Police practitioners and place managers’ understandings and perceptions of heritage crime in Nottinghamshire

Abstract

‘So you know, as daft as it sounds, if you’ve got a building, that really isn’t a priority, is it?’ Despite the wealth of heritage sites in the UK, the topic is a marginalised area of criminological study here. It has been argued that there is discordance between the concepts of ‘heritage’ and ‘crime’. One is holistic; the other set in the law. Through a programme of semi-structured interviews with ‘heritage place managers’ and questionnaires delivered to neighbourhood policing teams in Nottinghamshire Police, this research aimed to examine this clash. In particular, it aimed to compare and contrast heritage place managers’ understandings and experiences of heritage crime with those of police practitioners. It was found that the two groups differed markedly in this respect, creating feelings of frustration and stagnation for both. Such findings are of particular concern in the light of statistics which demonstrate that heritage crime is occurring frequently across the UK, and evidence that offenders are targeting new heritage assets and sites in response to changing legislation. Budget cuts, which continue to impact upon policing priorities in Nottinghamshire, further compound the problem. The conclusion of this article details the potential impacts of these findings and suggests changes relating to both the heritage and policing sectors.

Fool’s gold? A critical assessment of sources of data on heritage crime

“…When considering the nature and extent of heritage crime, much can be learned from individuals who directly deal with the effects of heritage crime. To date there is remarkably little work using interview data (at the time of writing the authors are only aware of 16 DPM 29,1 Poyser and Poyser, 2017) Where used, interview data can provide a wealth of useful information related not just to the nature and extent of heritage crime, but also where there may be conflicts between user groups and officials. Poyser and Poyser (2017) approached this question with an exploration of the differing views of heritage crime between police practitioners and heritage professionals.…”

A Typology of Heritage Crime Victims

“…Legally then, 'heritage crime' is not a self-standing criminal offence (Poyser 2020). However, we know from the limited empirical research available (Oxford Archaeology 2009a, b;Shelbourn 2014b; Poyser and Poyser 2017) that despite not being classified as a crime, heritage crime has a tangible and profound impact upon its victims (Poyser and Poyser 2017;Kerr 2013). The impact which heritage crime has upon its victims is in direct contrast to the police understanding, awareness and knowledge of heritage crime, all of which are limited amongst police officers at all levels (NPCC, 2017).…”

“…The impact which heritage crime has upon its victims is in direct contrast to the police understanding, awareness and knowledge of heritage crime, all of which are limited amongst police officers at all levels (NPCC, 2017). Indeed, many officers are unaware that heritage crime exists (Oxford Archaeology 2009b;Shelbourn 2014a;Poyser and Poyser 2017).…”

“…To compound these issues further, when officers do encounter heritage crime, the impacts of the crime are often intangible and therefore often go unrecognised, such as the loss of historical value (Poyser and Poyser 2017). The emotional impact of heritage crime is also poorly understood by officers (Ibid), perhaps because officers are looking for the more 'tangible consequences of a crime' (Oxford Archaeology 2009b), that they would encounter with crimes they police more regularly.…”

“…Existing research highlights how, in a wide variety of heritage crime cases, police officers respond to heritage crime very poorly, resulting in victims feeling frustrated and distressed (Shelbourn 2014a;Poyser and Poyser 2017;Poyser 2020). Furthermore, officers have denied and downplayed the importance and intangible impacts of heritage crime, even after explicitly being informed of what these are by the victims (Shelbourn 2014b).…”