please click on the image to enlarge it

Dicey data 
says  DPPO is big success - what about you?

Given the retreat of the forces of law and order in the face of drunken and anti-social behaviour in Boston during last week’s May Fair, it is comforting to learn that the Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) in the town centre is working well and solving the problems of street drinking.
At least, it is according to a report which went before Boston Borough Council’s Environment and Performance Committee last Wednesday – ironically on the eve of the decision by the council and Boston police to tell the fair operators to close at 9pm because of  problems.
It will be five years in December since the DPPO was introduced in the town centre, and last week’s meeting was given an Analytical Report - a fancy name for nothing more than two lists comparing  offences between 1^st January 2010 and 31^st December 2010 with the same period last year.
In 2010 there were 327 alcohol related occurrences in Boston town centre, whilst for the same period in 2011 there were 295 - a “decrease” of 32.
Superficially, this seems like good news.
But as Benjamin Disraeli told us via Mark Twain,  “there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
The reduction is almost entirely due to a massive fall in offences of “damage” - which have slumped from 124 to 18.
But elsewhere, the statistics tell an entirely different story …
Most serious is the rise in assaults for various categories.
Assault Section 18 shows a rise from 6 to 7; Section 20 from 1 to 10; Section 47 is up from 45 to 61; and Section 39 from 17 to 22 – whilst assaults on the police have risen from just 1 to 8.
Sections of Public Order Act offences show an overall increase from 46 to 65 and offences of drunken behaviour rose from 45 to 78.
The figures don’t look so impressive now, do they?
Nonetheless, the report blithely declares: “We can conclude that from the data … and from the day to day look of the town centre that the DPPO has continued to make significant improvements to the town ...
“… we can show that there has continued to be a general decrease in alcohol related police incidents within the town centre and that has had a positive effect on the people using the areas.
“People feel safer and the town centre does not now have the amount of groups of people standing around drinking alcohol and causing a nuisance it had previous to the order being made in December 2007.”
Having said that, the report goes on to acknowledge that: “There is still a concern in relation to groups of males sitting on benches within the town centre drinking alcohol and causing littering and also an increase of reports of urinating in the street …”
And in an interesting piece of self-delusion it adds: “the latter offence is currently being looked at by a separate restorative justice programme currently being worked on in partnership with Boston Borough Council and Lincolnshire Police.”
Why?
In our book people urinate in the street because they have drunk too much liquid – which we are sure is not water.
This raises another issue – which is that by the time someone gets to the point that they have to urinate in the street, they have most likely consumed sufficient alcohol to be declared drunk … but will a  separate restorative justice programme  prefer one offence in favour of another?
Then there is the decline in damage offences.
As far as we can discover, the law makes no distinction between damage caused whilst drunk and damage caused whilst sober – so in fact the helpful decline in damage in the comparisons could be called into question.
The report also shows a big fall in “drug offences” from 30 to 8 – but again we wonder why these figures are included in statistics for “alcohol related” crimes.
Most worryingly, what is glossed over is the disquieting trend of increased severity in offences between 2010 and 2011.
Damage may be down, but violence and disorder show a truly shocking rise.
To compare an increase in such offences with a fall in unspecified “damage” is comparing chalk with cheese – but conveniently redistributes the figures so that the DPPO appears to be a storming success.
Yet this aspect is dismissed in the report thus: “Further research would be required to explore the reasons for the decrease in damage occurrences. An increase in drunken behaviour related occurrences need not be viewed as a negative thing as it could be demonstrating the effectiveness of the policing of the DPPO area and the positive effect the DPPO has on enforcement”
Surely the policing of the DPPO area is not closing the stable door after the horse has bolted by arresting a bunch of drunks.
A DPPO is supposed to work by giving the police powers to ask people to stop drinking, and to confiscate their alcohol if they refuse or if the police deem it necessary -  which means closing the stable door before the horse can bolt.
The report explains that the powers mean the police “can action nuisance/anti-social alcohol related behaviour at an earlier state then (sic) previously when they may have been unable to.”
The figures suggest that this is not happening – and there seem to be no statistics to show the level – if any – of early intervention using the DPPO powers.
One final incongruity in all of this is why there is such a song and dance about drinking in Boston in the first place..
The bottom line show that last year there were 295 alcohol related offences in the town centre  – one every one and a quarter days in a borough with a population of around 60,000.
It’s scarcely makes us Lincolnshire’s Sodom and Gomorrah.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com