Login Register

"We don't fiddle our figures" says police and crime commissioner, Martin Surl

By Maryam_Qaiser  |  Posted: January 10, 2014

Martin Surl

Martin Surl

Comments (7)

Responding to comments from the former head of the Metropolitan Police Lord Stevens that some forces ‘routinely write off crimes’, Gloucestershire’s police and crime commissioner, Martin Surl said it did not happen in the county.

Mr Surl added: “Lord Stevens may be happy to suggest police have been fiddling crime figures for years but I don't appreciate him tarring other forces with the same brush. I am assured by the chief constable that her recording of crime has been reviewed and she has confidence in them.”

The former Scotland Yard Commissioner, now Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, who ran the Metropolitan Police for six years, made his comments to the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee.

He claimed figures were fiddled throughout his time in the police and suggested every single force should be subject to an independent investigation into crime figures - both detection and recording of crime - as a matter of urgency.

Mr Surl said: “Lord Stevens is entitled to reflect on his own experiences but I can reassure him and the public of Gloucestershire that this police and crime commissioner is not interested in spinning figures for personal gain.

“This is the sort of thing which made people suspicious of having commissioners in the first place. Maybe some might find spinning statistics too much of a temptation to resist but as an Independent I have no need to give in to political pressure of any kind.

“The fall in crime is never just the result of good policing, important though that is. It’s due to the work done by all the other agencies and elements who strive together to make our communities safer and stronger.

“Headline figures do not always tell the full story and I do not want to rely just on figures as an indictor of how peaceful or otherwise Gloucestershire is.”

Read more from Gloucester Citizen

Do you have something to say? Leave your comment here...

max 4000 characters

7 comments

  • Hadagmaja  |  January 11 2014, 11:53PM

    There used to be a financial incentive for police to investigate alleged rape and sexual assault. No there isn't and the police are persuading women (and men) that there is little chance in any justice.

    Rate   1
    Report
  • Hadagmaja  |  January 11 2014, 11:49PM

    ANd I'm sure police never lie either.......plebgate

    Rate 0
    Report
  • spindles12  |  January 11 2014, 6:02PM

    Snappy_Happer said "I'm sure Suzette Davenport has little more idea of what practices go on at the 'coal face' presently than any other police chief" - I expect she does!. This is, of course, Suzette Davenport who is still under investigation for allegedly conspiring to pervert the course of justice. Still no news about it and it will be interesting to eventually know the outcome. I think that the police, far from not wanting crimes to be reported, would like people to report them as it can get them more funding. This is what a PCSO told a meeting I attended when she urged us to report any suspicious behaviour, or people just calling at the door etc, anything to up the reporting figures for her area as they would "get more money if there's more crime in that area" (her words). This doesn't mean of course that they'll actually do anything about it though. I'm sure the fall in crime is not so much due to good policing and "initiatives" but because people don't bother to report it because they don't think there's any point. I was told several years ago about a petrol theft that had just happened at a local garage. The attendant had taken the registration number and description of the car and offenders and had just dialled 999, as a quick response could have caught the thieves - the police turned up two days later. Says it all really.

    Rate   2
    Report
  • Lecorche  |  January 11 2014, 1:58PM

    "We don't fiddle our figures". I suppose the Police never tell lies,either.

    Rate   4
    Report
  • Snappy_Happer  |  January 11 2014, 12:11PM

    I'm sure Suzette Davenport has little more idea of what practices go on at the 'coal face' presently than any other police chief (or Martin Surl, for that matter). But what has any of this to do with 'personal gain,' of the PCC, at any rate? If we ARE in a situation where police officers have a financial interest in low crime rates, then I don't see how they would do any other than discourage people from reporting offences where the possibility of *finding* an offender, let alone getting a conviction was low, and I don't see how the chief constable, or Martin Surl, could ever know this was happening. So frankly, Surl's denials don't carry much weight with me.

    Rate 0
    Report
  • RoadWombat  |  January 10 2014, 10:34PM

    No, it's just that yours is a very minor matter (and certainly not a 'crime') that you've got a bee in your bonnet about, but which is of little interest or importance to anyone other than yourself.

    Rate   -6
    Report
  • citon  |  January 10 2014, 7:04PM

    They don't need to write off crime if they don't bother to deal with offenders in the first place. I have been asking for years to have the idiot cyclists that race along outside my premises dealt with. The Police say that they will deal with it and then do sweet FA. There must be some official policy to ignore offences and allow cyclists to get away with anything they wish.

    Rate   5
    Report

      YOUR COMMENTS AWAITING MODERATION

       
       

      MORE NEWS HEADLINES