CommunitySafe.gov.uk

Dear Ms McDonagh,

In response to your letter dated 6th July 2010 (Re: Crime and Anti Social Behaviour at Phipps Bridge).

We pay particular focus to the content of our MPs letters and an audit of our system reveals that we are not in receipt of your earlier letter (dated 1st July 2010). If the matters raised in the letter still require a response please would you be so kind as to re-send a copy and I will ensure I give them it my prompt attention.

Within your letter (6th July) you feel that the ‘the tennis’ is not really the point. I disagree. You are aware that the headline within the Wimbledon Guardian; …‘MP hits out at Mitcham police after shooting and triple stabbing’ within the article you are quoted “Police are more bothered about policing the Wimbledon Championships than the troubled streets of Mitcham the area’s MP has claimed…” Such headlines and supporting comments do little to promote community confidence or reassurance. (I am meeting with the editor and the journalist next week to express my concerns).

I have no doubt you will be able to forward details of the officers who stated that they were - “too busy to help you because of the Wimbledon Championships.” You are absolutely right, and I agree with you, such a message is inappropriate and I am looking for your help to identify and understand who within my command would say something which is so blatantly incorrect. I have made local enquires and no one recalls having had such a conversation.

I am sorry that at the meeting you felt that the impression given by police was that the Mitcham area was a low policing priority, quite the opposite is true. As discussed, my initial assessment of the boroughs deployment and demand profile reveals a substantial amount of our (finite) movable resources are given to the East of the borough. As an MP you will be conscious that as part of the conditions attached to Safer Neighbourhood teams funding arrangements the last government dictated that they should be ring fenced in their designated wards. I have briefed you in relation to my frustrations as to not having been allowed to move this valuable resource around the borough (however see further paragraphs for recent update).

You contend that there was a history of community unease in relation to groups of youths associating in the area and that the community members were concerned about numerous criminal and anti-social acts. The adage “You only know what you know” is a truism in relation to policing. Unless the residents report these issues to police we are unable to build an accurate intelligence picture and take appropriate action. As you are aware under ECHR legislation everybody has the right to associate freely without state interference. Without proper intelligence it is difficult to justify enforcement interventions. I will direct my safer neighbourhood teams to encourage increased reporting in order to give greater justification to future disruption activity.

You feel that ‘if the police had identified that there was a problem and had dealt with ‘the group’ appropriately the stabbings would not have taken place’. I am disappointed that you hold this view. As discussed this incident was spontaneous without any pre-planning. The offender was not known to police in the London area and there was nothing we could have done to prevent the crime from happening. Hindsight is a wonderful gift. When incidents like this happen people are quick to go to the press and it’s easy to blame the police. I readily acknowledge that we are the lead agency in relation to enforcement activity; however the causational factors which lead to criminality are many and varied.

The service (in my opinion) has a disappointing history of failing to respond to unfair criticism when many of the crime related social problems we face today are the result of years of failed parenting, failed education, failed social inclusion policies, ineffective border/integration policies and a distinct lack of investment in diversionary or rehabilitation activity. These failures are the responsibility of many, (including those in government) not just the police.

In this role I have ownership of the borough’s criminal intelligence profile and have a good understanding of those believed to be involved in more serious and organised crime. You are right (and I agree) that whether those intent on crime are members of a gang or otherwise is really a mute point. The more important issue is what is being done about it. I hope that when we next meet I can reassure you that we are trying hard to service the policing needs of the borough (although as discussed due to the legacy of national debt; continuing current operational capability will be an increasing challenge).

You have asked for a copy of the boroughs deployment profile. This is a restricted document as it specifically details both our operational capacity and capability. I will of course share the details with you when we next meet. I can however brief you on Merton’s policing model:

The borough’s operational workforce profile can be split into four main areas Response, Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNT), CID and Operational Support. The Response officers deal with calls from the public and answer calls anywhere within Merton. The CID investigates reported crimes and deal with crime related prisoners, Operational support include the Merton crime squad, the Merton task force and other distinct units (i.e. the Merton sex offenders unit). They are deployed where the intelligence takes them (as stated predominantly in the East of the borough). The SNTs as discussed are rigid in number and are equally distributed (ring fenced in relation to movement) throughout the borough to provide local contact, visibility and reassurance. Apart from the SNT the deployment of resources is intelligence led & reactive to where crime is taking place. You are correct in your view that our ‘demand profile’ reveals that the majority of crime takes place within the East of the borough

It is also worthy of note that Merton is one of the boroughs affected by low crime rates within the MPS. As of last week the MPS had suffered 204918 Crimes so far this financial year. Merton is one of 32 London boroughs and in comparison we experienced 3670 which equates to just 1.8% of all London’s crime. A more strategic view could be that in light of the low Merton crime rate many of the boroughs resources would be better placed in the high crime rate boroughs (Lambeth, Hackney and Southwark etc.). This of course is something I hope to avoid as it is my intention to keep Merton crime levels as low as possible.

In my short time here so far, I have worked hard to understand the demands and constraints associated with delivering effective performance on the borough. Historic and entrenched ways of working will not deliver the performance needed in the new economic environment. In order to justify the retention of our current officer/staff numbers we will need to demonstrate how we can be both dynamic and flexible in meeting policing demands ensuring that we re-focus our activities where the public needs us most.

As you are aware Merton borough consists of twenty wards. We have recently completed comprehensive analysis of the borough in relation to crime mapping. Based on historical annual trends supported by management information and recent up to date intelligence it is clear that 5 wards present a real opportunity to improve our borough crime performance: Abbey, Colliers Wood, Cricket Green, Figges Marsh & Lavender Fields.

Starting Monday 19th July the borough will commence ‘Operation Lockdown’ which will be focused on preventing priority crimes in these 5 wards. A headline for this operation is that I have secured central agreement that I can pilot the concept of SNT staff on the remaining 15 wards providing substantial assistance to the Lockdown wards (although still aligned to their local wards). I am very excited about this opportunity for the borough to demonstrate both dynamism and flexibility as the rest of the MPS watches to see how it will work.

Reading your letter I am obviously delighted that you are committed to, and demonstrate, such a strong desire to ensure that the police provide a good service for all Merton’s communities. I totally share this view. I hope that we will be able to rely on your continued support in the future. As requested I will copy both your letter and this response to the community safe email group for sake of both completeness and closure.

Yours Sincerely

___________________________
Dick Wolfenden
Merton Borough Police Commander

Dear Mr Wolfenden

Re: Crime and Anti Social Behaviour at Phipps Bridge

Thank you for taking the trouble to write to me on 3 July about some comments I made to a journalist who was at the meeting I arranged to help the police reassure local people about policing on the Phipps Bridge estate. I spoke to the journalist after the meeting, after the conversation I had with you, and after the letter of 1 July that I wrote to you expressing my concerns about the meeting, to which I have yet to receive a reply.

The journalist attended the meeting, and he clearly felt that the approach of officers at the meeting was not as good as it could have been. I mentioned, as I did to you, that in my dealings with your officers they had told me that they were rather too busy to help me, due to the Wimbledon Championships. I hope it will be clear to you now that this is a totally inappropriate message to give a local community representative. However, the tennis is not really the point.

My concern was not about the high priority given to the tennis – although I do regularly hear complaints about this – but about the impression that was given at the meeting that Mitcham was a low priority. Although we are all very happy that you have found the suspects involved in the stabbing, more than a hundred residents would not have attended the meeting if they were not concerned about far wider issues. Specifically, they were concerned about numerous criminal and anti-social acts in the area by the same group of young men, including a drive-by shooting, various acts of intimidation, and an assault on a drinker.

As I explained to you on the phone and in my letter of 3 July, the response of officers at the meeting was to argue about the semantics of whether the group committing these acts was a gang or not. However, the truth is that if the police had identified that they were a problem and had dealt with them appropriately, the stabbings would not have taken place. Arguing about semantics was, therefore, seen by people at the meeting as unnecessarily argumentative, and as complacent.

Moving to your point about your recent examination of the Borough’s deployment profile, I would be grateful if you could let me have a copy of this profile. I am pleased that you believe the East of the Borough is as well serviced as the West, and should like confirmation from you that the deployment of resources is linked to the rate of crime in each neighbourhood. As you know, the crime rate in the East is approximately twice the rate of the West, and the rate in Cricket Green is roughly three times greater than in most of Wimbledon. Therefore for you to be satisfied that Mitcham “suffers no detriment in resource allocation”, I assume your figures will show that deployment is roughly three times greater in Phipps Bridge than in the West of the Borough, and roughly double in the rest of my constituency. Can you confirm that this is correct?

Finally, I can assure you I am absolutely determined in my efforts to ensure the police provide good public services for all of Merton’s communities. This is why I arrange regular opportunities for officers to promote their work at events I organise in Mitcham and Morden. Sometimes this is in response to particular crimes, but I have also arranged numerous meetings to introduce residents to their Safer Neighbourhood Teams, or to publicise the police’s ability to help deal with crime and anti-social activities in certain hotspots.

In this spirit, I will be contacting you separately in order to arrange a meeting in the Armfield Crescent area, where residents are worried that gang activity (or something very similar to gang activity) led to a separate shooting incident just over a week ago. It would be really good if the local police service could use this opportunity to show that they desperately care about our local residents and have a proper plan to ensure residents feel safer in their own neighbourhoods.

I hope that this is helpful, and look forward to your reply to this letter and that of 1 July. Since you have copied your correspondence to the Merton Community Safe email group, I am happy for you to circulate this letter to the same recipients on my behalf, or for you to let me have their details in order for me to email them all separately. I will, of course, only use those details for this purpose and not for any other reasons.

Yours sincerely,




Siobhain McDonagh