United Kingdom

6701 readers

181 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

David Lammy promises 25% cut in number of children jailed while they await trial (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 3 days ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Justice secretary’s white paper will overhaul youth justice rules and could end lifelong criminal records for under-18s

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Yay! Arbitrary number targets! That's the best kind of targets.

There's never been a highly acclaimed TV show explaining in detail why arbitrary targets within the justice system are detrimental, so there's no way the public could know or understand this. Let alone a politician of high office.

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 2 points 2 days ago

You think Lammy watches or even understands The Wire?

[–] teslekova@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's not that it's arbitrary, although it is. It's more an admission that we could do far more, but choose not to spend the resources necessary, or the political capital to tackle the police and community culture (both interact to produce this situation even when the cops have the power).

He probably chose it for motivational reasons. It's a nice round number and it sells well in print or on TV, and you can shorthand it easily for stakeholders who will largely be either hostile to the basic idea or suspicious of your motives.

[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

He's a politician, he chose it for political reasons.

When the police chase targets, numbers get fudged. KPIs, crime statistics, performance targets, stakeholder demands, call it what you want, they will aim for that number regardless of the consequences. It's bad governance and results in things breaking.

https://youtu.be/xH_6_8NOfwI

[–] teslekova@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Well, ok, what works better than targets? Gotta measure how you're going somehow.

Edit: btw, all those factors I mentioned are indeed political reasons.

[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 2 points 2 days ago

Determining what your goal is in terms of outcome, not numbers or percentages.

When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

The more any quantitive social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt social processes it is intended to monitor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell's_law

These things have been known about in sociology and political science for quite some time.