London Police Chief whose Feminist bias he wears on his feet wants a raise

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

Posted By: Zabia

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.

Posted By: Robert Hebblethwaite

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.

Posted By: Brad Charlton

police Here we go once again! The dynamic duo of Brad and Rob trying to promote their ridiculous agenda! Okay Brad, lets classify the Johnson/Lucio incident a case of domestic violence. Thats not going to change the statistics that drastically! Its a fact that most domestic violent incidents involve the male as the aggressor. Just read the papers and watch the news. You don't even need the statistics, in fact, they would just prove my point. Just because the Chief doesn't classify that incident as a domestic violence incident, doesn't mean men aren't more violent because they are! Why don't you both get a life and find a more noble cause to fight for like the starving children in the world or the Haiti relief effort.

Posted By: Steve

Faulkner & police budget increase (Spell Corr Reading the letter thread on this topic I felt on the one hand that I could add so much in supportive evidence to the letters of Mike Murphy Brad Charlton and Robert Hebblewaite but it would take hours and the limits of the letter page in terms of characters would not do the submission justice. On the other hand while thinking of the suggestion of Faulkner's resignation a song by the Beatles written and performed in 1965 came to mind "it Won't be Long Yeah" The readers can apply their own words to suit. Should the words of the song prove to ever be prophetic (and I think they will) men in London will be safer and they might even one day see equal unbiased justice and policing services again. We can only hope. In the meantime I am humming that tune...

Posted By: Jeremy Swanson

 Brad Charlton posted a letter to the editor in the London Free Press commenting further on Chief Faulkner`s letter above:

Faulkner's Facts are Sometimes Fiction

London Police Chief Murray Faulkner submitted his own Letter to the Editor on January 19th under the title: "Facts support police budget increase".

Just how accurate are Murray Faulkner's "facts", however? You see, the problem is, when a person has the power to CREATE his/her own statistics, they can be spun however one chooses.

Take Domestic Violence statistics, for example:

On October 22, 2008, at a Community Consultation Meeting in relation to the budget, which was held at London Police Headquarters, Chief Faulkner emphatically stated, "Last year, in Ontario, 94% of all Domestic Violence-related homicides were perpetrated by men." Open and shut case? Not so fast.

The London Police Service In-House Domestic Violence Statistics which I recently obtained show that for the period between April 1 to June 30, 2007, there were "0" female-perpetrated Domestic Violence Homicides. Many will recall that Kelly Johnson's murder of Dave Lucio occurred DURING that same three-month time period, namely on June 7, 2007.

What does this mean? Simple. Murray Faulkner did not classify Kelly Johnson's murder of Dave Lucio as an incident of Domestic Violence - thus skewing the statistics - and even though it was the classic "If I can't have you, nobody can" Domestic Violence murder.

So, did Murray Faulkner lie to Londoners on October 22, 2008 when he made the "94%" statement? He was only quoting statistics, after all. Sure, he played a part in creating those statistics; and sure, he applies different classification rules to identical situations. But to have a Police Chief lie about such a serious situation would - to quote Mr. Faulkner - "cause mistrust of the police service", wouldn't it? Or perhaps just mistrust in Mr. Faulkner.

Perhaps a province-wide audit of Domestic Violence statistics should be conducted by an impartial third-party. And perhaps one of the suggestions coming from that audit will be a recommendation that Murray Faulkner (and other Chiefs of Police in Ontario) should lose their ability to create false statistics.

Posted By: Brad Charlton, London
Posted On: January 21, 2010
My comments submitted on Sunday the 24/1/10

My observations on Brads letter:


The recent beating of a man in Vancouver by the Police Service gives an insight into the culture of these organizations that comes from the top. An innocent man was hauled out of the house and beaten by police thugs based only on the dispatch message they were being called to a Domestic. Man guilty, judged, and sentenced before trial and in this case it was the wrong person.   Faulkner has shown his biases through internal administrative activities which are fabricated, his support of the myth that women are not violent, and his speeches speaking untruths about the percentage of domestic homicides. In 2008 in Canada we had a total of  611 homicides, 465 men and 146 female. The rate of homicides with firearms has increased 24% since 2002 largely due to handgun use by gangs. Has Faulkner complained about the gun registry for long rifles being disbanded. Handguns are still in the registry and more closely controlled than ever but yet usage increases.   Gangs don't register their handguns and their members lack good male role models.  Does Faulkner play a role in removal of good fathers from families through his biases?

Women victims 24% - lowest proportion ever. Male Victims 76%

Both the rate of females killed (0.87 per 100,000 population), as well as the proportion (24%), were the lowest since 1961.

62 spousal homicides - no change from 2007. Lowest rate in 40 years.  45 women 17 men. The percentage of men killed is just over 27% but is actually greater because many deaths of men across Canada do not get classified as Domestic just as Brad as pointed out. There is a case in Peterborough before the courts where the wife hired a contractor.  The question remains what is Faulkner doing about the 76% of men killed each year. Has he walked down the street wearing  construction boots as opposed to his red stilettos?