Worrying story on the BBC today, not so much the story itself, more the tone of language used and what it could mean.
"More than a quarter of sex offences are not being recorded as crimes by police in England and Wales, a watchdog says.
An HM Inspectorate of Constabulary report said the failure to record crime properly was "indefensible".
More than 800,000 - or one in five - of all reported crimes went unrecorded each year, it estimated."
Full story: BBC News
The headline grabber is sexual offences, but it refers to all crimes.
It's clear something needs to be done to tighten up Police process and procedures, something the Police will no doubt argue is directly related to reduced resources and increased workload.
But what really worried me was the language being used, particularly by Chief Inspector of Constabulary Tom Winsor.
He said the police should "immediately institutionalise" the presumption that the victim is to be believed.
"If evidence later comes to light which shows that no crime occurred, then the record should be corrected; that is how the system is supposed to work," he added.
So spin that, if the victim is presumed to be believed, then the other party is presumed to be guilty? After all you can't believe both parties can you?
Which then takes us into an official guilty until proven innocent policy which is a dangerous precedent IMHO.
Wouldn't it be better to say all alleged victim's of crime will be taken seriously and be fully investigated, before we start off down a witchhunt and vigilante culture as dwindling Police resources are already stretched to the maximum?
All crime should be reported and investigated, particularly sexual assault or abuse. But I think I prefer an impartial Policeforce rather than a judgemental one.
Or maybe we are there already, with now common place trial by media for anyone in the public eye or any crimes that spark media interest and sell advertising space