What is the difference between vehicle interference and criminal damage to motor vehicles? Answers on a post card please. If someone smashes a side window why should we necessarily assume that their intention, on a balance of probability, was to steal from the vehicle, steal the vehicle or TWOC it.
OK, so the side window is smashed, no entry is gained, therefore there is no search and there is no laptop on the front seat, is it OK to suggest since there is a stereo inside then the intent must have been to steal? In terms of classification I think vehicle interference sits with theft and criminal damage sits with vehicle crime. Could it be we are trying to show vehicle crime as dropping by showing most damages to cars as vehicle interference? Now, that can’t be, for that might be “spin.”
May 14, 2008 at 10:43 am
PeePee,
What always hacks me off with this sort of eternal bickering over crime type classifications is the amount of time spent by office bound staff deciding what the crime is when I, the eejit at the coalface, the eyewitness to the scene, is left to just wait until the ‘powers that be’ tell this particular long service medal holder what the crime is. I did it when I raised the bleedin’ report! Would I lie? I’m a Polisman. Are the rest?
May 14, 2008 at 11:01 am
…. and I had a classic example recently with a housebreaking with intent ‘downgraded’ to a Vandalism by the ‘comfy erses,’ who were no doubt gyrating in said hot seats about the climbing rate of break-ins and endeavouring to soften the public’s poor perception of this particular classification of crime. Shame for the householder, because someone came back 2 days later and did the same thing again, but only this time they managed to take all his valuables! Now ‘they’ had a problem – find a classification under SCRS (we even have our own version of NCRS and don’t for one minute think it is any better) for that which could deflect from the stats for break-ins. Mind you, I had the pleasure of saying, “Told you so”!!!
I would like to exercise my right to laugh last, but the whole situation is pitiful and brings disrepute on the Police service as a whole and is no longer something to just laugh off. I have 6 to go and I wonder were my own respect for the Police Service is these days. By the time I leave will there be anyone trusting the Police?
What’s wrong with telling the public how it really is? You never know might get some more funding to get our ever-increasing job done.
I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, but I’ll have to have to quote statistics so don’t blame me your honour.
May 14, 2008 at 12:54 pm
SCRS? Scotland’s Crime Recording Standards? It’s the Chief Inspector’s responsilbe for reducing statistical crime that worry about these stats. They get told off if they don’t reduce them.
If they don’t reduce crime or the statisitcs, then the Supt in charge gets it from the Chief Super.
the CS reports to the ACC, who then has to report to the Home Office and may not get promoted because real crime stats are actually real.
It boils down to one word; promotion. But is this damage or vehicle interference?
May 14, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Just damaging interference!
May 14, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Oh, the S bit – aye, Scottish Crime Recording Standards. Apparently we don’t deserve the National bit! Fars my chips?
May 14, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Aye!
May 21, 2008 at 6:19 pm
This one I love…my own force tried every trick in the book to have motor vehicle crimes classed as motor vehicle interference.
This was apparently because someone had ‘accidentally’ left motor vehicle interference out of the list of crimes we were measured on – unbelievably it was not classed as motor vehicle crime – and it didn’t really matter (to management) if there was a dramatic increase of crime reports for that offence.
Beautiful. You literally had to have walked up and down someone’s bonnet before placing a baseball bat through the windscreen before a criminal damage offence would be recorded.