Last week Rye News received information from our MP's office that the local Sussex police force had been increased over the last three years by 269 (as at April 2022), part of a country-wide drive for a total over 20,000 new recruits by next year. Apparently, this also means we will be seeing more of the bobby on the beat, which can only be a good thing.
This set me thinking about local crime and how much was there in Rye and the surrounding area. We feature occasional reports in this paper and the death last week in Camber, was very much an isolated exception; Midsomer we are definitely not, in this part of East Sussex.
However I have come across some figures relating to more minor crimes, but not necessarily minor to the victims, released by the police themselves, which make concerning reading.
In rural areas nationwide, only 39% of burglaries have resulted in a suspect being arrested and convicted. Specifically, in Rye and Winchelsea, for the three years from May 2019 until April 2022, there were 86 recorded burglaries. Of these an astonishing 80 (93%) were not solved. The worse news is that is regarded as one of the best of the clear-up rates. If any of our readers live in the Burwash, Staplecross and Sedlescombe area the unsolved rate is an astonishing 99.1% where, out of 110 burglaries only one (just one!) resulted in a prosecution.
In the Rother area as a whole, these are the figures for various categories of crime:
| Robbery | 49 out of 54 (90.7%) unsolved |
| Personal theft, such as pickpocketing | 66 out of 69 (95.7%) unsolved |
| Burglary | 858 out of 889 (95.5%) unsolved |
| Bicycle theft | 104 out of 106 (98.1%) unsolved |
This is in stark contrast to the optimistic news we occasionally get from our police and crime commissioner, but we must be careful before charging them with incompetence or even laziness. It seems that over a number of years the bar for evidence warranting a prosecution has been set higher and higher to the point where the police attitude is that unless there is an obvious suspect with unassailable evidence against them (caught in the act or in possession of stolen goods, for example), the Crown Prosecution Service will simply not take the case on and it becomes a waste of police time to even investigate.
There was a time, not so long ago, when Rye had its own police and a working police station. Many of the villages had their own bobby too, or shared one with another village. These officers knew their patch backwards, they knew the hardened villains and the young tearaways - prosecution for the former and a clip round the ear for the latter. If there was a robbery, or damage to property, or a car nicked for a joyride, they would know who was likely to be the culprit. That knowledge together with their visible presence was in itself a deterrent.
But then the bean-counters were called in, every penny had to be 'justified' and it was decided that local policing was no longer financially viable and that there were better ways of organising available manpower. The figures above, however, suggest differently.
