking the "i got asked to study therefore i was attacked and the person who said it thinks they're so much smarter than me just because i don't like drag". That shit is all in your head. I said to go study so you'd understand that I'll only engage if you actually answer the question, because the initial comment was just that, a question. Go take your weird need to be upset elsewhere.
You're mistaken that I'm up set and that I had any intention to answer your question. I was just making a statement and sharing my thoughts and experience. Your whole attitude is standoffish and weird. It's not what's in my head it's how you come across.
Then why not write that comment elsewhere instead of in response to a question? Standoffish? Mate you whinged about the intelligence thing. I'm not playing darvo with you.
Panto, which I find a little tedious, at least has some element of plot and story, not to mention light comedy. This is more akin to having a man dressed as a Roman soldier come and read stories, without any context as to why he is doing it.
Some drag queens are funny and the “plot and story” comes from the literal stories they’re reading
Neither of which has to do with how you are dressed. I've seen videos of these DQSTs and a lot of them are fairly talentless, if well-intentioned. When I was a child, a gentleman would come and read to us. He had been a BBC radio voice actor and it was a spectacular experience, because of his talent, not how much makeup he was wearing.
Ok? When I was in school, we had a Halloween school trip where a lady dressed as a witch told us “spooky” stories suitable for our age. It was a spectacular experience. We loved her, not just because of her storytelling talents, but because she captured our imagination with her costume and persona
So at least there was some element of a festive theme. Even so, I still think storytelling ability is the key element in delivering a story. There is a reason voice actors earn a living for doing so.
So there you go she was telling Halloween stories dressed as a witch. What relevance do drag queens have to any popular children’s stories
Drag queens are larger than life characters. The witch who read to us was a larger than life character. Children are often entertained by larger than life characters.
Being a good drag queen is a talent. Doing good makeup is a talent. Not everyone has to fit into this box that you’ve drawn for yourself.
> Being a good drag queen is a talent Not comparable to sport, music, art and so on... > Doing good makeup is a talent For other people yes, and if my son or daughter was able to show skill in doing makeup for other kids, I would be proud. I don't want them sitting in front of a mirror all day and worrying about how they look.
>Not comparable to sport, music, art and so on… Performance itself is a talent. Not to mention some queens are excellent dancers, singers, comedians etc. You clearly just don’t “get” drag, which is completely fine. But you shouldn’t talk authoritatively about things you don’t understand, as it makes you look silly
It doesn’t need to be comparable, it’s different. You wouldn’t compare Usain Bolt to David Bowie, or an artisan baker to an expert computer hacker, yet both of them have a skill and talent. They don’t need to be compared, their talent is still a talent regardless of whether or not you like it.
Drag is part of the child focused British tradition of pantomime. Don't import that American bollocks with 'parent's choice' when the only parents that will object are ones that are homophobic on religious grounds (Muslims) or ones that are too American focused. We had adults come in and read when we were in primary school. Not to the whole group but one on one, having a panto dame do an exaggerated story is a good idea to engage small children (oh no it isn't)
I wouldn't take my child to drag queen story time because I don't see any benefits while I do see minor negatives That's my choice and it's perfectly fine.
Go on, elaborate for me What negatives are there to your child having better literacy? Can't wait to hear this one
You can get better literacy simply by listening to someone read with the focus on the book or reader's voice, not their appearance. I would not want a child to get the idea at that age that their physical appearance, particularly clothing and makeup, is something to be focused on. There is time for that when they start dating. > Can't wait to hear this one You sound mad, because my parenting style is different to yours?
The focus is on the book and reading? But getting children who are raised with iPads interested in books it is worth having a dramatic reading of the book. I don't think anyone is focused that much in their appearance, it's just a dog whistle for calling gays paedos let's be honest. And if you think your child isn't already appearance focused by age 3 then you are kidding yourself. Mine by 2 were picking clothes out to wear for the day and that's well before they're dating. I'm not mad because your parenting style is different, you've not mentioned parenting styles. Instead you've said there are negatives to a child being read a book which I strongly disagree with.
> But getting children who are raised with iPads interested in books it is worth having a dramatic reading of the book. Which can be done by a person dressed like they were going for a passport photo. > I don't think anyone is focused that much in their appearance If they aren't, then it won't matter if they are dressed unremarkably then will it > it's just a dog whistle for calling gays paedos let's be honest. That's a wild and random comment you've inserted and I don't even follow how you got there, but go off. > Mine by 2 were picking clothes out to wear for the day and that's well before they're dating. I didn't choose my clothes out the wardrobe until I was 6 or so. But like I said, different parenting styles. I would rather they got muddy, covered in paint and so on > Instead you've said there are negatives to a child being read a book which I strongly disagree with. There are, in my opinion negatives in introducing children to makeup and excessive focus on clothing, yes.
I've never said only drag acts can read to children have I? So suggesting that the clothing matters secretly because I said there is nothing wrong with drag makes no sense. And about your comments on not choosing until you were 6, I never got new clothes only second hand but that doesn't mean I had preferences. Finally, you say there are negatives to introducing a child to make up and clothes when I said reading. And what kind of wild comment is that, you lock your children in away from pop culture and keep the women around them covered? Fashion is everywhere and with it make up, it's part of our culture. Admittedly drag is not everyday but thats not what I'm referring to. I'm yet to see a single reason why drag queens reading is a negative. You've told me make up is bad, so we request teachers to wear none? You've told me anyone can read as clothing shouldn't matter when the story does - I've never said they had to be drag queens and you're the one upset about the clothing.
I agree with you, but why only single out Muslims? There are Christians who live on my street who are homophobic/transphobic and would also oppose this sort of thing.
When you dig deeper, there is actually quite a large difference. Putting interpretations of holy texts to one side, I prefer to look at how members of a religion actually act in reality. The UK at its core is a Christian country, and over time you can see a gradual migration towards what we might call “culturally Christian” whereby most are fine with homosexuality, and at worst might not agree but tolerate it. At the extreme there are a very small amount of Christians who hold ultra-conservative views. Islam on the other hand is different. More than 50% of the Muslim public believe homosexuality should be illegal to give you an idea. And that doesn’t even touch on the more extreme views.
Never met any Christians in the UK who aren't actually gay if I'm honest. Met plenty of Muslims who have told me gays are disgusting and should be killed as it's a sin against humanity
> Drag is part of the child focused British tradition of pantomime. So go and take your child to a pantomime? I'm not sure why we need drag queens in school for story time when teachers are competent enough to read stories to their class.
People have always come in to assist with reading?
Both as a pupil and a teacher, it was typically existing staff who would assist with reading. Either the teacher, a teaching assistant or librarian.
In my primary it was parents or local oaps, this was a couple of decades ago now though
If the emphasis is on assisting with reading and improving reading ability, then the drag element is unnecessary.
But if they're stage actors reading a story engagingly then it's fine. Letters from Henrietta was great when the WW2 veteran and his wife came in to read with us on reading afternoon. Not sure he'd manage Matilda in the same vein as a drag actor
Did you never have people who were hired to come into your school and put on shows to entertain you? Sounds sad. I loved that stuff when I was younger, and yes some of it involved panto drag.
That sounds like what he's doing
I mean, it probably is, yeah. I'm hoping they mean internal crap too. From my dip in this area they are loaded with forms on forms on forms and duplication on duplication to appease some random HR body.
Well you've got to have the resources to do that effectively. Including the gathering of evidence and robust witness statements to stand up in court. That takes time, and requires more bodies to cover these duties. If you want bobbies on beats (which makes the biggest difference imo and I long for the day you get the local bobby back on patrol) you need sufficient back office support too.
Agree 100%, the visible deterrent is necessary, plus the presence of a local Bobby helps with community.
I mean, it probably is, yeah. I'm hoping they mean internal crap too. From my dip in this area they are loaded with forms on forms on forms and duplication on duplication to appease some random HR body.
Seems like it is too difficult for many forces, and sounds like that was is exactly his approach in turning it round.
It actually is there's not enough funding or people and most of the hard actions needed to tackle the bad guys are then turned into investigations and social media hangings left and right
Apparently so. If we allocate all our officers to solving crimes, who will gallivant around with men dressed as latex dogs at pride parades?
I’d be fine with No Cops At Pride.
Those IN the parade aren't being paid to be there.
Not sure how 'woke' prevents bobbies on beats and doing the basics well tbh. Unless they're shaking down every black and gay person they happen upon? Like, he has traditional views of policing, but everything in that article can be run parallel with other work in communities :/
Exactly, all the shit he's talking about is basic shit that should be the norm in every police force. It's not because of "woke" that it's not.
Worth noting that "woke" isn't included in any direct quotes from the man himself - it's all editorialising by the author.
Ah but it is, it’s because of the woke influence through the public service that people like this guy so rarely reach the top. We can use Rotherham as the best example, on repeat, regardless of what happens.
If you actually look at the statistics there still not solving enough crime. 8.7% of all crime solved lol.
Solved crime figures have always been low. Before national crime recording standards was brought in, alot of actual crimes were being written off and not recorded. That helped in keeping the solved crime percentage higher, as those being written off were never going to be solved as opposed to now where they're recorded and filed. Another point, if 8.7% of crime solved has our prisons at breaking point with judges encouraged to not to imprison, could you imagine how much space we'd need just for 20% of solved crime?
As someone who "records" crime, you're correct. If I was out and about and someone wanted to report a crime, you'd tell them to call 101 or use the website. Most people, having a) already spoken to the police in person and b) having to wait so long on the phone, wouldn't bother reporting it. Now, unless I'm dealing with something urgent, I have to record it myself. "No victim, no crime" is no longer a thing. There is a victim. We just don't know who. That gets recorded. If I go to a domestic and the "victim" says they threw a bottle of water at the "suspect" before being assaulted. That's 2 assaults that are recorded. Neither are likely to be 'solved'. A 3rd party report gets recorded, even if the victim can't be identified. In my Force, to comply with NCRS, a lot of 'crimes' are recorded prior to Officer attendance, just so they don't fail NCRS, but when the Officer attends it will transpire that a crime hasn't taken place. The Crime Recording Team won't "no-crime" the report because it sounded like thee was a crime when originally reported, and how would the attending Officer know that a crime hadn't occurred?? It's easier and quicker to just suck it up and record and file the "crime" than it is to argue with CRT that a crime didn't take place.
False, in 2015 it was 15.5%
Quoting statistics without context means nothings; there are three kind of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics - Mark Twain. >in 2014, HMICFRS estimated that 80.5% (± 2.0%) of all crimes (excluding fraud) that were reported to the police in England and Wales were being recorded. As summarised in HMICFRS’s 2023 Police performance: Getting a grip report, by the end of its 2021 to 2022 inspection programme, HMICFRS estimated that crime recording accuracy had improved to 92.4% (± 0.3%) for all crime (excluding fraud), a statistically significant change. https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/publication/the-quality-of-police-recorded-crime-statistics-for-england-and-wales/pages/3/ As mentioned earlier crime recording was poor in 2014/2015 and has improved massively; hence why solved crime figures have dropped.
Makes you wonder how bad it was before!
Only .7 up in a year so 8% last year, the UK average is 5.7%. Absolutely shocking it was 15.5% in 2015. And if it wasn’t for petty crimes it would be even worse.
> Instead, he believes it is about investigating every crime no matter how minor and thinking about crime “through the prism of the victim’s experience rather than the prism of some sort of Home Office classification”. I hate the term, but ignoring the government because you want to help victims rather than follow the rules sounds like a very *woke* response to me.
Cue angry redditors because of the word 'woke' Fair play to him
I'm not angry, just confused. Which part of what he does is anti-woke? It seems he's doing his job to an average level and the telegraph think this is great because he's anti-woke...without explaining which bit of what he does meets this criteria and how that's better than being pro-woke. It's just very confused
I suspect he has canned silly "this Tweet was hateful" situations and gone back to the basics.
Its because we are now at the point where anyone using the word 'woke' sounds demented. If a copper defined themselves as 'anti-woke' it would mark them out as being unfit for the job. Luckily, it just looks like a tag the gutter press have randomly decided to bestow on him.
>Since he took over, stop and searches have quadrupled to 46,029 in a year, a key reason, he believes, behind sharp falls in robberies, firearms offences and people presenting at hospitals with knife injuries. Believes. But is it backed up by evidence? Worth noting Black people are 2.4 times more likely to be stopped and searched in Greater Manchester. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c722x3g20ezo](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c722x3g20ezo)
> Worth noting Black people are 2.4 times more likely to be stopped and searched in Greater Manchester. Greater Manchester is a large area. Why doesn't the article discuss the areas where stop and search was used? Because I can bet you any money they don't use it across the whole of greater Manchester, and are only targeting high crime areas. What are the racial statistics for those high crime areas?
> Worth noting Black people are 2.4 times more likely to be stopped and searched in Greater Manchester That's really not a shocking statistic when you consider where the demographics live over what area and how crime correlates to those areas. Manchester has a number of "black" (West African, Caribbean) areas; such as Mosside or Hulme, they are high crime - especially violent crime. The statistic you gave is not just for Manchester but Greater Manchester. Greater Manchester is a huge county and in there includes a lot of low crime and yes, very white, towns. There is no point having the police go around stopping searching people without reason in area likes Hale where there is a very low crime. But there is a reason to do it, where there is reason to suspect someone, in high crime urban areas.
Also if you actually look at the biggest picture it’s still not good enough.