Police warning - Motor Vehicle Crime in SG

webly

Just got this through from the local police via my neighbourhood watch - thought it might be useful to share since I've not seen anything else posted about it here recently.


Dear All

We have recently experienced an increase in motor vehicle crime in the Stroud Green area. The majority being theft from motor vehicle.

To this end, we will be holding several street briefings over the next month to encourage residents to come along and meet your local team as well as discuss any issues you may have and obtain crime prevention advice.

The dates are as follows-

Friday 13th August 2010 8am-9am Oakfield Road jct with Dagmar Road n4

Thursday 2nd September 2010 8pm-9pm outside the library Quernmore Road N4

One description of a recent suspect given to us by witnesses is a black male on a bicycle. If you see anyone acting suspicious please call 999 or the non emergency number 0300 123 1212.

I have also attached some crime prevention advice for you perusal.

Kind Regards

PCSO Laura Phillips 7106 YR
Stroud Green Safer Neighbourhoods Team
Tel no- 0208 721 2837

Ali

This is just the beginning – wait until the government cuts come in to force people back to work and into enterprise unfortunately that work and enterprise will be in some instances be more crime. Watch out for the burglary rate and car break in rates go shooting up as people need to get money from somewhere! Happened the last time there was just a Con government although I guess there will be no new playgrounds to vandalise – How stupid and petty was that decision ! I guess the Libdems will have to change there clarion call at election time to Only the” Libdems Can’t Win Around here !”

dion

The Finsbury Park playground has been vandalised recently

Bridget

A blue motorbike or moped has been dumped in the trees in Wray Crescent. Must let the police know as it fell on my friends son.

Also found someones bag there which had been thrown into the bushes.

N4Matt

Wow, so Ali, shall we not encourage people back to work in case that 'work' becomes crime?

You're right lets keep giving people hand outs so that they don't feel the need to go out robbing. Alternatively, they could go out and work like the rest of us.

The mind boggles!!

ADGS

They could if there were any bloody jobs, is the point, whereas in fact unemployment is back on the increase because when you cut funding, even if it is to non-front-line positions, that still equates to people out of jobs - and the private sector, contrary to popular political belief, does not then magically pick up the slack, and more, and make everything better with a swish of a corporate unicorn's tale.

N4Matt

Rubbish, there's a lot of work out there, granted perhaps the certain specialist roles are thinner on the ground than perhaps a few years ago but there are jobs.

The problem is that so many people will only take a role that fits their *insert chosen vocation here*. More people should realise that in the first instance they should work to earn a living and not to form an identity.

Too many people expecting everything on a plate is the problem.

The idea that people should not have hand outs reduced in case they resort to crime begs belief and frankly is very defeatist.

Emma

Wow.

Ali

I think it is just that an awful lot of people do not have the skills that are needed for a lot of the jobs that are available. I am talking about the people who are at the margin who clearly are not as well educated individuals such as N4 Matt. It is obvious the police think there is a problem that will probably get worse so can Matt4 suggest how the likely potential perpetrators are “guided” into work suitable for their qualifications and experience ?

Arkady

I agree Matt. It’s like buying off the barbarians to stop them raiding. There is little choice about the cuts – bankruptcy is not progressive and will not increase the number of jobs or allow overspending to continue. We have to tackle the structural problems. The ‘keep spending’, ‘resist the cuts’ line is just sticking your head in the sand.

ADGS

That's the line the reds and the blues were both spinning ahead of the election (making Labour complaints now deeply disingenuous), but <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28krugman.html">economists including Paul Krugman</a> argued plausibly that it's a counterproductive myth. And unlike Osborne or Darling, Krugman does have an Economics Nobel Prize.

graeme

<object width="240" height="190"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

N4Matt

I'm not a politician/policy maker but the idea that we should not encourage people back to work in case the number of local robberies increases seems a little ridiculous.

That appears to be the tone of Ali's message above, if I have interpreted it incorrectly then I apologise.

No one is saying that life is easy but the idea that we should hand out money to stop people robbing us is insane!!!

ADGS

'Encouraging people to work' is, up to a point, fair enough - though when one considers the number of jobs which only make the world worse (bog troll, cold calling telesales) I find the idea of a citizen wage (<a href="http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/policypointers/ppcitizensincome.pdf">proposed by the Greens among others</a>) far more appealing.
The problem arises when you're forcing people off benefits and there simply aren't the jobs there to provide an alternative - something which the 'work for welfare' programmes, for instance, will only exacerbate, because like unpaid internships, they're a dirt cheap way to replace actual paid workers.
And I'm not convinced that pickiness is the only reason people can't find work. Every set of figures I've seen from anyone except biased parties (Jobcentres, politicians looking to justify tough talk) suggests that while, yes, there are unfilled vacancies in the UK employment market, there aren't anything like as many as there are unemployed people.

Ali

What I am saying is that there an awful lot of people who are not particularly employable who are going to struggle and might be tempted. I am not saying that you pay people not to be criminal. Prevention is usually a good cure because if you look at the savings through the cuts the other associated social costs and real costs to society and the individuals will probably be much higher.

miss annie

I think that rewarding people for not working or bribing them to stop them making a lifestyle choice become criminals is bad.

There are lots of jobs around, things like working in shops for example - the websites that specialise in retail positions are full of vacancies. Ok, it might not be glamourous but it is paid work that doesn't require special skills. I completely agree with N4Matt, people should in the first instance work to support themselves and their families. It is not the job of the state to support those who can't find jobs doing exactly what they want to do - relatively few people have that luxury.

If I hear one more person who is living off benefits banging on about how they really want a career as a DJ/Designer/Musician and that's why they aren't working, I will scream.

Ali

Crikey this thread has become very Daily Mail

miss annie

Wouldn't know, I don't read it. I just really resent subsidising other peoples loafing about.
Don't think it's that unreasonable or reactionary to expect people to support themselves instead of expecting others to do it for them.

graeme

And the thread all started so very Guardian...

Ali

I am pretty sure I wouldn’t like the standard of living on benefits would allow or are they so good that people can avoid WLM and visit the other establishments on SGR. Anyone got any experience of having to live on benefits who could us a view to help folks understand what it is like. Not many MPs etc who go on reality TV and have a week living like this last very long

Arkady

miss annie’s response is saintly in its restraint, much better than I can or indeed will do. Ali, your comment is seriously crass. Not believing that people who, for instance, refuse to take jobs that they are offered should be allowed to continue receiving benefits does not equal a Daily Mail mentality. I might as well accuse you of a Daily Mirror mentality, but (until now) I didn’t suspect you to be such a thicko. It’s quite possible to believe that it not in the best interests of people to be caught in a welfare trap from which they and their offsping are unlikely to escape, and I won’t have it insinuated that such beliefs make one an ignorant bigot.

Ali

All I am saying is that we are going to have a higher level of unemployment, less jobs available for the higher level of unemployed to apply for while at the same time people having benefit money taken away from them will unfortunately will lead to higher levels of crime – always does . Don’t think I have said anything about rewarding people who “refuse to take jobs that they are offered” although I assume you mean potential jobs people could apply for not ones that people have gone for the interview and been offered. Have ago at this <http://www.turn2us.org.uk/benefits_search.aspx>; and see what your legally entitled to. There seem to be loads of different benefits so it will be interesting to see what Duncan- Smith will come up with apart from taking money away from people. Nobody has really cracked the dilemma around all this. At least some low paid jobs are paid better than what they would if there wasn’t the Minimum Wage which I remember at the time it was introduced was supposed to destroy loads of jobs according to the Tories. Daily Mail comment was not made at any particular individual but more along the lines that people’s perceptions are not always what the facts are. Ie you hear that argument a lot along the lines I work hard and earn £180k a year so why should I pay 50% tax when they don’t as when you work the numbers they actually pay approx 37% because people only look at the headline 50% not that it is 10% above 40% etc and NI stops at the approx 40k etc. A person on £23k pays 31% including NI which seems quite regressive to me. The up and comming VAT increase is also extremly regressive on this group. It would be very interesting to see what the numbers are for people, “refusing jobs” and keeping benefits are . Bet it falls into quite a low number in the overall picture of things !

Arkady

Well OK. I'm not sure anyone is talking about cutting essential of 'breadline' benefits either, my understanding is rather that the current messy system is to be rationalised, certain universal benefits to become means-tested and benefits removed from those who refuse jobs that they are offered. In the current climate I'm OK with that. What seemed to being suggested was that unjustifiable benefits should be maintained to stop the recipients from robbing me. I have a big problem with that. To put this in context, I am a strong proponent for reducing the material inequality gap - we are all safer if we are more equal. But you cannot - or rather should not - achieve that through welfare dependency.

checkski

Have you read 'The Spirit Level', Arkady? It is a sociological examination of that very proposition: that more equal societies are safer. And happier, healthier, more fulfilled. Loads of graphs and jargon seem to prove the point.

Interestingly, the country in question does not have to be rich. The richest of all (the USA) scores very badly. So does the UK, apparently amongst the 5 richest (I think that's right). Portugal, on the other hand, does rather well. So does Japan (rich), and, of course, good old Scandinavia (quite rich). So long live equality; - and be suspicious of vast wealth.

Arkady

I haven't Checkski, and I shall take it as a recommendation. But one doesn't have to have much of a grasp of sociology to know that it's demonstrably true. Unfortunately in many places, including here, it's one of the socialist babies thrown out with the Stalinist bathwater.

ADGS

Portugal doesn't come at all well out of The Spirit Level - on most of the graphs, they're right between the UK and the US at the most unequal = most problems end of the graph. Something which is nowhere in the book explained (I haven't read the whole thing, but I was intrigued enough to check Portugal in the index and read all the references), which is odd given you'd expect it to be very similar in a lot of respects to Spain, which does much better.
As for holding up Japan as any kind of example - the level of overwork there may apply equally across all social strata, but massive levels of institutional corruption mean I'd be very wary of treating their crime stats as anything like the truth, given the collusion of Yakuza and military, given the police hasn't been meaningfully reformed since imperial times and still gets something absurd like a 95% conviction rate.

Back to Britain - "benefits removed from those who refuse jobs that they are offered" is already the case. Has been for ages. I think it may be a three strikes system rather than instant, but that hardly seems unduly lenient. Especially when I consider the number of people I know who have been actively hindered in finding work by the inflexibility and inefficiency of Jobcentres and associated institutions.

checkski

You're quite right about Portugal, ADGS. Sorry to you, and to anyone else I may have misled. I've only just started the book, and am no good at statistics at the best of times. At a glance, Spain does indeed seem to fit the argument better. Japan too, although I don't know about your reservations.

Anyway, the proposition remains as expressed above, and posters might like to judge for themselves whether 'The Spirit Level' proves its case. You'll probably cope better than me if you have some knowledge of sociology, economics, and statistics.

Ali

This article from Saturdays Guardian puts what is going to happen rather well. It is really difficult to understand why the LIbDems are allowing themselves to be suckered by all this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/13/cameron-mr-nice-public-sector This also quite a good overview of The Spirit Level for those who don’t want to read it.

krappyrubsnif

Mrs K who is a highly qualified public health professional with no axe to grind and definitely left leaning, says the research in The Spirit Level might be a bit dodgy and has been challenged by independent bodies. Sadly their statistics may be wishful thinking.

ADGS

I may have my quibbles with it, but a lot of the 'independent bodies' which have challenged The Spirit Level are right-leaning think-tanks:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/14/the-spirit-level-equality-thinktanks

Also from Saturday's Guardian, a very good account of what life on benefits is actually like, the stupid hoops they make people jump through and the bullshit platitudes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/13/jobseeking-star-vision-motivational-guru

becky

For those who are interested in critiques of The Spirit Level, RSA hosted a debate between the authors and the two people who have written criticisms of the book. The audio is available here: [RSA](http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2010/the-spirit-level). For what its worth as an academic economist, I thought the authors (well, Kate Pickering rather than Richard Wilkinson) defended themselves surprisingly well.