Man Shot Dead on Tube

[mr2mk1g 10]

Read your own damn source John:

Quote

Minister Hazel Blears stressed overall crime fell, saying the apparent rise in violent crime merely reflected better reporting and recording of offences.

Ms Blears, a Home Office minister, also told the BBC that the separate British Crime Survey, which interviews people to ask if they have been crime victims, showed a decrease in violent crime.

Given the number of times we've discussed this very topic and the effect of the NCRS, your continued reliance on reported crime figures alone does indeed suggest seriously disingenuous reporting on your behalf.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Read your own damn source John:

Quote

Minister Hazel Blears stressed overall crime fell, saying the apparent rise in violent crime merely reflected better reporting and recording of offences.

Ms Blears, a Home Office minister, also told the BBC that the separate British Crime Survey, which interviews people to ask if they have been crime victims, showed a decrease in violent crime.

Given the number of times we've discussed this very topic and the effect of the NCRS, your continued reliance on reported crime figures alone does indeed suggest seriously disingenuous reporting on your behalf.

Oh my, now the BBC is a "damn" source. Goodness gracious!

Note that if the rise in violent crime is due to better reporting, that means that it was really that high all along, just that the police didn't bother to note it. That doesn't argue for the reduction that you claim.

And I said in my own post that the two sources we are using disagree with each other. That's not being disingenuous - that's total honesty.

You seem to want your side of the story to have all the credibility, when in fact there is yet another side to the story, and the issue isn't as clear-cut as you say.

The fact is, some experts say that violent crime and gun crime is up in England, despite the gun ban.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Oh my, now the BBC is a "damn" source. Goodness gracious!

Any tertiary source is open to criticism John. Why don't you go straight to the statistics cited in the article themselves instead of relying on something written by a reporter who knows less about criminology than you do?

If you'd gone to the statistics straight off you would have seen what they had to say about their own reliability:

Quote

Limitations
Unfortunately, police recorded crime figures do not provide the most accurate measure of crime, as they are impacted by:
• people's reluctance to report some types of crime (such as 'Sexual offences')
• changes in the way police have been asked to record crime over the years. (See 'Changes in how police record crime'.)
The British Crime Survey (BCS) gives a more accurate picture of crime levels and trends, because it asks people about their actual experiences - thus covering crimes that do not get reported to the police. It is also not affected by changes in how the police record crime.

(Home Office introduction to police recorded crime figures 2004/5).

That's essentailly the heading to your own "damn source" John. The beeb report you post is citing recorded crime figures and when you look at the heading to those figures you get the above text. You cited a report which discredits itself! Christ John do you not see how shaky the ground you are on is?

If you'd taken some time to research this... or even just follow the links I've previously posted, you might also have seen the Home Office's commentary on reported crime figures and their statistical efficacy called the "Statistical Bulletin". Sure it's a secondary report, but it's written by criminologists and statisticians, it's reliable in its interpretation (unlike some random reporter at the beeb). This is what they say:

Quote

The rate of victims' reporting of crimes to the police has remained broadly stable since 1997, whereas the rate of recording of crimes by the police has been increasing, especially in the last three years, largely as a result of the national introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS)

(Heading to Chapter 3 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin on Crime 2004/5 – Reporting and Recording).

No one does what you are seeking to do now and rely on reported crime figures alone. They are flawed. The only people who rely on them are reporters seeking to get a scoop and a nice little sound bite from an opposition politician... oh, that's right, that's what you posted as something you were relying on.

Quote

Note that if the rise in violent crime is due to better reporting, that means that it was really that high all along, just that the police didn't bother to note it. That doesn't argue for the reduction that you claim.

Close but no cigar. Yes violent crime was always that high, in fact the BCS' findings are that there are double the number of violent crimes than the police record. It does not necessarily follow however that the figure is not falling though, indeed as I've shown you already the figure is down 43% in the last 10 years and down 11% in the last year.

Quote

And I said in my own post that the two sources we are using disagree with each other. That's not being disingenuous - that's total honesty.

There have been countless discussions on this forum about the 45 degree rule and how it is fatally flawed; about how only counting and calculations of wind speeds ensure satisfactorily separation.

If you saw someone who was party to each one of those discussions telling someone on here that the 45 degree rule was the best way to ensure separation would you think they were:

a) being disingenuous and knowingly spreading false information
b) simply too stupid to get it

We've had this same conversation now John somewhere near half a dozen times. Each time I explain why no experts in this field rely on reported crime figures alone and how those statistics are fatally flawed. Each time I post primary sources. Each time I show you what the "experts" say. Each time I explain it in minute detail.

I explain the NCRS and shown you what all the experts say about your little theory. I've done it again above with the latest set of figures, just as I have done several times before.

And yet I still find you on here telling people that crime is up because it said so in a newspaper report which quotes reported crime figures. Why?

Have you forgotten all you have learned in our past conversations? Do you simply not understand how flawed reported crime figures are, despite having had the fact explained to you many times? Is it really that hard to understanding?

Or is it slightly more sinister than that and are you fully aware of how wrong you are and are simply willfully misleading these people into believing something you yourself know to be untrue?

Quote

You seem to want your side of the story to have all the credibility, when in fact there is yet another side to the story, and the issue isn't as clear-cut as you say.

My side of the story does have all the credibility. I've just shown you the primary sources that say so. I've just showed you secondary commentaries which confirm it too. It is indeed quite clear cut.

Quote

The fact is, some experts say that violent crime and gun crime is up in England,

No experts will back you up in relying solely on police reported crime figures John. Experts know what they're talking about. Face it John, you're wrong. Even when you look at "your own damn source" you see that the report it references warns the reader against relying on it because of the flaws you continually ignore.

Quote

despite the gun ban.

Oh my god. It always comes down to guns for you doesn't it. How pathetic!

[JackC 0]

Well said Matt.

Times like these remind me of a quote:

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"--Winston Churchill

[JohnRich 4]

Gosh, if police crime statistics don't mean anything, why do they bother to keep them?

Silly me, for thinking that the police know something about crime.

Are the London Telegraph, Sky News, and the Home Office also "damn" incorrect sources?

News quotes:

Violent crime recorded by police has risen to its highest level since Tony Blair came to power, Home Office figures showed yesterday. The trend in offences of violence that victims regard as important enough to report to police is now at around twice the 1998 level.
Telegraph

violent crime, which is currently increasing at around 10 per cent every year... The use of firearms in crime has doubled in the last five years.
Telegraph

Violence against people recorded by police topped one million for the first time this year, official figures show... up eight percent on the year before. The number of gun crimes recorded by police rose 6% in the year...
Sky News

Violent offences in England and Wales reached record levels in 2004-5 with police recording one million crimes - up 7% from the previous year... gun crime was up 6%.
BBC News

And here is one for you (below) which discusses the differences between the two types of crime figures, with one set showing rising crime, and the other showing falling crime. They both have their shortcomings, but you certainly can't conclude positively that the police statistics I've quoted above are false or meaningless.

So how much crime is there really out there?
BBC News

[JohnRich 4]

All I've done here is quote government and news sources, and for that I've been called a "liar", "disingenuous", a "fanatic" and "pathetic".

Perhaps those terms would best apply to those who hurl them at others simply because they disagree with them.

[mr2mk1g 10]

John, all you are doing is repeatedly posting newspaper reports which quote the same set of figures. The introduction to those figures states: "police recorded crime figures do not provide the most accurate measure of crime... The British Crime Survey (BCS) gives a more accurate picture of crime levels and trends". (supra)

The figures you post say you are wrong to rely on them alone. They say the BCS figures are more accurate. I have given you those figures. They contradict yours entirely.

You are not going to convince anyone posting figures which discredit themselves in their introduction and invite the reader to rely instead on the figures which contradict them.

Further posting of figures you know refer to themselves as being inaccurate would be disingenuous. Further posting of figures which you know tell you to refer instead to the BCS would make you a liar.

It's up to you John how much credibility you have with people on here.

[JohnRich 4]

You must not have read the last of those references I provided, titled What do the crime figures tell us? Source

It is my belief that crimes actually reported to police are a more accurate indicator of crime levels, than the results one extrapolates from limited telephone surveys with limited questions. Phone surveys are notoriously inaccurate. While actual victims standing in front of a police officer are the ultimate in credibility.

It's ironic that you blast me for using the more conservative numbers of crimes actually reported to police. Okay, so if you don't believe those, we'll use the higher numbers found by the BCS. And that makes the violent crime situation look even worse than I've been making it out to be.

Quote: One set of figures is based on crimes reported to and recorded by the police. Police figures tell us more about how good the police are at finding out about crime than about how much crime there really is.

In other words, actual crime levels would be higher than what is reported to police. Therefore, the police numbers are actually a conservative number, yet they still show an increase in violent crime. Thus, the actual amount of violent crime is likely even worse. Yet you are claiming that the BCS (phone survey) number is lower...

Quote: An argument with a bloke in a pub might end up in fisticuffs. It might get recorded as a crime if the police are on hand, or if the aggrieved party files a complaint at the station. But he might just go home and sleep it off, in which case the assault will not appear on police crime figures.

As per my previous paragraph, in this example where the assault isn't reported to the police, the BCS crime rate would reflect a number one higher than the police rate. So if anything, the BCS rate will be worse than the police rate.

Quote: To get a better picture of real crime you need to ask members of the public, and this is what the other set of figures - the British Crime Survey (BCS) - does. Researchers for the BCS interviewed more than 45,000 people over the course of the last year, asking them about their experience of crime victimisation. This kind of approach will pick up some crime that victims would not report to the police - as a result the numbers are bigger.

Ditto.

Quote: Total crime last year according to the police figures was about 5.5 million offences, of which violent offences were about one million. The BCS, by comparison, estimated that nearly 11 million offences were committed last year, of which around 2.5 million were crimes of violence.

See? The BCS number for violent crime is 2.5 times higher than the police number. I was playing conservative by quoting the police number. You are claiming the BCS number is lower, yet this article shows it to be higher, by 250%!

Quote: The BCS is limited to the questions researchers ask and the people questioned. It only covers England and Wales, and it only asks people over the age of 16. It also only covers a limited number of crimes - murder, drug offences and sexual assaults do not feature for instance. And it certainly underestimates some crimes. According to the British Crime Survey around 500,000 domestic assaults were committed last year.

And this is the method in which you place so much confidence?

Quote: One report estimated that around 130 million serious offences were committed in one year in the late 1990s. Other Home Office research puts the true figure at over 10 million.
The best we can do is estimate but it is certainly more than the 5.5 million crimes the police record or the 11 million estimated by the BCS.

There are some even worse numbers for you.

And yet you are criticizing me for reporting the lowest of all the possible numbers in news circulation, and claiming that I am unfairly exaggerating! In fact, the BCS number you love, is higher than the one I'm using. So if anyone is putting things in a bad light, it is you!

Finally, I'm tired of you calling me a liar. So this is my last word. The readers can decide for themselves, from the reference I have provided in this thread. I have maintained my civility in this debate, while you and others haven't. The readers can factor that into their decision too, as to who is most fair and objective.

[mr2mk1g 10]

You continue to rely on newspaper reports alone. I have posted the original sources, direct from the Home Office. Why do you avoid using primary sources? Is it because they entirely rebut your theory?

Yes the BCS states crime is higher than police reported crime - that's because it's more accurate. Crime is higher than police figures alone would indicate, but the fact is that it is falling and as I have said, has been falling for some time now. You have a bee in your bonnet about crime being up. It is not.

Your description of the BCS as a "phone survey" also demonstrates a continued ignorance of the topic despite ample opportunity for you to go to the primary sources and actually take a look for yourself.

Quote

It is my belief that crimes actually reported to police are a more accurate indicator of crime levels

Sadly John you are out on a limb on that one. The experts in this field do not back you up. Your theory is yours alone and goes against the weight of the criminologist community as a whole. I am afraid that fact speaks volumes about your theories in general.

[Skyrad 0]

Panic has engulfed beauty parlors up and down the country, beauticians are worried that they might go out of business since the Met Police have started doing Brazilians for free!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

Met Police have started doing Brazilians for free

I grew up in Brazil -- will they do me? After the thread about how ripped and lean all the Bobbies are, well, ya know, a girl can ogle, right?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)