January 14th, 2009

Stop! Thief!

Posted in The Job - General by 200

Back in the day, when someone reported a crime, we went along & took details. If we thought it was probably a crime we crimed it & it joined the statistic, if we didn’t think there had been a crime we ‘no crimed’ it & it didn’t make the stats.

Doubtless, there were officers who couldn’t be arsed to investigate & no crimed stuff but on the whole it was a common sense approach. Lost purses was an example, if there was no evidence to suggest that someone might have picket it from your pocket then the chances were that it fell out on the way home & was recorded as lost property rather than a theft.

Then someone thought that this wasn’t fair & lots of crimes were going unrecorded. The system was changed so that if someone thought they were subject of a crime then they were, unless there was pretty strong evidence to the contrary, so now we have the situation of instead of being under-reported, crime is now over-reported, there being countless incidents recorded as crimes which probably aren’t.

The problem is you get cases like this. Someone lost thousands of pounds’ worth of expensive koi carp. They were in the pond one day and not in the pond the next, ergo they must have been stolen. Suffolk police duly took the report and even appealed for witnesses ton track down the fate of the 27 hapless fish.

Following further investigation & observations the thief was found to be a heron taking its lunch. That’s a coincidence; I can’t count the amount of times I’ve seen a magpie rifling through the contents of an old lady’s purse over the years.

You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site. RSS 2.0


  1. Tony F says:

    We once had a small flotilla of Mallards paddle through our pond. Mummy and umpteen chicks. Didn’t bother the inexpensive goldfish much.

    What I can’t get my head around is; Why do things need to be reported when there is no crime to report? Surely in today’s penny pinching regime, saving money and time by not reporting/recording irrelevances would be the vogue?

    How Naïve of me..

    January 15th, 2009 at 18:02

  2. eric roberts says:

    You must have been at Lewisham in the 70′s. I have never seen so many absent minded people losing their purses and wallets, something in the air I guess.

    January 15th, 2009 at 20:16

  3. MarkUK says:

    Have any of the people who insist that it was the heron wot done it actually seen a heron? A 3′ koi would probably weigh in at about twice the weight of the bird, and this heron had not one, but two of these, plus 25 assorted other koi over the space of a few days.

    Sure it wasn’t an albatross?

    January 15th, 2009 at 21:42

  4. Plodnomore says:

    First visit to the scene by investigating Police officer.
    IPO: “I see you don’t have a net over the fish pond sir.”
    Victim: “Why do you say that?”
    IPO: “Because any serious collector of Koi carp would know that a net prevents the fish being taken by scavenging birds and wildlife, even foxes. However, the presence of a wet would show that the offender was probably human. May I suggest you place a suitable net over the pond and if the loss of fish continues, I will investigate it as a probable theft rather than a series of possible animal or avian actions.”
    Logical thought followed by a commonsense attitude. Do they not have them these days?

    January 15th, 2009 at 21:51

Leave a comment