My comments left at the London Free Press site but given their very
Liberal Left bias they are unlikely to publish them. Below left the
cross dressing Police Chief Murray Faulkner
I understand Faulkner
has created an in-house administrative system to collect statistics
which he loves to use. I also understand he likes to use Peter Jaffe's
cherry picked studies to justify his activities as they relate to
Domestic Violence. I say cherry picked because Jaffe avoids doing broad
based scientific studies and mostly uses people who are or have been in a
DV shelter and then plays down female perpetrated violence against men
which in some studies shows a 70% initiation rate. He then uses this
info to give the impression it is applicable to the population as a
whole. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Apparently Faulkner will
register a conviction in his administrative system when in fact no such
thing occurred. A person may not even go to trial, may have done nothing
wrong but agree to an administrative arrangement to avoid high legal
costs at trial. This is not an admission of guilt nor was any conviction
registered in court. Faulkner though buttresses his statistics by
recording an administrative conviction that never happened. Are these
some of the facts he uses to get what he wants. Next time you see him
walking the streets in his red stilettos ask him if he has any biases in
his work? Here is one way Faulkner may be registering a higher
conviction rate and this practice is not uncommon. Dr. Phil among others
keeps uncovering false allegations made against men that have life
changing consequences.
http://www.drphil.com/videos/?Url=/house/flv/8041_1.flv&background=header_drphil_video.jpg
Would Faulkner while wearing his red stilettos entertain this to
increase his conviction rate?MJM
police
budget
Facts support
police budget increase
Ian Gillespie's opinion published
on Jan. 8 titled Police budget not justified by crime reflects the
adage that "one should not let facts get in the way of a good story."
Unfortunately, rhetoric such as this causes unnecessary division within
our community and mistrust of the police service, apparently in an
attempt to create controversy where it does not exist.
As
chief of police, I have never used crime rates to support the budget.
Most who understand the complexities of crime rates will understand the
rationale in not using them.
The London police
department is a community service, and therefore, our budget is based
on demands for our service by the citizens of London. Demands also are
imposed upon us from the courts and through government regulations and
legislation. If the demands for service begin to exceed our capability
to respond, it is my responsibility to make this clear to everyone.
None
of the positive facts has been articulated in this paper by those who
attended the committee of the whole budget presentation last week, so I
feel it is incumbent on me to state facts that all taxpayers should
know.
Fact No. 1: Ministry of Municipal Affairs
financial information returns compared Tier 1 police services, which
are services that are solely municipal, not regional. For 2008 (the
most recent reporting), London police service expenditures as a
percentage of the total property tax levy were second lowest of all
Ontario Tier 1 municipalities.
Fact No. 2: Statistics
Canada reports that for 2008, London police service per-capita costs
were the third lowest of all Ontario municipalities with a population
greater than 100,000.
Fact No. 3: Maclean's magazine
this year ranked the best/worst run cities in Canada. As a city, London
was ranked No. 7 -- the highest ranking of any Ontario city. In safety
and protection, though, London ranked second in Canada.
Fact
No. 4: Police Resources in Canada - 2008 shows total police
expenditures increased on average by 46.3% from 2002 through 2008. In
the same period, the London police service increase was 53.9%, which
included the hiring of 85 police officers, authorized by municipal
council in response to demands for service.
Fact No.
5: Too many police in our city? Not true! In 2008, London had one
police officer for every 620 citizens. In 2007, the average in Ontario
was one to 522 citizens and in Canada one to 512 citizens.
When
Gillespie asks that "somebody -- anybody at city hall stand up to
Chief Murray Faulkner and stop giving in to his department's seemingly
endless demands," one must remember it is not my department; it is
London's department. They are not my demands, but the public's demands
for protection and service.
If it is facts you want, I
have more. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own
facts. I never have and never will use the overall crime rate to
justify the budget.
Posted By: Murray Faulkner, chief of
police for the city of London, london
Posted On: January
19, 2010
Editors Note: As published in
The London Free Press on Jan. 19, 2010.
Comments
LFP A great friend told me once, "if you dont read the
news, you're un-informed, if you do, you're mis-informed". The LFP
should start looking at the second point of view and stop the bias
I'm not buying it either. The fact that
Chief Faulkner had his opportunity when he and Mr.Gillespie met, to
state his peace, only to read a more non-favorable article, tells me
that Mr.Gillespie didn't buy the Chief's bluff. The fact that Mr.
Faulkner is now trying to defend the article through these letters, may
tell me that Mr.Gillespie refuses to interview the Chief any further,
due to the Chief's conduct. Could it be possible that no one at the
Free Press will interview the Chief? Has the Chief burned his bridges
at the Free Press? Hence, this being his only source of media. Should
Mr. Faulkner's budget not get passed, it will be interesting to see
just how long afterwards it will be before he resigns.
Faulkner's Letter to the Editor
Faulkner's so-called Fact No. 6: On October 22, 2008, at a Community
Consultation Meeting at London Police Headquarters in relation to the
budget, Chief Faulkner claimed, "Last year (2007), in Ontario, 94% of
all Domestic Violence-related homicides were perpetrated by men." The
London Police Service In-House Domestic Violence Statistics that I
recently obtained show that for the period between April 1 to June 30,
2007 (that "last year" period), there were "0" female-perpetrated
Domestic Violence Homicides. Many will recall that Kelly Johnson's
murder of Dave Lucio occurred DURING that same quarterly period of time,
namely June 7, 2007. What does this mean? Specifically that Murray
Faulkner did not classify Kelly Johnson's murder as an incident of
Domestic Violence, even though it was the classic "If I can't have you,
nobody can" DV situation. The result was a blatant misrepresentation
of the so-called statistics that Mr. Faulkner alleged to be true during
that budget meeting on October 22, 2008. Since Murray Faulkner is so
willing to misrepresent the truth about one of London's most tragic
recent events such as the murder of Dave Lucio, one wonders what sort
of classification games he has played with his other so-called facts
stated in his recent Letter to the Editor.
No comments:
Post a Comment