Sign in to follow this  
skydiver

Farcical Funding Formula Fail

Recommended Posts

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/09/reform-of-police-funding-formula-stopped-after-incorrect-data-farce

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34770792  and  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34752952

 

The Home Office hasn't exactly covered itself in glory with this latest farce but at least a small amount of sense has been seen meaning that the new formula won't be used until 2016/17, not that this will make much difference to forces as we will be facing a 25% plus cut before then.

 

Why did the HO use the wrong date and why wasn't the mistake noticed until almost the last minute.  Also what is Mike Penning's role in this farce?  He has been working on reform of the funding model since the start of the year but the end result has been nothing short of a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us now see if forces change their policy in recording crime. If they record lage increases in crime then they can affact the results of the formula. They wouldn't would they. Just watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will they actually be ALLOWED to change the method of recording crime. We all know that the actual recording is done under a directive from the Home Office. They won't allow things to be changed to show sorry suggest that they were manipulating the figures. Heaven forbid!!!

 

Manipulation has been going on at least since 1980 it aint goint to change now.

 

It is going to take a very brave CC or one that is almost finishd his career to do something to upset the applecart (and his pension)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh the broken kitchen window will not be minor damage but will be what it is a Burglary. The old stone thrown up by a passing vehicle and breaking a shop window. A stolen purse which was recorded as lost!  etc, etc, etc.  There could also be a glut of "Undetected" theft by shoplifting.  However on the plus side the reports of lost property and minor damage will decrease.         B)

Edited by Zulu 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have mentioned it a long while ago but one of the HO sponsored scams was, if a number of cars got screwed in a car park in one day over a certain period they were always recorded as one crime of theft from M/v.

 

If amongst those attacked, only windows were broken, they were classed as Criminal Damage not Attempted Theft, but again only one crime.  so if there were 5 cars with radios stolen it was one crime of theft and 4 cars with windows broken it was one crime of CD. Two recorded crimes but  in actual fact it should have been 9.

 

The DCI didn't agree with it but he was directed from above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you've said that before but the Rules haven't said that for over 20 years. It's ' one crime per victim' so five cars owned by five different people in a car park is five crimes, three cars owned by the same person parked outside his house all damaged at the same time is one crime.

In the mid 90s I fell out with the crime recorders who insisted on recording three thefts and not one when a bag was stolen containing property belonging to two friends of the bag owner. The Rules then said three victims so three crimes and three crimes were recorded.

Sent from me using witchcraft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you've said that before but the Rules haven't said that for over 20 years. It's ' one crime per victim' so five cars owned by five different people in a car park is five crimes, three cars owned by the same person parked outside his house all damaged at the same time is one crime.

In the mid 90s I fell out with the crime recorders who insisted on recording three thefts and not one when a bag was stolen containing property belonging to two friends of the bag owner. The Rules then said three victims so three crimes and three crimes were recorded.

Sent from me using witchcraft

 

Detected, I assume? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the funding formula was based on size of the population, city / country percentage and size of the county more than types of crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Detected, I assume?

No. Didn't have a clue who'd nicked it.

My gripe wasn't having three undetected crimes but the folly that one bag stolen was three crimes. I pointed out that if a teacher took some kids on a field trip and they each put their chocolate bars in one bag that got stolen that would be 31 crimes of theft. 'Yep. Them's the rules.' I was told.

Sent from me using Witchcraft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the funding formula was based on size of the population, city / country percentage and size of the county more than types of crime.

The city/country percentage went as part of the last spending review I think. The current formula is population; certain characteristics of the population e.g. criminality, number of properties in Council Tax Bands; and environmental factors like the density of bars in the area.

Sent from me using Witchcraft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The city/country percentage went as part of the last spending review I think. The current formula is population; certain characteristics of the population e.g. criminality, number of properties in Council Tax Bands; and environmental factors like the density of bars in the area.

Sent from me using Witchcraft

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an absolute disgrace that the Home Office isn't being investigated for such a colossal error. Chiefs had to threaten legal action and pay £2000 for data to be released before they would admit they'd miscalculated funding by £17,000,000 in one case.

Edited by mummypatrol
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Home Affairs select committee has slated the bean counters who made the mistakes and in apparently an unusual move they have named the people who were responsible , but as yet no one has said much about the mistakes apart from a few comments by Penning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The HASC praised the efforts of the Devon and Cornwall PCC for showing up the expert Civil Servants responsible.

Keith Vaz praising a PCC for showing up the incompetence of Home Office bean counters!!! What can you do with that??

Sent from me using witchcraft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are 16 hidden replies in this thread that you do not currently have access to as a Guest User of our forum. To unlock the forum register for an account for FREE today by clicking HERE
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.