Anger as crimes are left unsolved by Wiltshire Police

Swindon Advertiser: Gerry Gprzybyszewski says the police should always look into all cases of reported crime Gerry Gprzybyszewski says the police should always look into all cases of reported crime

CONCERNED residents say Wiltshire Police risk losing public confidence after it was revealed that nearly one quarter of all crime reported to the force is not investigated beyond a desktop study or a phone call.

Information revealed under the Freedom of Information Act show that for 2011/12, out of the 36,245 offences of all types reported to emergency call handlers, 8,181 were listed as “not investigated” after an initial assessment.

The data shows that 42 per cent of cases of theft and handling of stolen goods were placed into this category, along with 34 per cent of criminal damage incidents and 21 per cent of burglaries.

However, the force investigated nearly all reports of sexual offences and violence.

In a statement accompanying the figures, Wiltshire Police said: “Every crime report that is received involves some form of investigation.

“This can be an initial desktop/telephone investigation and, failing any tangible lines of inquiry, this may be closed as undetected.

“If there are suitable lines to follow then this will be screened to another investigative department.”

But residents said the decision not to investigate risked reducing public confidence in police and deterred victims and witnesses from taking the time and effort to report future incidents.

Gerry Przybyszewski, 73, of Poulton Street, Gorse Hill, who is involved with Gorse Hill Neighbourhood Watch, said: “They should investigate, come out and ask for witnesses.

“If there’s no proof there’s nothing they can do but if people bring forward witnesses and a statement, how can they drop the case?

“Respond to the public, because if you don’t respond to the public, the public lose faith in you.”

Maurice Small, 70, who is also involved in the Neighbourhood Watch, said people had lost confidence in the police because fewer officers kept residents informed about progress with complaints or issues.

He said call handlers should go back to victims if their complaints are not being investigated and explain the reasons.

He said: “If they ring 999 and nothing gets done they aren’t going to bother any more.”

Robert Buckland, the South Swindon MP, who is also a lawyer, said some reports were spurious or gave no leads, but the new police commissioner should try to find new ways of dealing with complaints to see whether more could be done to improve responses.

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:23am Mon 5 Nov 12

c skelton says...

Part of the reasons this occurs is that as resources get stripped away and Wilts Police have less people to do the work (nearly 200 Police Officers left in 18 months). They have to priotitise their effort, so they downgrade crimes and decide not to investigate others.

In many parts of the country it is now the practice that for minor assaults and burglary, the police only issue a crime number so that the victim can claim on their insurance. I don't want this to happen in Wiltshire.

The governments (mainly Conservative) 20% cut to Police funding due next April will only make matters worse.

Colin Skelton
Independent Candidate for Police Commissioner.
Part of the reasons this occurs is that as resources get stripped away and Wilts Police have less people to do the work (nearly 200 Police Officers left in 18 months). They have to priotitise their effort, so they downgrade crimes and decide not to investigate others. In many parts of the country it is now the practice that for minor assaults and burglary, the police only issue a crime number so that the victim can claim on their insurance. I don't want this to happen in Wiltshire. The governments (mainly Conservative) 20% cut to Police funding due next April will only make matters worse. Colin Skelton Independent Candidate for Police Commissioner. c skelton

7:28am Mon 5 Nov 12

c skelton says...

www.skelton4wiltspcc
.co.uk
www.skelton4wiltspcc .co.uk c skelton

7:47am Mon 5 Nov 12

PaulD says...

In many parts of the country it is now the practice that for minor assaults and burglary, the police only issue a crime number so that the victim can claim on their insurance. I don't want this to happen in Wiltshire.

which is exactly what happened to my when I reported a theft yesterday
[quote]In many parts of the country it is now the practice that for minor assaults and burglary, the police only issue a crime number so that the victim can claim on their insurance. I don't want this to happen in Wiltshire.[/unquote] which is exactly what happened to my when I reported a theft yesterday PaulD

7:57am Mon 5 Nov 12

peatmoor pirate says...

Trouble is, does anyone want to pay the extra taxes it would take for all these crimes to be personally investigated? It's difficult but I do feel the police are caught between a rock and a hard place sometimes
Trouble is, does anyone want to pay the extra taxes it would take for all these crimes to be personally investigated? It's difficult but I do feel the police are caught between a rock and a hard place sometimes peatmoor pirate

7:57am Mon 5 Nov 12

peatmoor pirate says...

Trouble is, does anyone want to pay the extra taxes it would take for all these crimes to be personally investigated? It's difficult but I do feel the police are caught between a rock and a hard place sometimes
Trouble is, does anyone want to pay the extra taxes it would take for all these crimes to be personally investigated? It's difficult but I do feel the police are caught between a rock and a hard place sometimes peatmoor pirate

8:04am Mon 5 Nov 12

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

The Tories maybe making cuts; however before blaming them for action that needs to be taken; you have to ask who spent all the money on the countries credit car even during the biggest boom in the countries history.


Quote "Information revealed under the Freedom of Information Act show that for 2011/12, out of the 36,245 offences of all types reported to emergency call handlers, 8,181!


The above statement suggests the numbers may be much worse; since it only covers offenses reported to emergency call handlers. Offences reported by other means are probably going to an even lower priority (speculation).
The Tories maybe making cuts; however before blaming them for action that needs to be taken; you have to ask who spent all the money on the countries credit car even during the biggest boom in the countries history. Quote "Information revealed under the Freedom of Information Act show that for 2011/12, out of the 36,245 offences of all types reported to emergency call handlers, 8,181! The above statement suggests the numbers may be much worse; since it only covers offenses reported to emergency call handlers. Offences reported by other means are probably going to an even lower priority (speculation). LordAshOfTheBrake

8:52am Mon 5 Nov 12

nobody says...

It also will not include the crimes people do not bother reporting due to not feeling it is serious enough or worse a belief the Police will do not anything.
It also will not include the crimes people do not bother reporting due to not feeling it is serious enough or worse a belief the Police will do not anything. nobody

10:19am Mon 5 Nov 12

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

@Peatmoor pirate

Personally I'd pay more tax, if more criminals were more appropriately punished; especially where crimes are committed directly against the person or property.

Some of the sentencing that goes on is unbelievable; where people can be sent to prison for minor offences; yet repeated violence against the person can result in a few hours of community service.
@Peatmoor pirate Personally I'd pay more tax, if more criminals were more appropriately punished; especially where crimes are committed directly against the person or property. Some of the sentencing that goes on is unbelievable; where people can be sent to prison for minor offences; yet repeated violence against the person can result in a few hours of community service. LordAshOfTheBrake

10:41am Mon 5 Nov 12

The Real Librarian says...

if the Police weren't spending so much time and resource on drug related crime, there would be much more to go around.

Whether people like it or not, decriminalising drug use and legalising and regulating the supply would reduce the level of crime.
if the Police weren't spending so much time and resource on drug related crime, there would be much more to go around. Whether people like it or not, decriminalising drug use and legalising and regulating the supply would reduce the level of crime. The Real Librarian

11:00am Mon 5 Nov 12

Synergie says...

Peel's Principles
.
Carefully read the nine principles of policing. These principles still form the basis of policing....and I said read CAREFULLY.


1.The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

2.The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.

3.Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

4.The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

5.Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

6.Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.

7.Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8.Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

9.The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
.
Take note of principles #1, 5 and 7
.
Take particular note of principle #9, and you will understand why the Chief Constables spend so much time massaging the crime figures.
Peel's Principles . Carefully read the nine principles of policing. These principles still form the basis of policing....and I said read CAREFULLY. 1.The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder. 2.The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions. 3.Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public. 4.The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force. 5.Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law. 6.Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient. 7.Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. 8.Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary. 9.The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.[2] . Take note of principles #1, 5 and 7 . Take particular note of principle #9, and you will understand why the Chief Constables spend so much time massaging the crime figures. Synergie

12:03pm Mon 5 Nov 12

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

@The Real Librarian

The same argument could be applies to all aspects of law.

Lets abolish all speed limits so the police don't need to spent any time policing it. Iknow a couple of people who'd love to be able to drive their cars at 150mph on the motorways etc.

Lets make theft legal, so the police don't have to spend any time policing it. Heck the courts are punishing those found guilty, so lets free up he resources.

The list goes on.

Hell lets just abolish the laws of the land and have anarchy!
@The Real Librarian The same argument could be applies to all aspects of law. Lets abolish all speed limits so the police don't need to spent any time policing it. Iknow a couple of people who'd love to be able to drive their cars at 150mph on the motorways etc. Lets make theft legal, so the police don't have to spend any time policing it. Heck the courts are punishing those found guilty, so lets free up he resources. The list goes on. Hell lets just abolish the laws of the land and have anarchy! LordAshOfTheBrake

12:07pm Mon 5 Nov 12

The Real Librarian says...

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
@The Real Librarian The same argument could be applies to all aspects of law. Lets abolish all speed limits so the police don't need to spent any time policing it. Iknow a couple of people who'd love to be able to drive their cars at 150mph on the motorways etc. Lets make theft legal, so the police don't have to spend any time policing it. Heck the courts are punishing those found guilty, so lets free up he resources. The list goes on. Hell lets just abolish the laws of the land and have anarchy!
Stop being silly.

The difference between speed limits and drugs policy is that setting and enforcing speed limits works effectively to reduce road deaths whereas the drugs policy is an expensive failure that has increased drug use, criminalises youth and kills people
[quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: @The Real Librarian The same argument could be applies to all aspects of law. Lets abolish all speed limits so the police don't need to spent any time policing it. Iknow a couple of people who'd love to be able to drive their cars at 150mph on the motorways etc. Lets make theft legal, so the police don't have to spend any time policing it. Heck the courts are punishing those found guilty, so lets free up he resources. The list goes on. Hell lets just abolish the laws of the land and have anarchy![/p][/quote]Stop being silly. The difference between speed limits and drugs policy is that setting and enforcing speed limits works effectively to reduce road deaths whereas the drugs policy is an expensive failure that has increased drug use, criminalises youth and kills people The Real Librarian

12:35pm Mon 5 Nov 12

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

Its not being silly, when I use your own arguments against you.

You do know people die from drug use, right? Same with alcohol and nicotine etc etc.

Enforcing speed limits does very little to reduce road deaths. The bigger issue is actually a lack of driving discipline which includes speed; but many other factors too. People do die from accidents that happen within the speed limits too. I would suggest that speeding is another example of an expensive policy that is failing. I drive quite a lot every day and the number of people driving well in excess of the speed limit would confirm its a failed policy. Therefore using your own arguments, we should abolish speed limits.
Its not being silly, when I use your own arguments against you. You do know people die from drug use, right? Same with alcohol and nicotine etc etc. Enforcing speed limits does very little to reduce road deaths. The bigger issue is actually a lack of driving discipline which includes speed; but many other factors too. People do die from accidents that happen within the speed limits too. I would suggest that speeding is another example of an expensive policy that is failing. I drive quite a lot every day and the number of people driving well in excess of the speed limit would confirm its a failed policy. Therefore using your own arguments, we should abolish speed limits. LordAshOfTheBrake

1:50pm Mon 5 Nov 12

house on the hill says...

Lord Ash, I have to agree with you, driving above the speed limits is not the cause of most road deaths, it is selfish idiots not taking any care and attention when driving and the stupid "it will never happen to me" attitude that so many seem to have. Also the whole idea of "its too expensive to police so lets legalise it" is not only plain stupid and sending completely the wrong message to the public, in most cases it is hypocritical as it is usually the same people who moan about how soft and innefficent it all is and you can get more soft than raising the white flag and saying "we give up"

Also to the Pirate, the problem is not how much money is spent it is how it is used in the public sector. We all know how much SBC waste on stupid projects, consultants, partners and general inefficiency, so imagine that on a national scale across things like policing, the NHS, transport and education and you can see why they have no resources in the right places where they are actually needed.

I am sure this all came as no surprise to many which speaks for itself.
Lord Ash, I have to agree with you, driving above the speed limits is not the cause of most road deaths, it is selfish idiots not taking any care and attention when driving and the stupid "it will never happen to me" attitude that so many seem to have. Also the whole idea of "its too expensive to police so lets legalise it" is not only plain stupid and sending completely the wrong message to the public, in most cases it is hypocritical as it is usually the same people who moan about how soft and innefficent it all is and you can get more soft than raising the white flag and saying "we give up" Also to the Pirate, the problem is not how much money is spent it is how it is used in the public sector. We all know how much SBC waste on stupid projects, consultants, partners and general inefficiency, so imagine that on a national scale across things like policing, the NHS, transport and education and you can see why they have no resources in the right places where they are actually needed. I am sure this all came as no surprise to many which speaks for itself. house on the hill

1:51pm Mon 5 Nov 12

timt1964 says...

its quite simple,we all pay council tax and dont get the service we pay for.if police forces cant be bothered to investigate minor crime then they are failing the public.sadly you only find this out when you need support and dont get it.thats why so many petty criminals get away with it and reoffend despite all the do gooders who are too afraid to punish people for a crime.criminals dont need rehab they need and deserve punishment.
its quite simple,we all pay council tax and dont get the service we pay for.if police forces cant be bothered to investigate minor crime then they are failing the public.sadly you only find this out when you need support and dont get it.thats why so many petty criminals get away with it and reoffend despite all the do gooders who are too afraid to punish people for a crime.criminals dont need rehab they need and deserve punishment. timt1964

2:16pm Mon 5 Nov 12

I 2 Could B says...

What with the police not even bothering with a huge percentage of serious crimes and the judges letting off criminals who do actually (somehow) wind up in a courtroom, is it any wonder people are starting to realise that the entire Criminal Justice System now exists almost entirely for the benefit of criminals?

There was a great example of what needs to be done in the national papers last week. A young lad's parents' house had been burgled, the police weren't interested/didn't do anything and so he and his friends went out, asked around and managed to track down the burglar criminal within a couple of hours. Bit embarrassing for the police, really.
What with the police not even bothering with a huge percentage of serious crimes and the judges letting off criminals who do actually (somehow) wind up in a courtroom, is it any wonder people are starting to realise that the entire Criminal Justice System now exists almost entirely for the benefit of criminals? [p] There was a great example of what needs to be done in the national papers last week. A young lad's parents' house had been burgled, the police weren't interested/didn't do anything and so he and his friends went out, asked around and managed to track down the burglar criminal within a couple of hours. Bit embarrassing for the police, really. I 2 Could B

2:22pm Mon 5 Nov 12

Davey Gravey says...

We wouldn't need to pay more taxes. Just tax properly and fairly. We all know the booming companies getting off score free along with the richest people in britain.
We wouldn't need to pay more taxes. Just tax properly and fairly. We all know the booming companies getting off score free along with the richest people in britain. Davey Gravey

2:47pm Mon 5 Nov 12

I 2 Could B says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
We wouldn't need to pay more taxes. Just tax properly and fairly. We all know the booming companies getting off score free along with the richest people in britain.
Or, we could vote for governments that don't waste our money.

If Starbucks had paid the amount of tax they could, had they been stupid, have paid over the last 3 years it'd still have been £90million LESS than the amount our in debt government decided to give away to India over that same period.

India, of course, who have gone on record as saying they neither need nor want our money.

While our governments are so happy to squander everybody else's money, I'm happy for companies to ensure they only pay what they have to. There's no point encouraging poor economic decisions by any government by handing them more money to waste.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: We wouldn't need to pay more taxes. Just tax properly and fairly. We all know the booming companies getting off score free along with the richest people in britain.[/p][/quote]Or, we could vote for governments that don't waste our money. [p] If Starbucks had paid the amount of tax they could, had they been stupid, have paid over the last 3 years it'd still have been £90million LESS than the amount our in debt government decided to give away to India over that same period. [p] India, of course, who have gone on record as saying they neither need nor want our money. [p] While our governments are so happy to squander everybody else's money, I'm happy for companies to ensure they only pay what they have to. There's no point encouraging poor economic decisions by any government by handing them more money to waste. I 2 Could B

2:58pm Mon 5 Nov 12

Davey Gravey says...

I 2 Could B wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
We wouldn't need to pay more taxes. Just tax properly and fairly. We all know the booming companies getting off score free along with the richest people in britain.
Or, we could vote for governments that don't waste our money.

If Starbucks had paid the amount of tax they could, had they been stupid, have paid over the last 3 years it'd still have been £90million LESS than the amount our in debt government decided to give away to India over that same period.

India, of course, who have gone on record as saying they neither need nor want our money.

While our governments are so happy to squander everybody else's money, I'm happy for companies to ensure they only pay what they have to. There's no point encouraging poor economic decisions by any government by handing them more money to waste.
Being critical of passed mistakes yet not being bothered about the here and now seems daft to me. We can't change the past but the future needs sorting out
[quote][p][bold]I 2 Could B[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: We wouldn't need to pay more taxes. Just tax properly and fairly. We all know the booming companies getting off score free along with the richest people in britain.[/p][/quote]Or, we could vote for governments that don't waste our money. [p] If Starbucks had paid the amount of tax they could, had they been stupid, have paid over the last 3 years it'd still have been £90million LESS than the amount our in debt government decided to give away to India over that same period. [p] India, of course, who have gone on record as saying they neither need nor want our money. [p] While our governments are so happy to squander everybody else's money, I'm happy for companies to ensure they only pay what they have to. There's no point encouraging poor economic decisions by any government by handing them more money to waste.[/p][/quote]Being critical of passed mistakes yet not being bothered about the here and now seems daft to me. We can't change the past but the future needs sorting out Davey Gravey

4:55pm Mon 5 Nov 12

I 2 Could B says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
I 2 Could B wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote: We wouldn't need to pay more taxes. Just tax properly and fairly. We all know the booming companies getting off score free along with the richest people in britain.
Or, we could vote for governments that don't waste our money. If Starbucks had paid the amount of tax they could, had they been stupid, have paid over the last 3 years it'd still have been £90million LESS than the amount our in debt government decided to give away to India over that same period. India, of course, who have gone on record as saying they neither need nor want our money. While our governments are so happy to squander everybody else's money, I'm happy for companies to ensure they only pay what they have to. There's no point encouraging poor economic decisions by any government by handing them more money to waste.
Being critical of passed mistakes yet not being bothered about the here and now seems daft to me. We can't change the past but the future needs sorting out
Yes, I agree, the future does need sorting out... but it isn't being sorted out, the current government is both borrowing and spending more than the last mob did!
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I 2 Could B[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: We wouldn't need to pay more taxes. Just tax properly and fairly. We all know the booming companies getting off score free along with the richest people in britain.[/p][/quote]Or, we could vote for governments that don't waste our money. [p] If Starbucks had paid the amount of tax they could, had they been stupid, have paid over the last 3 years it'd still have been £90million LESS than the amount our in debt government decided to give away to India over that same period. [p] India, of course, who have gone on record as saying they neither need nor want our money. [p] While our governments are so happy to squander everybody else's money, I'm happy for companies to ensure they only pay what they have to. There's no point encouraging poor economic decisions by any government by handing them more money to waste.[/p][/quote]Being critical of passed mistakes yet not being bothered about the here and now seems daft to me. We can't change the past but the future needs sorting out[/p][/quote]Yes, I agree, the future does need sorting out... but it isn't being sorted out, the current government is both borrowing and spending more than the last mob did! I 2 Could B

5:41pm Mon 5 Nov 12

itsamess3 says...

Past and present govts have tried many methods to borrow and spend and raise taxes to sustain or improve services.
Very few of these measures have worked as there are too many failing economies in the world.
So called third world countries are reaping the benefits because they can produce both cheap and superior products to flood our markets.
MP's can never answer a direct question--they give an answer they feel suits and is usually evasive and is not restricted to any party--they are much the same.
Councils should be autonomous--but here we have the same problem--the truth is rarely told.
Can we have some councillors that are for the people rather than the party--councillors not politicians please.
Police that want to solve crimes rather than ignore them.
Past and present govts have tried many methods to borrow and spend and raise taxes to sustain or improve services. Very few of these measures have worked as there are too many failing economies in the world. So called third world countries are reaping the benefits because they can produce both cheap and superior products to flood our markets. MP's can never answer a direct question--they give an answer they feel suits and is usually evasive and is not restricted to any party--they are much the same. Councils should be autonomous--but here we have the same problem--the truth is rarely told. Can we have some councillors that are for the people rather than the party--councillors not politicians please. Police that want to solve crimes rather than ignore them. itsamess3

9:23pm Mon 5 Nov 12

I 2 Could B says...


So called third world countries are reaping the benefits because they can produce both cheap and superior products to flood our markets.

They all have one massive advantage over us... no unsustainable welfare state to try (and fail) to fund.

And, of course, they all have police forces that command authority and judges that live in the real world.
[quote] So called third world countries are reaping the benefits because they can produce both cheap and superior products to flood our markets. [/quote] They all have one massive advantage over us... no unsustainable welfare state to try (and fail) to fund. [p] And, of course, they all have police forces that command authority and judges that live in the real world. I 2 Could B

10:04pm Mon 5 Nov 12

Empty Car Park says...

You only have to look at the antics of Swindon Borough Council to see how money is wasted and mis-spent to the detriment of worthier causes
You only have to look at the antics of Swindon Borough Council to see how money is wasted and mis-spent to the detriment of worthier causes Empty Car Park

10:04pm Tue 6 Nov 12

YaddaYadda says...

Nice sensationalist headline by the paper. A significant number of these not investigated are because the person reported doesn't want it investigated. They a re reporting to get a crime number either because they need it for insurance purposes or the council/housing society say it must be reported. A couple of examples. Your car gets broken into by the thief smashing the window and they steal a couple of CD's. Do you wait until the police get their CSI out later that day or do you use your car to go to work and get the window fixed. Another example reported of a stolen wheelie bin. Council need a crime number before they replace it. Would you come into the police station the next day to give a statement. Police do need the co-operation of the 'victim' to investigate.
Nice sensationalist headline by the paper. A significant number of these not investigated are because the person reported doesn't want it investigated. They a re reporting to get a crime number either because they need it for insurance purposes or the council/housing society say it must be reported. A couple of examples. Your car gets broken into by the thief smashing the window and they steal a couple of CD's. Do you wait until the police get their CSI out later that day or do you use your car to go to work and get the window fixed. Another example reported of a stolen wheelie bin. Council need a crime number before they replace it. Would you come into the police station the next day to give a statement. Police do need the co-operation of the 'victim' to investigate. YaddaYadda

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree