One in five crimes not recorded by police, dailymail.co.uk‘s headline reveals. Nearly a million offences a year are ignored by target-chasing officers. I’ve posted the eye-opening stats after the jump. Startling, but not surprising. Not if you understand the dynamics of gun control. First, you disarm civilians in the name of public safety. Then you claim that it worked. Even though it didn’t. Because the general public must not, under any circumstances, take responsibility for their own safety. That power, once reclaimed, leads all kinds of anti-statist ideas (e.g., individual liberty). So the Powers That Be direct the troops to cook the books. (Just like they did in New York City and Chicago.) Antis on both sides of the pond celebrate the carefully staged “victory” of “common sense” gun control, ignoring the rapes, assaults and murders that are a direct result of their agenda. Despicable. But predictable. Don’t let this be us . . .

– More than 800,000 crimes reported to police go unrecorded every year
– A quarter of sexual offences not recorded and around 200 rapes dismissed
– A third of violent crime is not logged, with some 250 offences ignored
– Inspectorate of Constabulary describes it as ‘poor and indefensible’
– Survey of 17,000 officers found a fifth felt pressurised to not record a crime

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

43 COMMENTS

  1. Hmmm, I’m shocked! Just dumbfounded! I didn’t know this kind of dishonesty existed in the governments abroad . . .

    • Seattle is starting to do the same thing- since getting a DOJ monitor, officers have to get supervisor approval for every arrest. And, there is an unwritten rule that arresting the wrong color person for anything, justified or not, is racist, thus drawing the attention of the DOJ. Strong motivation to avoid making arrests.

  3. The anti gunners don’t just hate guns. They hate the truth, they hate to be wrong, and they hate to be questioned. More than anything, they hate the fact that independent men and women, armed, could question or revolt against their unjust authority.

    • +1. Guns are a threat because they allow the little people to say no. Its about power, pure an simple. The Democratic Party was taken over by leftists who adopted the term “Progressives”. The roots come from the failed socialst economic ideas of. the thirties, and the cultural marxism spread through schools and institutions from the radical philosophies of post-modern revisionism, transnational “one-world” political coordination, and naive multi-culturalism.

      Eventually, the difference between what is real and works, vs the propaganda and brain-washing designed to make you dependent and subservient to BigGov, either wears you down, or you rise up and say, enough.

      We are evolving, slowly, and messily, as a democracies do, into the second part. A proof is the mid-term elections. Progressives and the Elite who enjoy the power, are becoming desperate to hang onto power, and complete their agenda, thus the ever more desperate and obvious Executive Action, and increasingly shrill propaganda from th,e reliable press organs, and various faux news aggregators, and “thinkers” like Vox, HuffPo, Slate, MSNBC, CNN, NYT and WAPO.

      The truth wins, in the end, when it gets painful enough, and thats usually an economic form of pain, jobs, food, safety, that wakes people up. So the Ferguson fiasco is blowing up because people can relate, and see how the race baiting, divide and conquer, class envy tactics arent working, especially for the black urban underclass, that has been victimized by the failed experiment of the Democratic Party since LBJ who cynicaly launched the War on Poverty as he bragged once “i’ll have those nigers voting Democrat for the next 200 years…

      “http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/some-of-the-lost-history-in-the-civil-rights-movement

  4. Ya know, I was pretty sure this was the case, but to have proof of it is still unsettling… the truly sad part is most UK citizens have drunk the koolaid and will disparage American “redneck cowboy gun nuts” at every opportunity.

  6. This is how the Liberal/Progressives try to hide the utter failure of their “utopian ideals’. This is why the Progressive press didn’t report on Stalins mass slaughter of his own people in his Gulags or the millions of deaths by starvation in the Ukraine in the thirties in his attempt to collectivize the populace.

    They depend on lies to sell their collectivist nightmare visions.

    So we get the complete fabrications of the “gun epidemic” to push for more of their statist control.

    • Going off memory, but I believe the NYT won a Pulitzer for reporting on how well Stalin was running Russia.

      • Walter Duranty, reporting for the NYT, reported that all was well in the Ukraine, despite the Stalin-imposed famine there. He won the Pulitzer, which still stands. Google “Walter Duranty prize.”

      • They’ll probably win another one for printing Officer Darren Wilson’s home address. Very bright, considering all the death threats. All because the 2 – ahem – “reporters” (ha-ha) didn’t agree with the Ferguson grand jury that there was no probable cause to indict him. Unprofessional, unethical, unnecessary, and malicious. Those two don’t deserve the title of “reporter”. Reporters report news. THAT wasn’t news.

  7. I’m certainly glad to see the shooter and their driver wore proper safety gear. Can’t have them breaking the motorcycle laws and losing their license.

  8. Anti-gun voters and supporters, rape, murder, and assault by proxy. The armed criminals actually do their dirty work for them. They should wear T-shirts proclaiming their support for those activities.
    How can they justify taking our guns while leaving the criminals armed. Even Russia has learned that lesson.
    The saddest part is that they are leading themselves to the slaughter. They just are a bit further down the priority list.
    So how long do we sit in the water like a frog getting boiled?

  9. Good thing Britain is the most surveilled country in Europe. There is one camera for every 11 people. Multiple sources using my Google-fu. That will stop crime, am I right? /Sarc

  10. I want to know the U.K.’s real violent crime rate adjusted for the ignored violent crimes. As it stands the U.K. already has the highest violent crime rate in Western Europe … this will just increase their lead.

    The real fly in Europe’s ointment is the Czech Republic where pretty much anyone can acquire a concealed carry license and carry concealed everywhere … and yet the Czech Republic’s violent crime rate is substantially lower than the U.K.

  11. They’re probably especially pressured to not report the crimes committed by Muslims.

    • “I’m sorry, old boy, but reporting the religion or ethnicity would simply be racist. Now, it may be true that the grooming of vulnerable young girls for a life of prostitution may be a serious crime indulged in almost exclusively by Muslim Brits, and the victimized are almost always what we call “white.” It is possibly true that the crime is therefore the very embodiment of racism on the part of its practitioners, but we mustn’t think two wrongs will make a right!”

      Really. Sarc off. They actually think this way. “They” is an elite that shields itself from the actual downside of this sort of thing. On the other hand, that elite is often as not buggering white boys or capping some princess. They do still have a House of Lords, after all. Not so Magna Carta after all.

      • I’m just glad my Rotherham reference didn’t go right over everyone’s head like it would have on say, the Huffington Post.

      • Umm, I suggest you go read up on the Magna Carta, a document whereby the Lords (Barons) induced the king to give up a significant part of his sole sovereignty, and is how the House of Lords came to be.

        • The Magna Carta ‘granted’ rights to the nobles. Common subjects weren’t granted any right until the English Bill of Rights of 1689. I’m not sure exactly at what point those rights were rescinded by the crown, though.

        • I am well aware of the significance of the Magna Carta in British legal history. Indeed, Blackstone in four volumes sits on my credenza. The Magna Carta has long been held to be the document which signaled the end of the rule of a King by divine right, the devolution of power, which increased over time, was made increasingly secure during the Glorious Revolution, and has been perceived as a pattern of developing rights unbroken in British history since Edward’s time. You may disagree with that assessment of it’s role, and of the historical trend. As to the first, you are in the minority. As to the second, opinion is becoming increasingly mixed.

          As you know, the Great Charter exacted rights from the king, who signed under duress. The thing was made void, annulled, by Innocent III. It was not until the reign of Edward I that the charter in large part, revised, became an actual Statute of Britain. Thus lawyers writing in the 15th and later centuries, including Blackstone, would refer to a right or freedom as “having existed in our law at least since King Edward’s time.” The reign of Edward was taken to be the period in which Brits recovered rights they had long held, but which had been denied to them by the conquering Normans in 1066. The rights so “regained” are the source of what is referred to as the Unwritten Constitution” of Britain, and much of the Common Law was also thought to be “found” in usages which endured in the country despite Norman abuse.

          Critiques of this summary are welcome, of course.

        • “[T]he devolution of power, which increased over time, was made increasingly secure during the Glorious Revolution…”

          Progressivism does tend to fragment power, doesn’t it? This works out very nicely for the permanent bureaucracy.

          Progressivism is the belief that The People should rule. This inevitably leads to endless disputes about “legitimate” authority. And Ferguson.

        • John, I have a different take on ‘progressivism’ in Britain. Just as Henry III and Edward Longshanks reaffirmed the charter because they needed money, taxes, so in the very modern British era those whose participatory power and rights had grown (the lower, middle, and upper-middle classes) have proved willing to give back those rights in exchange for a bit of money, council housing, cash income supports, and so forth.

          The long positive trend started to break in the aftermath of WWI, and I see only desperate efforts to reverse the trend of selling off fundamental rights in exchange for “moar stuff.”

          But ‘yes’ about the permanent ‘establishment,’ the bureaucracy that entrenches the self-appointed elites (and forestalls the possibility of meaningful thorough change through elections. I view that as a tool of the ‘electoral’ elites, though, not just the royal or money elites. Public schools still seem to mediate between those groups, offering something to each by way of a future. That “Progressivism” is en vogue among the bureaucrats seems to me simply a result of the support it provides to the notion that more government and more taxation is always good. No?

  12. While in the US crimes we “discover” crimes that occurred decades ago and were never reported. All it takes is a media witchhunt and a few trial lawyers on the scent of money.

  13. Maybe they should cut the police departments budget, equal to the percentage the crimerate drop. Then we`ll see how fast ALL crimes ARE reported.

  15. BTW, the “innaccuracies” in the official data aren’t a new thing.

    Nor is the enthusiastic participation of some press organs.
    Google Walter Duranty for his awar winning propagandizing for Stalin in the NYT.

    Its widely understood in the financial markets that the BLS books are cooked, and lets not get started on the CBO.

    I’d like to think the FBI Crime stats aren’t skewed, but given the failures already documented, and the issue of data withheld by states, for example in CA, I dont have confidence in the DOJ to do better, or worse, not to put their fingers on the scale in any way seen most favorable to the Narrative.

    • It wasn’t just Duranty. Lincoln Steffens visited the USSR, in the 1920’s, and bragged: “I have seen the future and it works”.

  16. What amazes me is the women casually walking away while numerous rounds are fired in her general direction. Wow!

  17. Sounds like the Ministry of Truth is working hard to make the subjects of Oceania feel safe and love Big Brother.

  18. This is pretty easy to explain in a few simple steps:

    Step 1. Declare virtually all weapons illegal and pass laws making self defense a criminal offense. Declare forearms too dangerous for most police officers to handle, further reducing the number of legally posessed weapons in public.

    Step 2. Watch helplessly as criminals who do not respect laws increase their criminal activities feeling safe in the knowledge that almost nobody is armed to defend themselves and that doing so will likely result in their victims going to jail if they do fight back and injure criminals.

    Step 3. Become so overburdened by crime that paperwork backs up, causing delays in criminal trials that allow the citizenry to notice problems with policework.

    Step 4. Declare that the solution to the problem is to ignore crimes you do not think you can solve quickly and easily so that the public no longer sees negative numbers in police report data.

    Step 5. When this fails, keep declaring items to be too dangerous for the public or beat cops to posess. Currently posession of any knife, bat, or stick are being looked at as possible additions to the list of prohibited items that must be kept under lock and key at all times. So if you want to make a sandwitch that involves a spreadable food item you’re going to have to go lock your doors and windows and open your gun safe just to use a knife.

    Step 6 Keep on smoking crack, I guess, because that’s the only thing that I can think of that would make someone believe that the solution to crime is to take weapons out of the hands of police and law enforcement officers while ignoring crimes in massive numbers…

  19. Anecdotal evidence time! Have a friend who returned from a deployment to England, his 4th, and he told us about the crime problem there. Little background, his grandfather was in USAAC and stationed in England in WWII, his father has been stationed in England and Germany multiple times and his mother is English, so he has family and friends in England. Rather familiar with England and its people, you might say.

    He told us that many people in parts of England won’t call the police when they are robbed, assaulted, property vandalized, etc etc. Why? Because the police quite often refuse to even take a statement, and many times will find some reason to cite YOU, victim of crime, for some infraction of the law. Kinda scary. He was in England in the 1990s and this was not the case. I have known his family 30 odd years, have met relatives from England when they are here to visit, an uncle and cousin are here now to hunt and they corroborate what him and his wife are telling us. They are both in the process of moving their families out of England permanently because of the deteriorating situation.

    So, pay attention, people! This is precisely what Democrats and Republicans want to do to America.

  20. I witnessed the same thing in Germany several decades ago while an USAF LEO. Germans did not air their dirty laundry. I have a very vivid memory of the German Polizei telling me that a local gang of criminals attacked and raped women at a local park nearly every other night. It was not in the news. No German I knew in the area knew about it.

  21. and that list doesn’t even mention the decades of intentional silence by “authorities” and thousands of (White English) children groomed and used as sex slaves by muslim gangs….

  22. Ehh…. don’t you mean “crime rate soars?” “Plummets” doesn’t mean what you think it means…. unless you’re just being sarcastic. It’s the internet, I can’t tell.

  23. This has been known for sometime. A blogger cop from the UK named inspector gadget was blogging about this exact problem. How something like attempted murder with a gun would be recorded as vandalism (cuz the bullet missed and broke a window).

    I think there were others like him but I only remember his name.

Comments are closed.