First the story is from England but we usually follow along.

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/867829/crime-police-officers-investigate-low-level-crimes-Mark-Simmons

Quotes from article.

"This week the Met’s Deputy Assistant Commissioner Mark Simmons said that it’s no longer the police’s role to investigate “lower level” crimes such as shoplifting, car crime and criminal damage."

Under the Met’s new crime assessment policy, police officers will “determine very quickly if it is proportionate” to investigate “lower level, higher volume offences” further.

Now take the following part does that mean they will not even record some crimes, "Reports suggest that the new guidelines will mean 150,000 fewer offences a year being investigated." GEE lower crime figures police must be doing a good job.

When your car is broken into, for example, to police bosses it is now considered inconsequential because it is not a murder or a huge fraud.

Here is the other lunacy of this quote "The Met has to find some £400million in savings." YET last year the UK managed to give away 12 Billion pounds in foreign aid.

Hopefully these morons stay in the UK.

"shoplifting, car crime and criminal damage"
These lunatics got 7 years transportation to New South Wales , got freedom and paid taxes.

Times has changed, Mick!!

Con't

Some of the actual lower grade police opinion is "This is not about money, it is about priorities."

Millions are always available for the police to investigate patently ludicrous allegations from fantasists against the likes of Lord Bramall, Sir Leon Brittan and Paul Gambaccini.

And supposed hate crimes, which can sometimes be no more than a few rude comments on social media, have suddenly become a key priority.

But when it comes to real crimes that drive people to despair the response of police chiefs is to simply pretend they don’t exist.

And this extends far beyond the Met: Avon and Somerset police has, for example, closed its burglary unit.

Statistics quoted tend to backup this "in 1901 there was one policeman per 765 people; in 1951 one per 693; and in 2001 one per 417."

There is another article I saw that said if the value of shoplifting was under 50 pounds they would not even bother to attend.

This is something For Australian sake should not be allowed happen.

The law and police for the rich and powerful, and you have no guns to protect yourself.

Of course it will come here, it's only a matter of time.
Modern western societies are failing and slowly unraveling

"Statistics quoted tend to backup this "in 1901 there was one policeman per 765 people; in 1951 one per 693; and in 2001 one per 417."
The ratio rises about 380% in 50 years and on a graph this works out at about one per 1 in around 2017. So the entire country are Police and in 2051 there are about six hundred per 1 . All are armed with the Police Union locked in battle with the Command. Theft of ammunition under $4500 is unreported and deserters are shot.

Why not hire the police to investigate for you?

Or if you cannot afford it, why not get an insurance that will pay for this hire?

Naturally, police will only serve their patrons, currently government.

Buying police can be expensive. 7 years ago
" OFF-DUTY officers can earn $103 an hour keeping troublemakers away from teen parties. PARENTS are hiring armed police, and police vehicles, for teen parties. A family from Brisbane recently paid $1000 for two uniformed police officers to back up private security guards also hired for their teenage son's party.. Police charge double the rate on public holidays. Parents are paying twice as much for police to attend parties as private security guards, who charge about $55 an hour."

nick etc,

"The ratio rises about 380% in 50 years and on a graph this works out at about one per 1 in around 2017"

You might want to do those numbers again. Way off.

Perhaps we need to move some funding out of police work and into numeracy education.

Or better yet the police could get you to do their stats and ultimately prove that they are solving 104.3% of all murders. :)

No it's all correct. For a start he says "Avon and Somerset police has, for example, closed its burglary unit.Statistics quoted tend to backup ". One police-man per less people means the police are increasing not decreasing.
One policeman for 765 then 693 then 417 .
693/765 is .9 and 417/693 is .6. The change is .1 to .3 or 300%.
Or 765/693 is 1.1 and 693/417 is 1.6 . The change is .1 to .5 or 500%.

Did you try a graph ? The drop is 72 then 276 or change of 380% .

( then obviously the 380% on 276 is 1048 (or even more as the growth is exponential). There are 417 people with one policeman but the number in 50 years will be 417-1048= -631 in the year 2051.
So one policeman for 1 person is about now.)

//"The ratio rises about 380% in 50 years and on a graph this works out at about one per 1 in around 2017"

You might want to do those numbers again. Way off.//

I'm with mhaze on this one. According to my calculations, we shouldn't expect a 1:1 ratio of police to civilians until 4286 C.E. based on the given data and my methodology.

//One policeman for 765 then 693 then 417 .
693/765 is .9 and 417/693 is .6. The change is .1 to .3 or 300%.
Or 765/693 is 1.1 and 693/417 is 1.6 . The change is .1 to .5 or 500%.//

Well no wonder your solution is wrong... your working is wrong. You're taking ratios of police to police.

No not police to police , its population to population.
Simples . draw the graph . Roughly 8,7, 4 up the side. Mark along 4 time periods.
The line cuts downwards about 19th October 2017 give or take a few police.

Hello there NICKNAMENICK...

My friend I spent a lot of years in the coppers and your mathematical equation(s) have me utterly confounded! As does many of your other contributions have done so as well. It's no wonder I only made it to sergeant? May I ask if you are/were an Actuary? A Scientist perhaps or any other profession that has an entry level of genius? To become a police-person, you must demonstrate your have an IQ of two points above that of plant life, so as you can see, they set the bar relatively high.

I'm glad we have many other more erudite contributors herein, who can fathom precisely what it is you're attempting to impart. I'm dreadfully sorry Mr NICK, but I must therefore confess, I'm nothing more than a simple dullard; still I'm trying hard to keep up with the Topic nevertheless. Invariably though, all those myriad of numbers, that are merely swirling and spiralling about my head intermittently, without making any logical sense, or by assisting me to fully comprehend their true nature or import; for this reason alone I must respectfully withdraw from the discussion forthwith.

Statistics can be baffling can't they?

Look at it like this...you've got to bring the numbers back to a common denominator in order to make comparisons.

One cop per 765 people equals 1.31 cops per 1000.
One cop per 693 people equals 1.44 cops per 1000.
one cop per 417 people = 2.40 cops per 1000.

So they've had an increase of 0.13 cops per 1000 people in first period and 0.96 cops per 1000 people in second period.

So clearly the rate of increase is increasing - by around 7 times. Even if that were to be maintained (it isn't, but just for pretend) it doesn't get us within cooee of your date.

Sometimes they aren't lies or damned lies...they're just misunderstood statistics.

Hi there MHAZE...This thoroughly stupid retired ol' copper humbly thanks your, for clearly enlightening me on how our friend Mr NICK'S; hitherto complicated equation is solved. At school the word Arithmetic, would strike terror into the hearts and minds of many of my fellow class mates. And even now, approaching nearly 70 years onward, the word still does have that effect upon me, at nearly 80!

In effect , each one lost about half his customers with the bulk going at the end of the 1900s. The remaining half will rapidly scatter .

" one cop per 417 people = 2.40 cops per 1000.
So clearly the rate of increase is increasing - by around 7 times."

Doing Police recruitment that way gives 16.28 Police Officers per 1000 in year 2051 . However the irresistible force of common-sense gives 7x7 rate of increase , 49x2.4 =118 per 1000 in 2051 . After that it's 49x7 increase, 343 x 118 Police Constables per 1000 and Britain will have no problems and no lunacy .

You know ladies and gentlemen, I've been called many things in my career, some of them most unsavoury, a few even complimentary, but this is the first time, I've ever been reduced to a mere fraction? It's a funny feeling be described as, Constable O.40 or something similar?

Hi o sung wu. as a x-cop you know the score. In inner Sydney, we have a fair amount pf petty crime, drug and alcohol relate stuff, juvenile crime etc. With most, unless the perpetrator is on the scene, there is often little the police can do. Other than take statements and issue an event number.

Can you please comment on this one for me. Last evening I was waiting for a bus, with several other people. There was a young bloke about 25 sitting on the seat, dressed in T-shirt, shorts, runners. Was unaffected as far as I could tell by drugs or alcohol. A van pulled up, two young male constables got out, went over to him, questioned him, frisked him, even made him take his shoes and socks off, obviously looking for drugs, found nothing and left. The bloke was bewildered. I said to him, "what was that all about", he said "I don't know." ... "Do they know you"..."No"..."Gee, you gave them no prevarication". Straggled to get his shoes and socks back on as the bus was pulling up. To me they had no reasonable grounds to do what they did, and embarrass the bloke. Didn't question the old fart, or strip search him, that's me. Waiting for a bus should not be a crime, embarrassing people in public should be.

Could be that police are sick of investigating crimes then having their efforts trashed by gutless magistrates and judges who simply will not punish offenders. However, it's not the police's place to decide what they will or will not investigate; that's our decision through our elected representatives, and that folks is where the real problem lies.

Paul1405
Could you see their numbers or were they students dressed up?

" Most of these powers are set out in legislation. The following information may help you to understand these powers and what rights and responsibilities you have in different situations.

If I’m not under arrest can I be searched?

Police can also search you (and your car, boat or other vehicle and possessions) if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that you are carrying:

stolen goods or goods unlawfully obtained, for example from the sale of drugs
prohibited drugs
an item that has been, or may be, used in a serious crime, for example, tools to break into a car or house
knives, weapons or ‘dangerous implements’
a laser pointer
Police can also search you and your car if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that:

it may have been used in connection with a serious offence
it contains stolen goods or unlawfully obtained goods
it contains prohibited drugs
it contains items used for the commission of an offence
there are circumstances in a public place or school likely to give rise to a serious risk to public safety
they suspect that someone in the car is wanted for arrest.
During periods when police are given special public disorder powers they may search you or your car if you/it are on a ‘target road or area’."

No NNN they were the genuine article. they had the right gear and a wagon as well, just doing a street patrol. Redfern Sydney is a tough command for the police. There are enough low life's around who I am happy to sees the coppers kick their asses every day of the week. This bloke was not one of them, maybe the young constables were too inexperienced to tell the difference. They even went through his wallet. They did not question him in relation to any offence that had been committed, they wanted to know what he was doing. Since he was wait at a bus stop, the answer was "wait for bus."

" It's a funny feeling be described as, Constable O.40 or something similar?"

Well you're only 0.4 of a cop if there's 1000 people around. Gather 2500 people and you're a full cop. Gather 5000 and you're more than a man.

Struth the cops at the AFL Grand Final were giants among men.

"Doing Police recruitment that way gives 16.28 Police Officers per 1000 in year 2051 . However the irresistible force of common-sense gives 7x7 rate of increase , 49x2.4 =118 per 1000 in 2051 ."

Allowing that we are now in the realm of fantasy and just playing with numbers, the "irresistible force of common-sense" doesn't allow you to make these assumptions about the future since there is insufficient data points to know this way or that. We can't know whether future increases will be 7 times the last or merely 0.96 greater than the last. (In the jargon we don't know if the increase in the increase is arithmetic or geometric). We'd need more data points to make that call.

_____________________________________________________________-

More seriously, this illustrates a problem that modern society faces. So much of what experts offers as proof these days is based on statistics that are sometimes good and sometimes self-serving. But the majority of the population is not able to discern the difference. (Check out http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/number%20watch.htm for a treasure trove of self-serving statistics and guides as to how to discern the good from the bad).

I'd estimate that barely a day goes by when I don't see some inappropriate use of numbers or statistics...hell the whole global warming thing is based on it, the hockey stick being the perfect example.

__________________________________________________________

And finally, part of the reason for these new UK policies is because of a DECLINE in police numbers....
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/29/police-numbers-fall-by-3488-officers

Sometimes we see trends where none exist.

mhaze
I protest . Who will stand against the tyranny of number crunchers such as the topic dictator:

"Statistics quoted tend to backup this "in 1901 there was one policeman per 765 people; in 1951 one per 693; and in 2001 one per 417. " The law and police for the rich and powerful, and you have no guns to protect yourself."
-
This is subversive rebellion , fake propaganda and incitement to violence . The ignorant peasants will be easily fooled as cannon-fodder for the extremist anarchists . You're a good man who failed to act and so betray victims of arithmetic and social errors.

NNN,

"You're a good man who failed to act...."

au contraire, sir, au contraire.

I did indeed act by bringing sense and sensibility to the number crunching. There's no point seeking to overthrow the "tyranny of number crunchers" and "extremist anarchists" (tyrannical anarchists??) by being equally tyrannical. I, sir, bought democracy to the issue by making the numbers accessible to all.

The numbers are the numbers and I am a mere servant to their Pythagorean logic. Please don't shoot the messenger...else the police may (or may not!) investigate.

Hi there PAUL1405...

A legitimate question for sure, however it's hard to put yourself in another's place without knowing and understanding all the circumstances prevailing. That said, these two constables were apparently on a normal mobile patrol when they spotted this fellow merely waiting for a bus? At muster he (or his likeness) may've been listed on the LOTBKF as a POI? Or one or both coppers thought they'd recognised him by his description and clothing from a COR, and considered he was worth checking out? There could be any number of reasons for doing so, and from your account, the two coppers didn't act unreasonably Paul? I realise such an incident looks to be quite over the top, for some members of the public, nevertheless these procedures are often used as a proactive measure, rather than that of reactive.

FYI:- LOTBKF - 'Lookout to be kept for'; POI - 'person of interest' and COR - 'Crime occurrence report'.

Hi there MHAZE...

Well you've done it my friend. You've totally convinced me, that had I not retired from the coppers, I would've perhaps resigned and taken up, either basket weaving, or cake decorating. Whereupon the reliance on numbers and mathematical equations, are far less demanding. Speak again soon.