Atomised: Lewisham Crime Figures Released

The latest recorded crime figures for Lewisham have been released and an easy-to-use crime map of Lewisham is available here. The map allows a comparison of reported crime figures between the last 12 months and the previous 12 months.

Looking across incidences of crimes against the person or personal property, the four wards primarily covered by Brockley Central - Brockley, Ladywell, Telegraph Hill and Crofton Park the key headlines appear to be:

  1. Overall, crime in these wards has reduced
  2. The main exception is violent crime, which has risen in every ward
  3. Criminals seem to have deserted Crofton Park en-masse. It has seen dramatic reductions in burglary, robbery, sexual offences, theft and criminal damage. Only a small rise of 0.6% in recorded cases of violent crime blotted its copy book
  4. Brockley ward performed least well, managing a reduction in burglary and robbery, but increases in criminal damage, theft, violence and sexual offences
  5. Theft in Ladywell rose by 8.5%, compared with falls in Crofton Park and Telegraph Hill and a rise of 2.5% in Brockley
  6. Telegraph Hill registered the biggest fall in sexual offences, 34.4%

Drug offences rose by more than 50% across the Borough and 102.9% in Crofton Park in particular. Brockley registered a comparatively small 3.3%.

With thanks to Andrew Brown.

55 comments:

Andrew Brown said...

It'd be interesting to get a police perspective on these figures.

For example on the drugs offenses I'd be interested to know how much of this increase is down to changes in the way cannabis warnings are being used, and how much is about work to close down dealers.

Brockley Nick said...

This is why the British crime survey figures are more helpful.

I don't believe that Crofton Park has 100% more actual drug crime than it did the year before, so it must be due to policing.

Anonymous said...

It seems the light side of tracks is actually more crime ridden than the dark side then, as the dark side falls into Telegraph Hill ward. Very interesting. Guess that's why there are those yellow signs in the C area, yet never seem one anywhere else in Brockley.

Anonymous said...

Half of the conservation area is in the Ladywell ward, not the Brockley ward, which contains a large chunk of what most people would consider Deptford.

Crofton Park is also on the light side.

The Brockley Telegraph said...

Yes, its quite interesting.

I had a meeting with the Telegraph Hill safer neighbourhoods team about setting up a Neighbourhood watch scheme for West Brockely. They actually commented that there was very little crime in that area, with crime - if any - concentrated within the Telegraph Hill conservation area or within the Honour Oak estate (both of which do have neighbourhood watch areas).

Anonymous said...

Cats can't report crime, hence the Telegraph Hill statistic.

Frenchie said...

Is there any particular reason why your posts are now named after Michel Houellebecque novels?

Headhunter said...

Nick's done with films and has moved on to political novels. Actually Michel Houellebecq, was born on the French island La Reunion near Madagascar and Mauritius where I lived for a year whilst at uni... Aah the memories...

drakefell debaser said...

HH, I spent just over a month in Mauritius, stayed in Flic en Flac, about 3 or so years ago, absolutley loved the place and the people were extremely welcoming. Never made it to Reunion though

Anonymous said...

How did you manage to wangle a stay in Mauritius as part of university course? Travel and Tourism???

Monkeyboy said...

There used to be a Mauritian bar at Acton Town station. It's sign was a badly painted Dodo - which tasted like an enormous chicken and was about as smart apparently, much to it's misfortune. It had beach umbrellas indoors and was deeply odd.

Nothing to do with the lead story, poor old Nick must be throwing his hands up in disgust at our lack of focus at what is a serious debate!

Bring back the birch, that's what I say.

Headhunter said...

Yeah I lived on Reunion for a year as part of my French studies (Erasmus scheme). Was supposed to be studying French but actually ended up on the beach most of the time. Managed to pick up some of the local Creole though...! Not much use when studying Albert Camus or the political implications of Algerian independence in mainland France... Still, I got a good tan.

Yeah I spent a month in Mauritius over new year 1994, went through the usual spots - Grande Baie, Flic en Flac, Port Louis, Ile aux Cerfs etc etc. Stayed with this girl I met whose dad owned a plantation which was very "colonial"...

Went to Madagascar for a month too which was eye opening. Went way down to the south - beautiful, deserted beaches, and on to the south east to the rainforests to see the lemurs. Then went back and got very ill with food poisoning having eaten in local villages where they have no concept of hygiene and no running water

What were you doing in Mauritius DD?

drakefell debaser said...

I was on holiday, a mate of mine was going back for a cousins wedding so he invited me and i took the offer. My mate is Mauritian although born here so he has loads of family there and we just chilled on the beach drinking Marlin beer in the day and rum in the evenings. Very memorable.

Headhunter said...

Yeah the girl with the plantation was Mauritian. There were quite a few Mauritians (and from the Comore Islands, the Seychelles, Madagascar, mainland Africa etc etc) at the university in La Reunion as it was very well funded and set up, Reunion is a French DOM so is officially part of the EU and the uni has very good facilities compared with other islands/countries in the region.

That sounds good. I remember the beaches, the food, driving through endless sugar cane fields, and yes the rum

drakefell debaser said...

the only issue with the rum was it was too cheap, most nights we found ourselves in the Buddha Bar on Flic en Flac beach drinking Green Island Spiced. We were there during the Tsunami and actually fell asleep, well - passed out, on the beach the night it hit so we were grateful to have been on the west coast as the east coast experienced a slight hit.

Transpontine said...

"Criminals seem to have deserted Crofton Park en-masse. It has seen dramatic reductions in burglary, robbery, sexual offences, theft and criminal damage... Drug offences rose by 102.9% in Crofton Park"

Clearly Crofton Park is too stoned to commit crime - time to revisit the legalisation debate?

Andrew Brown said...

While the UK's young (15-24 year olds) are the second most likely to support legalisation in Europe [PDF], even they aren't that keen. (Only 22% would put it in their top two solutions to the drug problems in society.)

Of course Crofton Parkers may be more pro-legalisation than the average Briton...

Headhunter said...

DD - that is a bit scary! I remember the cheap rum in Renunion. Can't remember its name but it was about 50% proof. I remember going out at night til it was light in the morning then trying to sleep off the hangover/get some rest in the tropical heat of the day. Not very pleasant.

Tressilliana said...

Whereas I'd put it right at the top of my list of solutions to the drug problem. I'm a moderate drinker, non-smoker and I've never taken an illegal substance in my life and feel no urge so to do, but plainly lots of people do want to take mind-altering substances - this has always been the case and as far as I can see it always will be. We have the weird position in law now that alcohol, nicotine and a few other drugs are legal and therefore (usually) taxed, production and sale controlled etc, whereas others, often less harmful, are illegal yet freely available all over the UK, no controls on production, no tax on the ginormous profits, profits bankrolling all sorts of other organised crime, etc etc. It makes no sense to me.

I also think it makes it difficult to do health education properly, and that's a major missed opportunity.

Monkeyboy said...

I'm split on this one but erring toward decriminalisation. You can (apparently) live a reasonably benign life if you have a regular supply of cheap, clinical grade, heroin - even hold down some kind of job. If you have to pay criminals huge amounts of money to buy adultarated drugs you will rob your own mum. Not a great situation but perhaps it's the least bad solution? Also if your a stable user you are in a position to be treated or at least controlled? Don't know, I wouldn't like to be the one making the decision. There are limited trials of this and I believe it's been widley used in Switzerland and it seems to work? Dunno, I'm addicted to crispy duck -I'd kill for that.

Headhunter said...

Tressilliana - That was the theory behind legalising cannabis in the Netherlands I think. They thought it would lead to a reduction in crime, ease of control, revenue through taxing etc. However I read somewhere that Holland is under some pressure in Europe to reverse some of this process as it has become a major centre in the export of weed across the rest of the EU which of course aids criminal gangs elsewhere and consumes police time in these countries.

In fact the authorities in the Netherlands do seem to have made it a little less easy to imbibe, heard that they were disallowing brown cafes to sell alcohol and in fact soon are bringing in the same no smoking in indoor public places like bars, cafes and restaurant rules that other European countries have implemented, so that will surely be the death knell to many brown cafes, unless weed smokers are going to huddle under outdoor gas heaters outside cafes in the winter like tobacco smokers do outside pubs in London!

Apparently many brown cafes are shutting down, there are already fewer than there were several years ago.

Headhunter said...

Monkeyboy - but surely that's the whole point. Heroin, like tobacco is addictive, meaning you need more and more of it until it completely consumes you. It would take very strong willpower to prevent deeper addiction once one had access to clean, clinical grade heroin allowing you to keep up a job etc, and if the authorities rationed supply to prevent further addiction, the criminal gangs would soon be in setting up a black market to fill the supply gap.

drakefell debaser said...

HH, we were oblivious to the Tsunami and didn't know for a couple of days until I switched on my mobile and got a text to see if I was ok due to an earthquake. Confused I switched on the TV and watched the BBC world service which revealed the horror. Suffice to say it was a holiday I will never forget and a place I would love to eventually go back to….retirement there with a bar on the beach could be an option.

Back to the topic. The legislation laws in the UK are all over the place which I think does more harm than good. David Blunkett down grades cannabis then a couple of years later GB wants to up grade it again despite top medical advice to the contrary for example. If you look at Holland, and I don’t mean Amsterdam because there its almost a tourist attraction, but in the Hague, Rotterdam etc you can go into a coffee shop and have a game of chess, drink coffee and just chill out whilst having a joint minding your own business. You get all walks of life in these places – people in suits, people in tracksuits whatever – its regulated, taxed and it is effective. They have regulated clinics for heroin addicts to ensure they don’t lie on the streets spaced out in sight of the public and children; no needles in alleys, stairwells etc and they don’t buy off pushers which in turn reduces their need to resort to crime to pay for their habit, they use clean needles so don’t get diseases. The Dutch have broken the mould and found a way to accommodate every ones bad habits; other countries have adopted similar measures as well towards heroin addicts.

A typical scene at closing time in some parts of the UK sees people, male and female, vomiting on the streets; fighting etc…..Alcohol is now the most harmful drug due to the sheer number of people that become susceptible to it yet it’s cheap and readily available. I am not condoning drug use nor am I condemning it but the war on drugs will never be won until it’s regulated and treated in the same way as all the ‘legal drugs’ are that fill the exchequer with added duties.

Monkeyboy said...

Don't know, but we had habitual heoin/morphine users for years in England. Mostly Doctors and Dentists who had their own supply.

I remember hearing an ex prison govenor saying that if we cannot keep it out of prisons what hope is there of keeping out of the country?

....the debate goes on but I'm outta here 'cos I don't know enough about it. It's treated as a political debate though, not a public health issue so the issue is confused and hardly rational.

Andrew Brown said...

The Portuguese have decriminalised the use of all drugs, while continuing to keep trafficking and dealing illegal. You can make your own judgement as to whether this is effective with the help of this handy website.

As for the laws on smoking in public places in Holland, my understanding is that it only applies to tobacco. So if cafes are going out of business that's not the reason. If you take a look here you'll see that the Netherlands have become the centre for the production and distribution of ecstasy and amphetamines rather than cannabis.

In the UK, for example, I heard that 80% of cannabis is grown here. Some argue that's a result of better boarder controls, others because of a mixture of changes to the technology and the fact that the Chinese and Vietnamese gangs have moved in.

Headhunter said...

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I suppose with regard to making revenue for the exchequer from drug use, the balance is whether increased use of such drugs would cost other services more.

Increased use of what are now illegal drugs would of course cost the NHS to treat people with lung cancer through increases in smoking weed and (if what we are told about increased weed strength) to treat psychological problems. Also taxes would have to fund regulation of distribution, quality control, licencing of outlets etc etc. So when push came to shove, would the taxpayer end up out of pocket from full legalisation?

drakefell debaser said...

Yes I read that due to the smoking ban in Holland which is due or already has been imposed, you can’t have tobacco in your cannabis cigarette whilst being in an enclosed space i.e a coffee shop. It is still illegal as far as I know to smoke cannabis anywhere but the designated coffee shops and your own home so it is an odd situation. The link on ecstasy and amphetamines doesn’t work but I wouldn’t be surprised if that is the case and I know that the Vietnamese gangs are the biggest players in the production of cannabis over here, I didn’t realise they had reached global status.

To digress a little, the smoking ban in quite a few countries on the continent seems to be widely ignored from what I have experienced. I noticed when I was in Paris at the start of the year that as long as there was a window open somewhere it was ok, although I hear from friends that live there it is getting a little stricter. I was in Berlin a few months back and they also have the ban but there were still quite a few bars that paid no attention. There was even a bin on the station platform at Friedrichstrassen that was on fire because some lady had dumped her fag in it, no one fussed and someone poured water on it. You would be in handcuffs if you did that here.

Legalisation is a complex one because as you point out HH, the cost of providing these services would be huge but don’t forget the tax payer is already paying for the damage done but the income generated from the sale of drugs is going to the criminal gangs so the tax payer is currently well out of pocket. The use of drugs could see an increase but I think it would be short term and as long as there is proper education on the harm caused then it would eventually return to the level it is currently, if not drop because legal things are not as fun as illegal things. Fags for instance in the UK are taxed heavily so smokers often argue that this tax cancels out the burden to the NHS they cause and the fact that they are less likely to live as long as non smokers means they are less of a drain on resources provided through the NHS. The old fella who has smoked all his life, and made it to 100, that was reported in the papers last week is an exception of course. Who knows what the right course of action is but it seems clear that a huge amount of resources are spent fighting drugs with little impact.

Anonymous said...

All mainland Europeans do is smoke which is why it's been a little bit difficult to accept the cultural change over there - but they're getting it, slowly.

Headhunter said...

DD - I am always surprised at how law abiding we are here in the UK. Since the smoking ban I have never seen anyone spark up in a bar/pub, but as you say, overseas people regularly flout the ban.

As you say, the taxpayer is currently very much out of pocket from illegal drug use, so legalisation I suppose may go some way to re-couping some of the costs.

I'm not sure that I agree than because smokers live shorter lives they are less of a burden to the NHS, I'm sure that prior to their premature ends, many smokers need costly medical help.

creepylesbo said...

I suspect a lot of it is simply because Brockley is not a particularly big route on the police patrols - so they only go there when called.

Do dah said...

You know I find the current level of societal interest in crime oppressive. We need to be mindful of crime but I'd rather not have my mind full of localised crime statistics.

All I require from crime information are methods and strategies I can adopt to minimise the likelihood of being directly affected. Other than that i really don't need to know.

fried man said...

'You know I find the current level of societal interest in crime oppressive'

jesus wept - poor little you having to be troubled by being aware that for some crime and the fear of crime is a regular consideration

i suppose you'd prefer it if society didn't take an interest in things which effect us all collectively, as a society and instead turn a blind eye to what's actually going on in our society, so as not to oppress you...maaan.. (except of course no doubt when you are actually a victim of crime in which case you no doubt expect the whole world to stop turning while you wail on about it)

you represent everything that's rotten about post thatcherite britain - the soul of man under neo liberalism

do dah said...

What a misdirected rant. I think your is fried, too many drugs probably...

Tom said...

The ever sane Peter Wilby made a good point yesterday in the Guardian, about how crazed media-panics about crime can actually encourage the very event they claim to be condemning.

Calm sane commentary here.

Tom said...

fried man, do please continue! can you please find a way to blame neoliberalism for the trains not running on time, the weather being a bit disappointing and my hair looking a little out of place today?

Cos I think you're onto something big. Do you have a newsletter I can sign up to?

jon s said...

This is the only daft post I will make about this!!

Neoliberalism is about embracing free markets and no protectionism. Instead of national champions with monopolies, governments invest in skills,infrastructure and training. Note the government owns the infrastrucute and tenders in a competitive market for support contracts. In reality we have a mixed government, some privatised, some not and a woeful lack of investment in skills, infrastructure and training.

Sensible criticism of neoliberalism has nothing to do with the developed world, but the developing world where they have no protectionism to build competitive advantage and create wealth.

What FM is actually trying to moan about is the lack of investment in social and physical infrastructure which has more to do with the liberalism dichotomy than neoliberalism.

Tom said...

jon s, in my (unfortunately extensive) experience, I find that most users of the word neoliberalism use it as a synonym only for 'things that I've heard about that I don't like', as such, it has limited analytical use.

jon s said...

Tom to true, to avoid an argument I always suggest they study here and change the topic.

http://www.bbk.ac.uk/polsoc/

fried man said...

'Neoliberalism is about embracing free markets and no protectionism'

that's the kind of limited tunnel visioned analysis i'd expect from a tuppeny bit economist - see's thing through a viel of cold classical economics and removes any consideration of the social relations involved in such an ordering of society and the impact on individuals within that society, the attitude displayed by this do dah is an example of the material conditions of neo-liberalism determining the outlook of those within such a society, i.e. a rampant individualism - which is encouraged and put on a pedestal by the economic system that engenders it

to consider this an issue that is only relevant to the 'developing' world shows just as much ignorance to what is going on around you as do dah did, going on that assumption there was no neoliberal agenda in the US from 1980 onwards i suppose, just like there was also presumbaly none in the UK from 79 onwards, as based on the assumption that the UK & US are part of the developed world they couldn't possibly have their domestic societies and the people who live within them affected by neo liberalist policies - what patent nonsense!


and as to the lack of a lack of investment in social and physical infrastructure being more to do with the liberalism rather than neo liberalism, if you take some time to read some adam smith (rather then rehashing tired ass interpretations of it) you'll find the opposite is true

jon s said...

Sigh... FM, may I suggest you don't insult people and offer evidence instead of vitreolic bile, differentiating yourself from a troll.

Also, the circular nature of your argument about dismissing "cold" classical economics then quoting Adam Smith's book's title, but not his ideas is a bit daft.

As someone who has read the wealth of nations, I can assure you that in the wealth of nations, Adam Smith suggested that for us to have free market(s) we need regulatory state to prevent monopolies and it is almost impossible to make some markets free.

Neoliberalism came out of the Washington Consensus in the 1970's when the Bretton Woods institutions had a major crisis and resulted in a shift from pretectionism to enforced free markets without infant industry protection. Try reading Hamza Alavi, or John Toye sensible people who actually took on neoliberalism, you can learn more about them on a global politics course.

Finally, may I point you towards another blog on socialism or something else as this has scant to do with Brockley or Llewisham Crime Figures.

Have a nice day

The Brockley Telegraph said...

I really should make a contribution to this debate, but I cant be arsed. I have to go and stuff myself onto a train full of people standing as there are no seats due to profiteering of companies.

Its funny how we are all sufferring from high fuel costs yet the gas companies are making record profits - what was the last % increase? 30% for British Gas?

Re-nationalise and put up higher trade barriers. I'd be happier with that.

jon s said...

Why don't the two of you discuss it in detail and depth on Andy's blog.........

fried man said...

@jon s

would be helpful if you actually tied your responses to the actual issue raised rather than answer a point that wasn't

the reason i mentioned smith was to counter your statement that "the lack of investment in social and physical infrastructure which has more to do with the liberalism dichotomy"

as you'll know if you read him that smith was all for the investment in social/physical public goods by the state, was for safety nets being in place to encourage risk taking, was for progressive taxation (to fund amongst other things those public goods), was for the rights of employees to organise and against collusion by employers, heck he even got to a rudimentary theory of alienation caused by societal progress a good 100 years or so before marx, and was all for the provision of public goods to counteract this negative tendency of industrialisation & division of labour

so all these things, i.e. in short investment in the pyhsical & social infrastructure are championed by a classical liberal economist (although obviously ignored by those who use his name for their own ends these days), however your statement suggests that the lack of these things is a result of classical liberalism

don't let that stop you showing of how 'clever' you are though

Brockley Nick said...

Be excellent to one another, please.

fried man said...

"Why don't the two of you discuss it in detail and depth on Andy's blog"

roger that

Anonymous said...

can we bolt the door and throw away the key when they enter the blog?

jon s said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom said...

"Tom too true, to avoid an argument I always suggest they study here and change the topic.

http://www.bbk.ac.uk/polsoc/"

Funnily enough, that's what I did a few years back, got my masters and cured myself of neoliberalitis.

FM - your responses would be more respected if a) they were less accusatory (did doodah intend to *really* make any larger point?); and b) if they were more local - this is a Brockley blog after all. Competitively paraphrasing Smith appears a long way from SE4 ...

jon s said...

small world, so did I. Did you have Rob Jenkins?

Tom said...

Rob Jenkins, Rob Singh and Anthony Butler. Jenkins was cool. I did a kinda Britpol/Globalisation mash-up. How about you?

jon s said...

I had Rob Jenkins, Rob Singh and Hussein Kassim; started off in European, shifted to American (HK was too dull for an evening) and threw in RJs globalisation/development course.

The Brockley Telegraph said...

When i did my MSc at UCL I had a bunch of very talented lecturers - names of whom are far too long to remember. One that springs to mind is Tilman Burgoer, who designed the auctions that netted the treasury all that 3G license monies a while back. He was a really nice man.

Anonymous said...

I had crabs, the clap and Chlamydia. Best years of my life....

Amanda said...

Crime is and will probably always be a recurrent topic. It is important to remember most people are law abiding, and beyond that have a sense of right and wrong.

Do dah said...

"except of course no doubt when you are actually a victim of crime in which case you no doubt expect the whole world to stop turning while you wail on about it)"

Stop the world... My car got broken into last night. Nothing much taken. I'm not sure whether to report it. Note I was aware of 'crime' as everyone else and it still happened to me.

Brockley Central Label Cloud

Click one of the labels below to see all posts on that subject. The bigger the label, the more posts there are!