UK General election: Crime Figures

[chocolatepossum]

Seriously, nothing gets me more hot under the collar than what we have seen in recent days.

Two sets of statistics come out, one of them is widely recognised as unreliable (the police's recorded figures) due to changes in recording techniques, levels of reporting e.t.c. The other is a survey of a representative sample of 40,000 individuals from around the country(the British Crime Survey). The second report also has its problems (it doesn't survey children and it doesn't include murder or rape) but it picks up MORE crime than the first set and still the best barometer for crime because of the size of the survey and the consistency of methods used to collect data.

Now, BOTH of these surveys show crime to be falling considerably overall, and while the recorded figures show crime going up, the British Crime Survey shows them dropping.

I would understand if there were some debate about which statistics were more reliable e.t.c. but what angers me is the way so many people totally ignore the evidence that doesn't fit their theory that the country is going to the dogs. All the debate has centred around how labour has failed to combat rising violent crime with casual disregard for the figures showing the OPPOSITE!

I saw Question Time last night and William Hague said something like
"Well, you can say what you like about the rest of the figures but we know violent crime is rising"
Really, how is that exactly William? Anecdotal evidence in the Sun? The front page of the Daily Mail?
Speaking of the rag that is the Daily Mail, just take a look at what they've got on their front page today:

http://www.mailwatch.co.uk

How exactly are the statements " a young lady was stabbed in Surrey" and "Crime is falling" inconsistent, as they imply?

Am I alone in weeping tears of anger and frustration (OK maybe not literally) at the apparent blindness of all concerned? Even the government won't come out and state the bleeding obvious because they will look "weak". I think i need to go and lie down and rest my aching noggin but before I go I assure you I am not a Blairite running dog and will be voting for the Lib Dems.

p.s. rats, just realised I'm still at work: the lie down'll have to wait



Edit: oopsy daisy, this should really be in Politics shouldn't it? I don't think I can move it though can I?

 

[richardm]

I saw Question Time last night and William Hague said something like
"Well, you can say what you like about the rest of the figures but we know violent crime is rising"
Really, how is that exactly William? Anecdotal evidence in the Sun? The front page of the Daily Mail?

Yes, that's right. For many politicians it doesn't matter what the reality is so long as newspapers your core supporters read get the "right" message across.

You're probably right also that the government can't come out and say "it's not as bad as that" because they'll then be seen as complacent or soft. 'Cos everyone "knows" that the country is going to the dogs, can't walk the streets in safety, why, I was murdered three times last week and the police wouldn't come round etc, etc.

Having said that, I haven't looked at the data personally, but didn't the BBC said something along the lines of "Crime is down, but one of the surveys showed an increase in violent crime"? Or was that "an increase in violent crime as a proportion of all crime"? Or something else?

Edit: oopsy daisy, this should really be in Politics shouldn't it? I don't think I can move it though can I?

We mere mortals can't, but there are people here with Powers. Powers, I tell 'ee!

 

[richardm]

.. Violent crime appears to be increasing as a proportion of crime, according to the BBC.

 

[Darat]

The wonderful Daily Mail, more logical contradictions then you can shake a stick at.

You'd almost think that the politicians were more interested about getting into or remaining in power then being truthful and wanting the best for their constituents.

As for crime, you do realise that most of it is caused by immigrants? Yesterday I was told by a UKIP party worker at my door that the police are not allowed to report crimes made by these "illegal immigrants" and most of them come from countries where there is no rule of law. I did ask where he got his facts from, but apparently this knowledge is being suppressed... asked how he knew about it... well he just did.

I suspect people’s views on crime are not formed by statistics but by the newspapers and other media stories, a bit like the “problem” of defending yourself in your own home, the “problem” with immigration, the “problem” with asylum seekers, the “problem” with the MMR vaccine and so on.

Indeed isn’t it ironic the fact that the Daily Mail and most other newspapers thought the attack on the woman warranted front-pages since that would seem to be an indication that crimes of such violence are still a very rare occurrence in this country?

 

[asthmatic camel]

Hang on a moment... behind all the number crunching, although there seems to have been some decrease in levels of crime, the present levels are still frighteningly high.

Statistics are little comfort to the millions of victims who suffer every year.

 

[Darat]

Hang on a moment... behind all the number crunching, although there seems to have been some decrease in levels of crime, the present levels are still frighteningly high.

Statistics are little comfort to the millions of victims who suffer every year.

Societies I believe have the level of crime they are willing to accept. Crime is committed by members of society after all criminals also have families and so on. I know a lot of people who don’t seem to relate what they do to creating a society that tolerates and to some extent encourages crime. For instance everyone who buys something that they know is “knocked off” is contributing to making this a society that tolerates crime.

 

[Reginald]

As I understand it, the bigger figures, the more spectacular ones that were sent out to various areas by the Tory party are based on the new method of recording. Basically if three people are attacked in one incident it is now recorded as three assaults. Before, when the recording was less detailed it may have simply been recorded as one "crime". It may even have been recorded as a lesser crime, maybe one of the less offensive sounding "drink" related crimes.

The fact that the figures are being recorded accurately I see as a credit to the government, at the end of the day in order to make any corrective measure count you must realistically know what needs fixing.

The discredit the conservatives have done themselves here is to try and compare these "enhanced" figures with the old style figures. Now it would be easy to say "But surely anyone with a modicum of common sense could see that the figures record different things", but I'm afraid that to me, most people don't care, they just take the stats as they come, without question.

That's why misrepresentation is such an easy game to play, same as in the asylum seeker figures and the outbreaks of MRSA. Bung out what figures you like, get your reaction then apologise very quietly at a later date that you were in "error" or there was a typo.

The damage is still done. As for the association of the recent case of the poor lady stabbed in the neck and these crime statistics, its quite shameful. Given that ALL parties use statistics to prove a point, the only possible target for this kind of disgrace can be any party who are defending the statistics as "improving"... the point of the thing I suppose.

For all complaints about records and statistics, I find it hard in my mind to imagine a government functioning without them.

 

[asthmatic camel]

Societies I believe have the level of crime they are willing to accept. Crime is committed by members of society after all criminals also have families and so on. I know a lot of people who don’t seem to relate what they do to creating a society that tolerates and to some extent encourages crime. For instance everyone who buys something that they know is “knocked off” is contributing to making this a society that tolerates crime.

I have to disagree with you there. The majority of crime is perpetrated by a minority of recidivists who are well known to the authorities, and arrested and released time after time.

I , personally, don't know anyone who considers current levels of crime acceptable. Do you?

 

[richardm]

Hang on a moment... behind all the number crunching, although there seems to have been some decrease in levels of crime, the present levels are still frighteningly high.

Statistics are little comfort to the millions of victims who suffer every year.

Some decrease? On the most pessimistic survey, the figures are at their lowest level in 20 years. Surely some credit should be due?

 

[Skeptic]

The problem, I am afraid, is that even the "lower" crime rate celbrated here are still very high. To say that "crime stopped increasing", after four decades of relentless increase in crime, is little comfort. What is needed is not a comparison of, say, the crime rate of 2000 to that of 2005, but a comparison of both to the crime rate in 1950 and an explanation as to why it grew expodentially since then. According to the home office's own report, crime rates (in general) had increase about tenfold in a generation and a half. See the graphs on p. 19 and 21 in particular.

That being the case, the outrage at those who distort the statistics to make crime look worse than it is is a bit like the outrage expressed by the letter writer complaining about the Monty Python sketch where sailors are engaged in cannibalism: how there Monty Python say there is cannibalism in the navy, when it is well-known they've got the problem relatively under control?

This seems to be the government's attitude in this case: how come people are still whining about crime, when the crime rate decreased and is now only 9.7 times as high, not 11.3 as high, as it was in the 1950s? Surely being burglared, on the average, only once a years instead of twice or three times is cause for celebration?

 

[asthmatic camel]

Some decrease? On the most pessimistic survey, the figures are at their lowest level in 20 years. Surely some credit should be due?

Did I say otherwise? My point was that despite a reduction, crime levels are still enormous.

 

[richardm]

This seems to be the government's attitude in this case: how come people are still whining about crime, when the crime rate decreased and is now only 9.7 times as high, not 11.3 as high, as it was in the 1950s? Surely being burglared, on the average, only once a years instead of twice or three times is cause for celebration?

It's not exactly a cause for dancing in the streets (someone would probably steal the PA), but this government has overseen a reversal of the previous trend that crime rates were going up. I can only see that as a good thing, and would like to see it continue.

Yes, the numbers are too high, but the current policy set appears to be working and should be retained and improved to keep those numbers coming down as much as possible. I have little faith that the Conservatives are capable of doing that, for all their tough-talking rhetoric. The last Tory government didn't do much good in that direction.

 

[Rolfe]

Statistics simply don't have the capacity to alter the entrenched beliefs of politicians. Or maybe of most people. The entrenched belief is that crime is rising, so we all know that it is, and damn the figures!

As a parallel, I recall an item on The Money Programme some years ago about the economics of Scottish independence. Part of the programme was a detailed presentation from an economist who had studied the subject in great detail, and performed some very sophisticated computer modelling, and concluded that on balance the economic argument was slightly weighted in favour of independence. Then the usual suspects came back on, and proceeded to talk about the huge economic disadvantages of independence, just as if the preceding illustration simply wasn't there. It's an article of faith that an independent Scotland would be economically disadvantaged, and the people who hold to it won't be swayed by actual facts.

It's an article of faith that crime is rising, and that, I'm afraid, is that.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

I have to disagree with you there. The majority of crime is perpetrated by a minority of recidivists who are well known to the authorities, and arrested and released time after time.

If these people are known and are allowed to continue to commit the crimes then I'd say that society is allowing it.

I , personally, don't know anyone who considers current levels of crime acceptable. Do you?

Well I actually do, as far as I can tell we don’t have terrible problems with crime at the moment. Yes I'd like to see less, but that I believe is unreasonable to expect crime to ever disappear.

Certainly I don’t buy into the idea that crime is significantly (overall) worse then it was say 25 years ago. (Not to say that more crime isn’t reported, and there is a much higher perception of crime.)

 

[Darat]

The problem, I am afraid, is that even the "lower" crime rate celbrated here are still very high. To say that "crime stopped increasing", after four decades of relentless increase in crime, is little comfort. What is needed is not a comparison of, say, the crime rate of 2000 to that of 2005, but a comparison of both to the crime rate in 1950 and an explanation as to why it grew expodentially since then. According to the home office's own report, crime rates (in general) had increase about tenfold in a generation and a half. See the graphs on p. 19 and 21 in particular.

That being the case, the outrage at those who distort the statistics to make crime look worse than it is is a bit like the outrage expressed by the letter writer complaining about the Monty Python sketch where sailors are engaged in cannibalism: how there Monty Python say there is cannibalism in the navy, when it is well-known they've got the problem relatively under control?

This seems to be the government's attitude in this case: how come people are still whining about crime, when the crime rate decreased and is now only 9.7 times as high, not 11.3 as high, as it was in the 1950s? Surely being burglared, on the average, only once a years instead of twice or three times is cause for celebration?

But looking at those graphs it appears we are again talking about reported crime figures. I would expect because of other changes in society that these would have seen a terrific increase in the last 50 years even if not one additional crime had actually been committed. (Types of crimes which are now reported and recorded, changes in society that mean crimes that wouldn’t have been reported at one time now are and so on.)

 

[Skeptic]

But looking at those graphs it appears we are again talking about reported crime figures. I would expect because of other changes in society that these would have seen a terrific increase in the last 50 years even if not one additional crime had actually been committed.

I never understood how this argument is supposed to work. Granted, some types of crime--especially rape and domestic violence--were underreported in the past. But burglaries? Murder? Assault?

What reason--except for the very tenfold increase they attempt to "explain"--is there to suppose that such crimes were ever underreported, let alone by such a huge margin?

 

[richardm]

But burglaries? Murder? Assault?

What reason--except for the very tenfold increase they attempt to "explain"--is there to suppose that such crimes were ever underreported, let alone by such a huge margin?

Well, for assault it's quite easy. Fights after the pub on a Friday night would go unreported. Now with CCTV they get acted upon and arrests are made. Furthermore, with the new rules they're not reported as "An incident", but each participant is listed separately. Previously this wouldn't be done unless people were charged.

 

[Skeptic]

Well, for assault it's quite easy. Fights after the pub on a Friday night would go unreported.

How many assaults, of the total number of assaults allegedly "underreported" in the 1950s, were "Friday night fights in the pub"? I find it hard to believe that, in the 50s, there were ten times as many unreported pub fights as all other assaults put together, which is about the ratio you would need. Surely somebody would have noticed this before--tourists at the time, perhaps?

Also, are friday nights fights in the pubs today prosecuted with such vigilance? If anything, it seems that today such fights are considered to be normal behavior, and the police are more likely than in the past to ignore it as not worth their time.

 

[asthmatic camel]

If these people are known and are allowed to continue to commit the crimes then I'd say that society is allowing it.




Well I actually do, as far as I can tell we don’t have terrible problems with crime at the moment. Yes I'd like to see less, but that I believe is unreasonable to expect crime to ever disappear.

Certainly I don’t buy into the idea that crime is significantly (overall) worse then it was say 25 years ago. (Not to say that more crime isn’t reported, and there is a much higher perception of crime.)

Darat, you've given some idea of the area in which you live over time. I can assure you that, were you to live where I do, your perception of crime would be very different.

Since Labour came to power, our vehicles have been broken into/stolen/written off over 20 times. The police caught three of the criminals, all of whom were well known to them as repeat offenders. How did they catch them? One was caught because I physically apprehended him. Another was caught because my neighbour spotted him and phoned the police. The third was caught because he was too junked-up to turn the headlights on when he stole my car.

All three are multiple offenders well known to the police. All three have been to prison more than once. All three have cost us thousands of pounds which we are unable to recover.

To be honest, I find your claim that we have the level of crime that we deserve quite offensive.

 

[Darat]

Darat, you've given some idea of the area in which you live over time. I can assure you that, were you to live where I do, your perception of crime would be very different.

Granted over the last 2 years I've lived in a very "nice" area in the South East, before that I however lived in Battersea in London (on one of the council estates albeit in a private flat in a lo-rise), previous to that I lived in North Manchester in a high-rise, I even lived for a time in Moss Side in one of the notorious blocks now long "redeveloped" i.e. demolished. So my experience is not limited to just a nice area.

Since Labour came to power, our vehicles have been broken into/stolen/written off over 20 times.

...snip...

But you aren’t saying that is related to Labour and their policies are you? In many ways I believe the government in power has remarkable few tools to alter such things as crime levels.

...snip...

To be honest, I find your claim that we have the level of crime that
we deserve quite offensive.

Why offensive? I've never said you deserve to be the victim of a crime? Are you saying that as I believe Thatcher once remarkable announced "there is no such thing as society"? If you aren’t then surely we do have the level of crime we are willing to tolerate? I can’t see how we can conclude anything else?