Skip to content

Car Crime U.K.

who knows, who cares?

Menu
  • Events Timeline
  • Stolen Vehicle Info’
    • ‘Form A Squad’ – Ineffective Action
      • The Vehicle Crime Task Force (VCT) – 2019
      • 2022 to 2023 National Vehicle Crime Working Group
    • Stolen Vehicle Recovery – Found in the U.K.
    • Stolen Vehicle Recovery – Found Abroad
    • OPERATION IGNEOUS – reducing reported car theft by 30%
  • Collision & Crime Reports
    • Police Theft Reports
    • Police Collision Reports
    • Police Disclosure Delays
  • Resources
    • Your Vehicle Theft Insurance Claim
    • Police Contacts
  • News
  • Interesting & Reference
    • Abbreviations & Terminology
  • Contact
Menu

A System Built on Blind Faith? The Flaws in Police Information Dissemination

Posted on February 21, 2025March 20, 2025 by 5@mwosb.co.uk

Imagine a central police information unit tasked with issuing guidance to every chief police officer in the country. The expectation? These officers receive, download, and read the guidance to ensure consistency and adherence to best practices. The reality? The National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) system operates on blind faith.

One glaring flaw in this approach is the lack of accountability.

If the central unit does not track who receives their messages, who downloads them, or even who reads them, how can they be certain information is reaching the right people and being acted upon?

Policing is a profession where clear, informed decision-making can have serious consequences. Yet, this information pipeline seems riddled with holes.

Additionally, without a proper tracking mechanism, there is no means to assess the effectiveness of these communications. Were the instructions followed? Did they lead to any tangible improvements? Or did they vanish into the abyss of unread emails and forgotten memos? The absence of such oversight creates a system where responsibility is diffuse and enforcement is weak.

In an era where digital tools can easily verify engagement – through read receipts, tracking links, or centralized dashboards – it is baffling that such a fundamental flaw persists in what appears to be a critical system. If businesses can track who opens an email or downloads a report, why can a police information unit not do the same for what is presumably important guidance – why else issue it?

A system that relies on assumption rather than verification is not just inefficient, it is potentially dangerous. If police officers are expected to act on important guidance, then the central unit (and the recipient constabulary themselves) should be expected to know, without doubt, who has received it, engaged with it, and … who has not! Anything less is a recipe for inconsistency, miscommunication, and, ultimately, failure.


The NPCC was asked to whom their ‘all chief constables’ notifications were sent at the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). No information could be supplied; this was not known.

The MPS was asked who received the ‘all chief constables’ notifications and could provide no information.


‘Whilst all members of the NPCC, to include Chief Officers of the Metropolitan Police Service, have access to the online platform, and can therefore view the letter, unless they download the letter onto their server, it would not be held by them. The NPCC does not hold a record of the MPS Chief Officer team having downloaded the letter onto their server.’ – read more here.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts:

  • Crime Reports – Copies of ‘Consent’
  • Thefts Down – Except for Newer Cars!
  • Increase Pre-Crush Retention Period to 28 days?
  • Reducing Vehicle Theft by up to 30%
  • ‘The Others’ … are you among them?
  • Vehicle Abandonments Raise Questions Over Theft Claims
  • The State of Vehicle Taking in the UK: A Crisis of Enforcement, Not Engineering
  • Keystone Krooks – but £1.4 million stolen!
  • 2024 Vehicle Theft – how well (or otherwise) did your constabulary perform?
  • Vehicle Crime. Is Police Language Bluring Facts?
  • Superficial Approach to Vehicle Taking Overlooked Organised Crime
  • Keyless Vehicle Taking – Really?
  • Accuracy & Consistency Required
  • Do we need new legislation?
  • A System Built on Blind Faith? The Flaws in Police Information Dissemination
  • Which? … What?
  • The Rise & Fall of Operation Igneous
  • Vehicle Taking – Quantity not Quality
  • Vehicle Theft: 30 years of Complacency
  • The Devalued Crime Report
  • Vehicle Theft Surge Demands Police Action on Crime Report Disclosures
  • FoIA – Staffordshire Police are not the worst offenders
  • Vehicle Repatriation
  • Crime Number Devaluation
  • Manufacturers Cause Vehicle Thefts …
  • PNC LoS Report Weeding
  • Staff-less-shire Police Report Disclosures
  • W. Mercia Police – RTC Report Disclosures
  • Delaying Finalisation of Insurance Claims (for some)
  • Policing (or not?) Vehicle Theft
  • Fraud Not Theft … face the facts!
  • Cloned Plates: Register of Keepers – Lacking Integrity?
  • Police Theft Report Disclosure
  • Headlamp Dazzle & Eye-Snatching
  • Scrap ‘six-week weeding’ of stolen vehicle VRMs
  • Police Vehicle Theft Reports – A Lack Of Understanding And Standardisation

Legal Disclaimer
The information provided on this website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. While we strive to ensure the accuracy and relevance of the content, laws and regulations change frequently, and the application of legal principles varies based on specific circumstances.

No Legal Advice
Nothing on this website constitutes legal, financial, or professional advice. You should not rely on the information provided here as a substitute for seeking qualified legal counsel. If you require legal advice or guidance, we strongly recommend consulting a licensed solicitor or legal professional.

No Liability
We make every effort to keep the information up to date and accurate, but we do not guarantee the completeness, correctness, or applicability of any content. We accept no responsibility or liability for any errors, omissions, or reliance placed on the information contained within this site.

External Links & Third-Party Content
Any external links or references provided are for convenience only and do not constitute endorsement. We are not responsible for the accuracy, legality, or content of any external sites or third-party materials linked from this website.

User Responsibility
It is the responsibility of all users to verify the accuracy and relevance of any information before relying upon it. If you have a legal issue, you should seek advice from a qualified professional relevant to your situation.

By using this website, you acknowledge and agree to this disclaimer. If you do not agree, you should discontinue use of the site immediately.

© 2025 Car Crime U.K. | Powered by Superbs Personal Blog theme