Third 'keep anti-intruder weapon'

[Marley's Ghost (Imbiber of Spirits)]

Given the tone of this thread, this story from the Daily Mail (I know, I know) might go some way towards explaining the falling crime figures which seem at odds with experiences.

The highlight is:

Small businesses have so little faith in the legal system that they no longer bother reporting crimes that cost them ?19billion a year.

Interesting don't you think? Still believe the figures Mort? If crime is not reported, then the figures will fall, thus giving a false picture.

[Uncle Mort]

The figures come from the British Crime Survey :

How the British Crime Survey (BCS) works

For a variety of reasons, people do not always report crimes to the police - which means they don't get reflected in police recorded crime figures.

The British Crime Survey (BCS) asks people about their actual experiences - and so gives us a more accurate picture of crime levels and trends across England & Wales.

Note: The BCS does not include crimes against businesses or commercial property.

Which makes the Daily Mail article irrelevant on two counts.

[Marley's Ghost (Imbiber of Spirits)]

The figures come from the British Crime Survey :

How the British Crime Survey (BCS) works

For a variety of reasons, people do not always report crimes to the police - which means they don't get reflected in police recorded crime figures.

The British Crime Survey (BCS) asks people about their actual experiences - and so gives us a more accurate picture of crime levels and trends across England & Wales.

Note: The BCS does not include crimes against businesses or commercial property.

Which makes the Daily Mail article irrelevant on two counts.

Maybe, but surely the story is indicative? The job I did (Crime Reduction Officer with local authority FWIW - a post sometimes called Community Safety Officer) involved me being party to the ways in which crime statistics were gathered and reported. I was also fully aware of many changes to the way in which the reporting was performed! And, I can tell you from first hand experience, the one and only aim was to meet targets by finding ways of reducing the numbers. And not by detecting the crimes, but by recording them differently. That applied across the board - business crime, personal crime, burglary, violent crime - the lot.

Their sole aim was to look good for the BCS and others (notably government). All efforts were expended in the areas of the current targets. One year Vehicle Crime was the political hot potato - guess what everyone was doing? Everything they could to get the vehicle crime numbers down and not by actually reducing the number of vehicle crimes necessarily. Meanwhile, burglary (or whatever) which was not one of the hot potatoes got virtually ignored.

That is why I'm so damned cynical about the figures. Because I worked at the pointy end with those figures. You, on the other hand, appear to just be one of those poor misguided individuals who believe everything you see printed emanating from the government.  I suppose you also believe that T Bliar had absolutely nothing to do with the 'Cash for Honours' farrago?

[Misunderstood]

My figures were largely guesswork

My figure of just shy of 33 million (Yeah I exaggerated and said 53 million - so sue me)

I said 1988 - I meant 1981

 

When I say guesswork - of course, what I meant to say was "I used the same methods as the government in compiling the figures.".

 

[Snoopy]

My figures were largely guesswork

My figure of just shy of 33 million (Yeah I exaggerated and said 53 million - so sue me)

I said 1988 - I meant 1981

 

When I say guesswork - of course, what I meant to say was "I used the same methods as the government in compiling the figures.".

 

That'll be the old "Wet your finger and hold it up to see which was the wind is blowing" method will it?

[Uncle Mort]

You, on the other hand, appear to just be one of those poor misguided individuals who believe everything you see printed emanating from the government.  I suppose you also believe that T Bliar had absolutely nothing to do with the 'Cash for Honours' farrago?

I am not a 'poor misguided individual' and I find your remark rude and condescending.

I am aware that the figures produced may be 'massaged' to suit a particular point of view and are only as good as the quality of the the original data provided. I provide business data for National Statistics myself and although I try, sometimes it's more of a 'guestimate'.

However, the data is not going to to be wildly inaccurate and is a good enough basis to work from.

One person's experience may not reflect reality. As was pointed out, the chances of winning the lottery are very remote but someone does win it almost every week. You shouldn't use that someone's experience to extrapolate your chance of winning.

As I wrote 'Data is not the plural of anecdote'

[Landlady]

You, on the other hand, appear to just be one of those poor misguided individuals who believe everything you see printed emanating from the government.  I suppose you also believe that T Bliar had absolutely nothing to do with the 'Cash for Honours' farrago?

I am not a 'poor misguided individual' and I find your remark rude and condescending.

I am aware that the figures produced may be 'massaged' to suit a particular point of view and are only as good as the quality of the the original data provided. I provide business data for National Statistics myself and although I try, sometimes it's more of a 'guestimate'.

However, the data is not going to to be wildly inaccurate and is a good enough basis to work from.

One person's experience may not reflect reality. As was pointed out, the chances of winning the lottery are very remote but someone does win it almost every week. You shouldn't use that someone's experience to extrapolate your chance of winning.

As I wrote 'Data is not the plural of anecdote'

I still can't say I agree with your belief in the data but, like me, you are 100% entitled to your viewpoint. and freedom to voice it.
I'm sure Ghostie didn't mean to be rude or personal.
Let's remember all debate is healthy .............. keeps that grey matter from atrophying     

[Marley's Ghost (Imbiber of Spirits)]

You, on the other hand, appear to just be one of those poor misguided individuals who believe everything you see printed emanating from the government.  I suppose you also believe that T Bliar had absolutely nothing to do with the 'Cash for Honours' farrago?

I am not a 'poor misguided individual' and I find your remark rude and condescending.

I am aware that the figures produced may be 'massaged' to suit a particular point of view and are only as good as the quality of the the original data provided. I provide business data for National Statistics myself and although I try, sometimes it's more of a 'guestimate'.

However, the data is not going to to be wildly inaccurate and is a good enough basis to work from.

One person's experience may not reflect reality. As was pointed out, the chances of winning the lottery are very remote but someone does win it almost every week. You shouldn't use that someone's experience to extrapolate your chance of winning.

As I wrote 'Data is not the plural of anecdote'

Don't get all ruffled Mort, note the words in bold above. I didn't say you were, I said you appear to be.

If you look back over the discussion, I think you'll see why I might have drawn such a conclusion.

I have no doubt about your sincerity, however, others have differing viewpoints, and are just as sincere in their views.

What seems to be sadly lacking is any kind of solid information. I, for one, don't trust a damned thing this government says. They have shown themselves to, at the very least, be economical with the truth on numerous occasions. If they said that today was Wednesday, I'd want independent verification of that!

[Uncle Mort]

I did get a bit ruffled, probably partly due to the liquid lunch I had. Even so, and despite the lack of credibility many people hold with the government I believe that the fear of crime is vastly disproportionate to likelihood of being a victim of crime.

I'm not alone ~ from today's BBC news:

A strategy to move public perception of crime into line with falling figures is due to be launched by ministers.
Despite crime statistics having dropped for the last decade, British people are among the most fearful in Europe.

 

[Marley's Ghost (Imbiber of Spirits)]

I did get a bit ruffled, probably partly due to the liquid lunch I had. Even so, and despite the lack of credibility many people hold with the government I believe that the fear of crime is vastly disproportionate to likelihood of being a victim of crime.

I'm not alone ~ from today's BBC news:

A strategy to move public perception of crime into line with falling figures is due to be launched by ministers.
Despite crime statistics having dropped for the last decade, British people are among the most fearful in Europe.

 

Mort, you are entirely forgiven on the basis of that liquid lunch - what other sort is there?

However, I still take issue with the bit in bold. The figures may have dropped, but is that really a true and accurate reflection?

The way in which crimes are reported within the police farce (sic) has changed. My experience of that was that the changes had the effect of reducing the 'figures' whilst in no way modifying the reality.

Add to that the fact that more and more people are so utterly deluded with the police that they don't even bother to report things anymore, and sure, the figures will go down. The reality may well be different though, but all the government are interested in is the figures.

For a comparison, look at hospital waiting times (and similar NHS targets). One example of what is being done to 'massage' the figures is this:

Hospital trolleys were re-classified as beds to reduce the apparent waiting time in casualty (I'll try and find the reference). They definitely made that re-classification in order to make the figures match the target.

That is the problem with a target driven culture. More time will be spent 'meeting the targets' (or KPIs if you prefer) than actually doing the job!

That is my problem with it all.

[Snoopy]

Living in fear of crime is virtually as bad as being on the receiving end of a crime. Those that suffer at the hands of the criminals and those that fear they will are all victims of crime.
If you are burgled you will experience anger, fear and may even be so traumatised as to want to move away from your violated home. If you live in fear of burglary you can never really feel at peace in your home and that fear follows you wherever you move to. Everybody will experience different levels of fear and everybody will deal with it in their own way.

What the "Man on the Clapham Omnibus" wants is a much more visible police presence on the streets, 24/365.
No amount of fiddled figures or even accurate figures will satisfy the public until they can see the bobbies walking along every street. Home Secretaries et al spouting in Parliament about the money THEY have invested by comparison with the previous incumbent convinces no-one if they cannot see the police officers walking the streets.
More visible bobbies will not necessarily reduce crime but it will give reassurance to the public.

We could then get down to correcting the over-swing of the pendulum towards political correctness and "rights" of criminals and start kicking the shit out of the bastards that mess up so many people's lives by their mere presence.

Of course we could also consider returning to conscription .... a couple of years in the Army would sort some of the modern yoof problems. Paying them to stay on at school doing bugger all except disrupt the lessons for those who are there through choice is not an answer. If they have learned nothing by the age of 16 two more years will make no difference. Bang 'em in the Army and teach them a trade (building Prisons would be a good idea) and let's get back something for our money. Not National Service with a rifle but Service to the Nation with a shovel.

[Uncle Mort]

I see the same debate has kicked off on the BBC website.

Have your say

[Snoopy]

I see the same debate has kicked off on the BBC website.

Have your say

No point ~ I said the same things, more or less, in "another place" some months ago but got shouted down by a few.
As for spouting on the BEEB blog ~ that'll make no difference at the end of the day.
I'm afraid we have to sink or swim on our own and I'm getting too old and tired of the fight to bother any longer ~ another good reason for moving to North Wales .... fewer people + low crime rates = less fear.

[Misunderstood]

My skepticism is born of the fact that I was a government employee tasked with the job (amongst other things) of making the facts fit the figures and presenting them for public consumption as burying the bad news in as favourable a way as possible.

I cannot - obviously - mention the material I had to work with, but a phase in my history still haunts me.

I had to prepare a set of figures to reflect a trend which the government of the day wanted to be as positive as possible about the dramatic improvement in the averages.  I succeeded in showing a 21% improvement which was 6% better than expected.

The following year there was a change of government and the rules of how the data was collated were changed.

That year my figures showed a 49% worsening of the situation which merited severe government intervention to correct the appalling state of affairs.  That culminated in a new Act of Parliament which terminated a government department.

Fair enough, you might say - except - They refused to commission a new set of statistics (economising) and used the very same set of figures of mine from the previous year!

Statistics can say anything you want them to say - Fact!