Only those crimes that are the subject of formal reports by victims or incidents attended by VicPol are included in the stats so yes, fewer police = less reports logged. However, back in the day you were more likely to get a crack with a baton or a punch in the guts than be charged. Topless "waitresses" definitely wouldn't have reported sexual assault by VFL footballers back then either.
re bold.....and that would lead to a lot less repeat offenders nowadays too. Sadly, that is not allowed anymore. Instead, back out on the streets within 24 hours ready to go again, knowing that the 'consequences' were basically non-existant.
Which, in practice, would suggest there would be plenty of crimes that get overlooked as the coppers know that the paperwork isn't worth their time as a result. So less crime is reported.
I've got police members in the family. One left over a decade ago after serving 2 or more decades. One is now almost at retirement age after decades. I hear all sorts of stories.
To me there is a definite shift. In the past, you could always find trouble if you went looking for it.
Now, trouble finds you when you least expect it......and often. The 'cancer kid' is proof of that.
Mate I was sitting there in the rain in row G on level 1 for 75% of the game, and when we fell 50 points behind, that was my signal to go because me and the Mrs were getting wet, and whilst we all support the club, every single club has fans that leave early once the game is gone.
Again, there are lots of good reasons for people to leave (weather being one) and I don't want to sound too critical (but I am I know). I was top level, under cover and lots were leaving from that section. Just thought, being the last game as well as the great season finish, that the team deserved to be cheered off. More than anything, I was disappointed.
I've sat through many a 100 point thumping until the final siren sounded because 'thats what you do.' However, after seeing thousands leaving early in the 4th.....i along with my 11yo son took the chance to leave too. I made it clear that its not the done thing to leave early and explained to him why we were doing it. 1. It was a Friday night and he had been at school that day, and it was super late for him. Didn't get home until just before midnight IIRC. 2. We had to catch the train and you can potentially be stuck there for well over 30 minutes to an hour based on the amount of people there. 3. Being out that late in the city and/or around train stations is not the place to be, especially with a kid.
Incidently, there was a fatal shooting sunday night, 730pm in Thomastown.....which we had to pass through on the train on the way home, highlighting the dangers we are trying to avoid.
So i would normally be agreeing with you, but there are too many legitimate reasons these days to get upset with that.
Be interested to see what makes up those stats. "The number of criminal incidents recorded by Victoria Police in the year to 31 March 2026 was 468,711, down 1.0% from 473,518 incidents recorded in the same period last year."
June 2025: 15,909 police officers (Total workforce: 21,332) June 2024: 16,059 police officers (Total workforce: 21,715) June 2023: 15,842 police officers (Total workforce: 21,326)
I found estimates of 15,600 police this year.
Those numbers are 'whats recorded'. The number of police officers available to record these crimes are going the opposite way to the number of crimes. I suspect that a large part of the 'drop in crime' is simply things are not being recorded.
I suspect if there was 0 police officers around to record things, crimes recorded would magically disappear too.
@kruddler You do realise people are free to go back and see what was written, I suspect you're betting they won't be bothered. But they will all remember the debates around KPPs and Rucks, it must be burned into their retina!
Be my guest.
When others show you things from the past, you refuse to read them.
Now you want others to go back and find something to back up what you've said?
You provide the claim. You provide the evidence.
The ONE person i thought you could be referencing has distanced himself from those assertions, so good luck with that.
I'm sure there has been someone, somewhere that has said something alnog those lines at one point in time......but to imply that it was a widespread belief, is flat out BS.
Was it not you who was saying we didn't need anymore talls because the number on our list was the same as the number on other lists??
Yes, but that was before we lost four talls and got only one back. However, my position has always been that there's no point adding talls if they can't play.
I'm a firm believer in the "a good big man will always beat a good little man" adage but with "good" being the operative word.
Thats the point, the past....not now.
I think you've misread something somewhere.
LP was stating fans were sayong we were top heavy in the past....when we had lemmey etc.
You were the only one i ever heard suggesting anything of the sort.
In short.....LP is talking BS again.
Just like the afl screwed up by playing the game on a friday night.....just a mere 96k there for a sellout crowd.
Just finished watching this, fathers day duties called.
Happy to get a big win, kicking 10 goals without both Sophie and Darcy in the side.
One of only 3 teams undefeated......and we play the other 2 in the next 2 weeks. Kangas, then Dees. Kangas haven't been beaten in what.......2.5 years?? Lets see how well we go there, will very much determine our hopes for the year.
Who was those fans that were complaining it was top heavy?
As best as i can recall, there was only 1 person who suggested as much and it was based purely on heights rather than ability to play the positions, and that was DJC.
Don't recall anyone else saying that.
I think your recall may be faulty, Kruddler. I'd prefer a top heavy team over a vertically-challenged team, provided that the big lads can play footy.
Was it not you who was saying we didn't need anymore talls because the number on our list was the same as the number on other lists??
No, because as we know, our list management is determined by committee with the coach, head of football and CEO all involved and sharing responsibility for direction and decisions. Another couple of KPPs would be nice, but not if they're like Harry Lemmey or Josh Schache.
It's not lost on me, that only a short while ago when we had Lemmey and a couple of others, a lot of fans complained the list was top heavy. At the time fans were content with Harry and Charlie with Pitto on hand and TDK coming into contention, and most were busy screaming for more midfield depth.
Now we have a midfield bonanza, at least at the moment, TDK and Charlie have buggered off, and all of a sudden it's list mismanagement!
Some navigate list management like Captain Jack Sparrow's crazy compass, always pointing to what you desire without showing you a direction!
Who was those fans that were complaining it was top heavy?
As best as i can recall, there was only 1 person who suggested as much and it was based purely on heights rather than ability to play the positions, and that was DJC.
Was Austins greatest failing that he couldn't find a couple of understudy KPF's and the reason why he was shown the door?
No, because as we know, our list management is determined by committee with the coach, head of football and CEO all involved and sharing responsibility for direction and decisions. Another couple of KPPs would be nice, but not if they're like Harry Lemmey or Josh Schache.
Someone has the final say. Committee or not, there is a boss.
Same with Voss. By your logic, since we sacked Voss, we should've sacked the rest of the committee as well!
Can't have it both ways.
FYI, the coach, the head of football and the ceo have all changed in the past 12 months. So why should Austin be spared?
Young earned his place in the team after spending much of the season in the VFL
Young had reached his ceiling and found wanting at AFL. Best to give someone else a go. Even a MSD pick might be OK
Why do we persist with players that won’t be part of a premiership team?
There isn't anyone else, this is the problem. We have refused to draft someone to move into these roles when we know they are not up to it. HOK was the great white hope and turned out to be a lot worse than young.
If we actually recruited a semi decent ruck/forward we wouldn't have needed to play Young.
It's why I liked Casboult. Jack of all trades, master if none. but was very handy Jack in all of those trades.
Probably going to be left to Harry again next year. We'll likely get Amartey, not my first choice but a decent enough player to support Harry. Makes it a bit easier to play Harry in that role and not have Kemp and Gov left there when he rucks.
Its why i was so 'positive' on Jack Silvagni.
Having him as a 2nd ruck was great for team balance and why we never needed 2 rucks. Forward/back/ruck.....Young is a poor version of Silvagni and worse in all 3 areas......but still the best we have.
Yet he is still the best option for that roll that we have.......which is a blight on our list management.
We should've had players to do this roll drafted years ago, but constant neglect has left us here.
Very true, which is why several of these duds get games every week. If there's even a remote chance that Blakey wants to leave, then we should make him our trade priority this year.
As good of a player that he is, I don't think we could sell it courtesy of our Carlton Respects campaign.
It would hurt the club and everything its trying to do. Unless we could somehow manage to get him to be a poster boy of righting wrongs etc etc Propaganda machine would need to be in orverdrive for that to happen.
