Would You Believe It?

"I am, sir, a practitioner in panegyric, or to speak more plainly—a professor of the art of puffing, at your service—or anybody else's."

Listening to the Chief Constable's reports at recent meetings of the Sussex Police Authority, I was put in mind of the character of Mr. Puff in Sheridan's play The Critic. I noted down two examples of the style of Puffer Edwards some weeks ago.

As puffing is a form of dishonesty, I may in future want to include some of the material here with my consideration of institutional dishonesty on a separate page.

Having been perturbed at the prevalence of dishonesty in the local police, when the annual newspaper published by the Sussex Police Authority and Sussex Police for 2005-2006 arrived, I picked on a couple of the more misleading items in the newspaper as the basis for an email to the local press.

The catalyst for this page was an article in the Eastbourne Gazette for September 20th 2006, which prompted my decision to record instances of self-promotion by Sussex Police and the Sussex Police Authority that come to my attention. Having through experience learned that anything said by Sussex Police should be treated with scepticism, I read the following four paragraphs with some care:

    Inspector Nick Wainwright told the meeting there had been a significant increase in performance with detection rates improved by 35 per cent.
    Eastbourne's total crime rate dipped by six per cent since April and burglaries are down by 40 per cent — achieved by catching and locking up persistent offenders. This resulted in 57 less victims.
    Violent crime had dropped by 9.4 per cent, with 87 fewer victims and robbery was down 23 per cent.
    Ninety-day figures now post the district as one of the top performing areas.

Would you believe it? Believe what? Part way through the second paragraph I thought, as the meeting had taken place on 14th September, that I was reading figures for 137 days, but the fourth paragraph might imply that they are only for 90 days. As a result, even if the figures are correct, I could not know for sure what the crime rate is.

A search of two websites suggested that the "90 days" figure was more nearly correct, unless Eastbourne's method of recording crime differs from that of the Home Office, which gives figures for calendar months, quarters, and years. I examined the two websites looking for figures to compare with those of PI Wainwright.

On the Sussex Police Authority website, I found no crime figures at all. On the Sussex Police website, I found only a Comparison Chart Jul 2003 - 30 Jun 2006, with graphs comparing crime statistics for Sussex with those for similar forces, together with crime figures for Sussex, usually given for months and quarters, with the figures for quarters being compared with each other, and occasionally those for years being compared with each other. The statistics are said to be from the Home Office.

As PI Wainwright cites this year's figures, I will give figures for the first two quarters of 2006. For All Crime, the figures were 11% higher for the second quarter compared with the first quarter; for Domestic Burglary, the figures were down 4%; for Vehicle Crime (excluding Vehicle Interference), down 1%; for Violent Crime, up 23%.

These figures are very different from those given by PI Wainwright for Eastbourne, so let us consider the inspector's assertions a paragraph at a time, with the proviso of course that the inspector may have been misreported.

"detection rates improved by 35%" - according to the inspector, this is a "significant" improvement. Surely, the epithet is understated: the improvement appears to be astonishing.

What exactly a detection is I do not know. Home Office statistics often include the term, but I have been unable to find a Home Office definition of it. An online dictionary came closer than the SOED in one of its definitions — the investigation of criminal activities to determine the perpetrator — but is unsatisfactory in that the identity of the perpetrator often depends on the judgment of a court, and it seems unlikely that detection would depend upon conviction.

My own experience first-hand of the term in action is limited to the occasion on which six people smashed their way into my back garden and three of them, including an ex-policeman, assaulted me, and the investigating officer, a serial liar named PC Francis, telephoned me later to say any crime had been "undetected."

Until I find a better definition, I will rely for guidance on a subheading in a Home Office document, Detection and identification of the suspect: the term detection in the context of the number or percentage of crimes detected I take to mean a crime which the police acknowledge to be a crime and for which the police claim or admit to have a likely suspect.

Whether the improvement in Eastbourne was significant or astonishing would depend on the size of the earlier figure, and whether that was remarkably substandard. For an idea of detection rates with which to compare PI Wainwright's 35%, after failing to find statistics for this year, I turned to the performance tables in HMIC's Sussex Police – Baseline Assessment October 2005

One figure that caught my attention will serve to illustrate how the quotation of isolated statistics can be misleading. In 2004/5, for abduction crimes detected, Sussex Police were top of a group of six "similar" forces. What you probably do not know is that the other five forces were also top. The detection rate for all six forces was 0.0%, so they were all rated as "1=".

Another way of assessing detection rates is to compare Sussex Police with 42 other forces. For attempted murder, Sussex was ranked "41 out of 43"; for blackmail crimes, "41 out of 43"; for murder crimes, "35= out of 43".

More important perhaps are the figures in the following table. The first four items are "statutory performance indicators . . . used to monitor key aspects of police performance":

It is quite clear from these figures that Sussex Police's performance was well below average compared both with that of similar forces, and nationally. Differences in % detected are less than 2% for improvement over time, and reach over 7% for deterioration. Compared with these figures, PI Wainwright's 35% improvement over three months seems astonishing, and at least would seem to require further explanation and substantiation to explain why Eastbourne's percentage improvement differs so dramatically from the official figures for Sussex, and whether Eastbourne's performance in the first part of the year had been intolerably poor, to allow scope for such improvement.

"total crime rate dipped by six per cent since April and burglaries are down by 40 per cent" - PI Wainwright seems to be saying since 1st May up to 14th September, or possibly from 1st May for ninety days, but as the Home Office compiles figures in months, quarters, and years, starting on 1st January, perhaps by since April PI Wainwright means since 1st April.

HMIC's Baseline Assessment quotes 2003/4 "Total recorded crime per 1,000 population" as 89.34; for 2004/5 it was 93.07, worse by 4.2%, ranking Sussex as "4 out of 6" in its most similar forces group.

How does PI Wainwright's "crime rate dipped by six per cent" compare with the HMIC record? First, PI Wainwright corrupts HMIC's phrase by omitting the word recorded, so that what he is saying is far from the truth. Much crime is not reported to the police, and some crime — as I know from my own experience — the police fail to record, though it is reported to them. This makes PI Wainwright's statement unreliable, and a drop does not mean much in any case without knowing where it dropped from, and the factors which affect any increase or decrease in crime rates.

With "burglaries are down by 40 per cent — achieved by catching and locking up persistent offenders", we are back in the realm of the astonishing. One can see from Table 3D above that in Sussex during 2003/5 considerably more than twice 40% domestic burglaries were not even detected, which can have only served to encourage the burglars.

HMIC's Baseline Assessment quotes 2003/4 "Domestic Burglary per 1,000 households" as 11.88, and for 2004/5 as 10.25, a reduction of 13.7%. The 10.25 figure resulted in Sussex being ranked 4/6 in its MSF group. So the number of reported and recorded domestic burglaries fell by 13.7% over twelve months within Sussex, which may suggest that the police may have been partly responsible for the apparent improvement, along with other factors, like actions by the courts and disillusionment on the part of victims.

PI Wainwright's claim is that a 40% improvement was brought about in three months by the police catching persistent offenders and the courts (presumably) locking them up. Did the police have a policy of not catching persistent offenders before April 2006? Without convincing evidence to back up this claim, personally I take it that either the newspaper misreported PI Wainwright, or that PI Wainwright was deliberately misleading his audience, or that PI Wainwright is a fairly stupid person.

"Violent crime had dropped by 9.4 per cent, with 87 fewer victims and robbery was down 23 per cent." - Again, PI Wainwright is dealing only with recorded crime. How do his figures for improvement compare with statistics of known provenance available to me?

HMIC's Baseline Assessment - Sussex Police, October 2005 lists violent crime per 1,000 population in 2003/4 as 14.69. In 2004/5 this rose to 20.00, a deterioration of 36.1%. Sussex's MSF Rank for this category was "5 out of 6". Robberies are recorded as much less frequent: 0.95 per 1,000 population in 2003/4, and 0.82 in 2004/5, an improvement of 13.8%. Sussex's MSF Rank for this category was"4 out of 6".

Given that these figures fall far short of those of PI Wainwright, and given that crime is usually more prevalent in urban areas than in rural areas, and given that the number of people in Eastbourne must often outnumber its population, one wonders whether reduced crime figures for Eastbourne can really be so markedly different from those for Sussex as a whole. If the figures are as good as PI Wainwright claims, why are they not published on the Sussex Police website, as a shining example for the rest of the county to follow?

Ninety-day figures now post the district as one of the top performing areas. - This smacks of the Puffer Edwards syndrome. Is Eastbourne supposed to be one of the top performing areas in the county, in the country, or in the world? Where can one find evidence to substantiate the assertion? The figures that I have quoted for Sussex's ranking in its Most Similar Forces group suggest that Sussex Police are below average in performance, so one wonders how Eastbourne Police can be so exceptional.

Such puffing by police officers at public meetings is not mandatory. After I attended an equivalent meeting for my own area earlier this year, my brief note on the local commander's report was appreciative of an informative and balanced performance, and regretted that more people were not there to hear it.

October 4, 2006 The Eastbourne Gazette printed an article under the heading "Police chief praises Kingsmere LAT as crime figures fall". The area of Eastbourne concerned is too small for one to cite published crime figures for purposes of comparison, but Kingsmere has been reported in the past for criminal activity, and was associated in August 2005 with the death of a holidaying pensioner killed on the seafront by a speeding police driver.

The article begins:

"Crime on the Kingsmere Estate has been slashed in the past 12 months according to the town's police chief.

"District commander Bob Gough told a packed meeting of the Kinsmere Community Forum that burglaries had dropped by 81 per cent and overall crime on the estate has gone down by 30 per cent."

The commander attributed the "fantastic achievement" to "an increased police presence . . . underpinned by working closely with residents, the council, and the housing associations."

Chief Inspector Gough said, "From 2005-6 criminal damage has gone down by 56 per cent compared to 2004-5, violent crime is down by 18 per cent, overall crime is down by 30 per cent and there have been 55 fewer victims of crime on the estate."

The chair of the residents' forum, which is part of the local action team (LAT), said that "the number of youths who have Antisocial Behaviour Contracts . . . has dropped from around 14 to two or three."

I leave the figures to speak for themselves, and for possible future reference.

October 14th, 2006 I read an article in the Eastbourne Herald for October 13th under the title " 'Health check' shock for town". The first paragraph reads:

POOR quality housing, violent crime, road injuries and deaths in Eastbourne are all higher than the national average, according to a report from the Department of Health."

A later paragraph adds, "Violent crime in Eastbourne is also much higher than average for the region."

According to the Eastbourne Gazette for November 22, 2006, Sussex police on two recent occasions reported reductions in crime.

At an East Sussex Division awards ceremony, CS Wilkinson "highlighted the success of the division in the last year." He said, "There have been 3,063 fewer crimes, 245 fewer burglaries, 529 fewer vehicle crimes and 554 fewer public place violent crimes." Mr Jones, chairman of the Sussex Police Authority, said "the figures are outstanding". He continued, "We are offering value to all [count me out, Jones] the people we serve. Sussex Police has led the nation in neighbourhood policing - we pioneered it and it's working effectively."

The other report, under a heading of "Violent crime injury figures are down", was made by ACC Paine on an unspecified occasion. He credited his own force and its partners with preventing "significant increase in alcohol-fuelled violence and public nuisance" due to 24-hour drinking across Sussex since November 24th last year. Figures - presumably as collected by the police themselves - follow: "almost 1,000 fewer people have been injured as a result of violence in public places. In East Sussex there were 400 fewer victims, and in both West Sussex and Brighton and Hove there were 292 fewer victims respectively."

For a broader view, one can visit the Sussex Police website, which publishes "performance figures" starting with a graph showing that between 1st October 2003 and 30th September 2006 crimes per 1000 residents varied a little, but the start and end of the line representing Sussex is at about the 7.5 level at the start and end of the three years. The figures are higher during the summers, which if the figures for "residents" do not take into account the influx of summer visitors, need not be explained by conjecturing that the criminals or the police venture out of doors more frequently in the summer.

Some of the detailed statistics for individual months seem to be of little value. Figures are given to three decimal places, with no indication given as to whether the differing length of months is taken into account. The graphs provide a clearer picture of what is happening, and I will comment briefly on graphs of two categories of crime, one apparently descending comparatively rapidly, and one ascending worryingly.

Vehicle crime (excluding vehicle interference) in the three years started at a level of over 1.1 and descended to a level of about 0.65. What might at a glance look like an improvement in police performance, could well be a serious deterioration. Vehicle crime is obviously far more common than the police figures recognise: the graph shows that three years ago the police recorded very little of that crime, and that recently they have recorded very much less.

As regards violent crime, a category more likely to be drawn to the police's attention by the public, the figure rose from about 1.1 crimes per month per 1,000 residents to 1.863, a rise of some 69% over the three years.

On 24th November I emailed a letter about the foregoing to the Eastbourne Gazette, and it was published in the Gazette on 6th December under the heading "Adding to my collection of statistics". The text of the letter was as follows:

The Gazette of November 22 enabled me to add to my collection of surprising statistics from your accounts of self-publicising by the local police service. CS Wilkinson is reported as saying, "There have been 3,063 fewer crimes," the chair of the Sussex Police Authority pronounced the figures "outstanding", and ACC Paine tells us that in the last year "almost 1,000 fewer people have been injured as a result of violence in public places."

One would like to be able to check on these figures, but these specific statistics do not appear to be published on either the SPA or the Sussex Police website.

The nearest one can get are the "performance figures" on a page of the Sussex Police website, from which the clearest idea of changes to crime figures as recorded by the police can be gained not from the statistics, but from graphs. A couple of examples should serve to put the figures you published into perspective.

The web page starts with a graph showing crimes per 1,000 residents of Sussex per month between 1st October 2003 and 30th September 2006. The graph starts and ends at a level of about 7.4, showing overall no change whatever.

The penultimate graph is of violent crimes per 1,000 residents of Sussex per month over the same period. The graph starts at a level of about 1.1 and ends at a level of 1.863. The percentage of the increase cannot be determined exactly, as the starting figure has to be read from a small-scale graph, but the rise in recorded violent crime cannot have been much less than 69% over the three ears.

On 14th December 2006 the Sussex Police Authority held their last meeting of the year, but as the webcast was not available on that day, I read documents relating to two items on the agenda, a report by the Complaints Committee, comment on which belongs on this page, and an "update" by the chief constable, comment on which will be added to the SPA page.

The Committee reported on a report which said that from April to September 2006 there had been "296 complaints" and "there were sixteen appeals to the IPCC." During that period I myself asked for three complaints to be recorded by the police: whether the first was recorded I was not told, but I was told that the other two complaints (about dishonest and corrupt entries in the official criminal records by police officers) would not be recorded. All three of the complaints were referred to the IPCC, only one of which has been acknowledged in writing, though the last two appeals were sent on 2nd September.

After my arrest in August 2004, I sent a number of complaints to the local inspector, the SPA, and the local chief inspector. Most of those complaints received no response whatsoever. When I attempted to find which if any of my complaints had been made available through registration to the Complaints Committee, I was told that my request would have to be made through an application under the Data Protection Act, with payment of £10. The IPCC had no objection to this requirement. From what I gleaned from two applications and £20, very few if any of my complaints had been registered, so judging from my own experience, I believe that the quoted figure for Sussex of 296 complaints in six months is just laughably low. I think that Sussex police routinely treat the law relating to the recording of complaints with contempt.

4th February 2007 Reading the Eastbourne Herald for 2nd February 2007, I was pleased to find that I am not the only person trying to remedy dishonesty in the Sussex police force. The article which caught my attention begins:

"EASTBOURNE MP Nigel Waterson has expressed concern over an official police report into how the force caught a dangerous paedophile who tried to attack two girls in the own."

I will quote from the police report, and then from the newspaper's presumably honest account of what had actually happened.

The report is included in the MAPPA (Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements in Sussex) Annual Report 2005/6. The Foreword tells us that the "multi agency" is "the Police, Probation and Prison Services", and it is signed by represenatives of those three services. It says, "We will endeavour to . . . provide honest and accurate information". The final paragraph seems to betray the hand of the Chief Constable, Puffer Edwards, in the reckless claim, "The effectiveness of MAPPA has been externally recognised and this system of multi agency co-operation is recognised as a world leader."

The report includes four case studies as examples of the work of MAPPA.

Case Study 1 claims that "Mr X, a high risk sex offender" after leaving prison was prevented by the police from joining a cricket club with a junior section. Case Study 2 is about how an arsonist called Miss X - who has mysteriously become Mrs X by the end of the paragraph - was being "closely managed and monitored" by "Sussex MAPPP . . . in close liaison with the neighbouring MAPPP." Case Study 4 concerns another Miss X, but this one suffered grave mental illness, and it was only after two spells in prison that "the MAPPP secured [for her] permanent accommodation at a local mental health facility."

Case Study 3, in its entirety, reads as follows:

“Mr X, a high risk, prolific sex offender was convicted for Indecent Assault on young females. At the time of conviction, Mr X was ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register for life and he was made subject to a SOPO which prohibited him from having any contact with young persons under the age of 18 years. Prior to his release from prison, a full risk management plan was put in place, however, Mr X repeatedly stated that he would not comply with his conditions.

“Due to the nature and the seriousness of the risk of harm he posed to young females, the MAPPP authorised police surveillance of Mr X. Following two days surveillance, Mr X was caught at a local leisure centre watching young girls in the changing room. He was swiftly arrested and sentenced to a further three years imprisonment.”

That final paragraph leads one to believe that "police surveillance" was responsible for the apprehension of Mr X.

Mr Waterson was very disturbed by the discrepancy between the account in the MAPPA report - presumably written by the police - and the court record in the case of this Mr X.

Mr X had a string of offences for molesting children. In the past the police had arrested him twice for breaching his Sex Offenders' Order. He was not under police surveillance on the Case Study 3 occasion: he "propped open the door to the public sauna at the Sovereign Centre, and then told two schoolgirls, 'Come in, come in' while beckoning them into a cubicle. Luckily a school headmaster, who believed he had seen the former printer acting suspiciously at the centre before, alerted staff and police were called."

As the Eastbourne Herald said, "it was a vigilant member of the public who was responsible for the sex offender's arrest."

This example of police dishonesty is not an isolated example. Sussex Police and their Chief Constable habitually inflate their own performance in statements to the Police Authority, the press, and the public, which makes it very unfortunate that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary base their own official reports largely on "self-assessment" provided by county forces.

When I complained to the Independent Police Complaints Commission of dishonest practices by Sussex Police, my own evidence was ignored, and the police exonerated. There seems little hope of amelioration in a system which is lousy through and through.

In August 2007 I wrote to the Eastbourne Herald about figures in the annual police newspaper, which they published on 31st August under the heading "Selective statistics from the police?"

To be continued