Crime, is it coming or going?

[budda]

As you may know a raft of crime figures came out yesterday painting an odd picture of crime in the UK.

Overall recorded crime fell again, same as (I think) every year Labour has been in power.

However, recorded violent crime has gone up by 9%, but the British Crime Survey says that its gone down.

Thoughts?

[seeker]

It depends WHAT you label "crime",and WHO does the labelling.


seeker

[budda]

It depends WHAT you label "crime",and WHO does the labelling.


Facinating. As always Seeker you get to the heart of the matter and making it boring.

[Aladdin]

Well the overall crime has gone down. And that is good.

Violent crime has gone up- that's not good. Any type of crime that goes up is bad. However, the overal crime has gone down, and that is the most important thing.

Naturally those with agendas see fit to pick and choose whichever statistics suit them...

[seeker]

Facinating. As always Seeker you get to the heart of the matter

Fact


and making it boring.

Opinion



seeker

[Rich Kid]

Its crimes of violence against the person and burglaries that really concern people, and its interesting to see that such crimes have risen and the gun culture in our larger cities is increasing

A question I'd like to raise is the issue of reporting crime. For example if you're a retailer, shoplifting costs the UK consumer in excess of £1.8 Billion per year, (thats based on 2000-01 from the BRC), so current figures are probably much higher. It is a major criminal activity and often has strong links with drugs.
Yet shoplifting, or retail crime in general, isn't on the Police radar!
The government don't include it in their community crime reduction plans nor do local councils, so this whole area of crime becomes "invisible".
Retailers are so fed up waiting for the police to arrive to arrest a shoplifter they often let them go, & Blunkett has made it a non-criminal offence for thefts under £200. What about the druggie who hits 5 shops for £150?
Most of the £1.8 Billion per year stolen from shops ends up in drug dealers pockets, yet the actual crime that produced the money in the first place isn't even recognised as such!

So if this crime is "massaged away", I am dubious about the so-called crime reduction figures overall.

[budda]

Violent crime has gone up- that's not good. Any type of crime that goes up is bad. However, the overal crime has gone down, and that is the most important thing....

Strangely though the government thinks the British Crime Survey is more accurate, and gives a better picture of crime because it also allows for non reporting.

Plus I heard on Radio 4 that in 60% of cases which are recorded as violent there is no actual injury.

[budda]

Most of the £1.8 Billion per year stolen from shops ends up in drug dealers pockets, yet the actual crime that produced the money in the first place isn't even recognised as such! .

Perhaps if we removed drug dealers by legally supplying addicts then this wouldnt happen.

[Rich Kid]

Well the overall crime has gone down. And that is good.

I don't believe it, nor do many other people in this country. The level of reported crime may overall show a decrease but thats only because people are fed up and frustrated by the slow response by the Police and the lack of action thereafter.

What about the actual solving of crimes reported? Our rates in this country are abysmal, again it fuels peoples fear that theres little point in reporting crime because they never get solved.
Our Police have been reduced to office workers and social workers cowered by the PC-driven agenda.

[Aladdin]

Strangely though the government thinks the British Crime Survey is more accurate, and gives a better picture of crime because it also allows for non reporting.

Plus I heard on Radio 4 that in 60% of cases which are recorded as violent there is no actual injury. Now that you mention it I'd like to know what 'officially' constitutes a violent crime (cases where physical force is applied against an individual are obvious of course).

Would forced entry into a house be considered violent crime? Or smash-and-grab vehicle crime?

[budda]

Our Police have been reduced to office workers and social workers cowered by the PC-driven agenda.

What does that even mean?

[Senor Miguel]

i do think a lot of petty crime goes unreported, because as RK says the culprits will never get caught.......phone and bag snatchers aren't life threatening but they are fucking annoying.......as for the overall trends, i think people are a lot safer than they think.........incidentally i do think younger people are more of a menace than they used to be, vandalism, threatening behaviour, 10 year olds cruising the street in a crew i mean wtf.......all i can say is i feel a lot safer in the country than when in a city, even tho i have never had a problem regarding crime.......because there are more people in a concentrated area, the likelihood of a crime per square foot is probably higher, and this is why people are afraid, they hear a lot of stories, the chances of a crime actually happening to them is fairly low.........

[budda]

I've always felt safer in London than I ever do in smaller market towns, especially if you are going out for the night. There seems to be far more drunken brawls in smaller towns.

[seeker]

Now that you mention it I'd like to know what 'officially' constitutes a violent crime (cases where physical force is applied against an individual are obvious of course).


For example, TAXATION ,or is that UNofficial?


seeker

[Rich Kid]

Its all a con, don't believe that Labour is reducing crime, its simply hiding crime.

http://www.rense.com/general64/tre.htm

[Aladdin]

LOL... that's an extremely reliable news source, that is... :D

[Blagsta]

Its all a con, don't believe that Labour is reducing crime, its simply hiding crime.

http://www.rense.com/general64/tre.htm

You certainly know how to pick convincing sources don't you?

[budda]

You certainly know how to pick convincing sources don't you?

It is from the Telegraph, which although its right leaning is normally fairly decent.

[Blagsta]

It is from the Telegraph, which although its right leaning is normally fairly decent.

If its from The Telegraph, I'm sure he can find it on The Telegraph's website, not some lunatic conspiracy theory site.

[budda]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml%3Bsessionid%3DIM0SGYJGJSIMJQFIQMFCM5WAV CBQYJVC?xml=/news/2005/04/17/ncrime17.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/17/ixnewstop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=38576

Given that he can be a little slow about sources.

[Blagsta]

Not surprising though is it? All governments do it.

[budda]

I'd also be curious if this took into account the new way of reporting violent crime, in that a pub fight is not one fight, its X number of people fighting, each being a crime.

[Jim V]

just to point out that the posts of no relevance to this debate have been removed

[Rich Kid]

Not surprising though is it? All governments do it.

Oh that makes it right then does it?

According to the National Crime Recording Standards (NCRS), detection rates for all recorded crime for 2003-04 were only 23.5%, the same as the previous year.
Doesn't strike me as being very effective, the odds are stacked in favour of the criminal getting away with it.
So out of 1,400,000 recorded crimes that year, (how many went un-recorded I wonder?), 1,071,000 were not detected, ie the criminals got away scot-free.
No wonder crime is rising, the criminals know when thet're on to a good thing.

Also what I find interesting is what the Police count as "detected crime"

- charging or issuing a summons to an offender
- issuing a caution, reprimand or final warning to an offender
- having the offence accepted for consideration in court
- counting an offence "cleared up" but taking no further action if
offender, victim or essential witness is dead or ill
victim refuses to give evidence
offender is under age
Police or CPS decide that no purpose would be served by prosecution
time limit of 6 months for coming to prosecution has been exceeded

So plenty of ways of massaging the figures. I'd guess if you eliminated the above and included the to-date non-recorded crimes, the detection rate would probably struggle to make double digits.

I don't blame the Police, I lay the blame firmly at Labours door for making the Police's job much harder by all the bureauracy they've introduced.

[Aladdin]

Didn't the government change the way crime is recorded and actually warned that figures would go up as a result? Apparently the previous system was far less accurate.

Now we're being told by some the government is hiding the "true figures"... Mmm...

All bollocks according to Polly Toynbee (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1466087,00.html)

Some extracts:

For all the shocking headlines, figures showing 9% more violence was recorded by the police does not mean violence went up: it almost certainly went down by 10%.
48% of "violent" crime reported in yesterday's figures caused no injury whatsoever.
every 24% rise in prison numbers only cuts crime by 1%

What terrifies is fear that crime is "out of control": fear that the world is going to the dogs is embedded deep in the human psyche. The old think life was better when they were young, translating that personal loss into general pessimism about the present. An aging population will grow more afraid of the scary, lawless young; so unlike their own dear, disciplined days. The universal myth of some golden age set in the imagined time just beyond what we can remember suggests the world has been in moral decline since time began.


So as with many other things, cynical and disgusting manipulation by newspapers with an agenda with push are making people see things far worse than they are actually are. But what's new? They've been doing the same fucking thing with everything else (NHS anyone? :rolleyes: )

[Blagsta]

Oh that makes it right then does it?.

Did I say that? What it does mean however, is that you're barking up the wrong tree. Instead of blaming Labour, how about expanding the terms of the debate a little bit?

[Rich Kid]

Love the Orwellian flavour to the quote:

figures showing 9% more violence was recorded by the police does not mean violence went up: it almost certainly went down by 10%.

What is more worrying for most people is that there are more Police but they're catching fewer criminals

The overall detection rate is disgraceful, and its truly amazing that the number of detections per Police officer is a mere 10 per year.

Why I wonder? Anything to do with Labours obsession with form-filling & red tape?

[budda]

The overall detection rate is disgraceful, and its truly amazing that the number of detections per Police officer is a mere 10 per year.

Source? (he says with no hope at all)

And compared to what? It could have been 1 a year when the Tories were in, none of us know!

[Rich Kid]

Source? (he says with no hope at all)
Read the NCRS.

[budda]

Source? (he says with no hope at all)
Read the NCRS.

I presume you have read them, I've just gone through the 'violence' one http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/countviolence04.pdf

and it seems rather reasonable to me, one crime recorded for each victim.

And yes, more serious crimes do over ride lower ones, as in the I break into your house and kill you is one crime of murder. But this, would actually make the statistics look worse, the level of murders and serious offenses compared to lower ones would be higher.

[Rich Kid]

I was talking about the "inflated" so-called detection rate.

[Aladdin]

What do you think of this, most telling statistic Rich Kid:

"every 24% rise in prison numbers only cuts crime by 1%"


Clearly prison doesn't work. Clearly we have to look beyond the simplistic, and completely useless "lock 'em up and throw away the key" policy, because it will not cut crime.

[Rich Kid]

One reason we need a lot more prisons.

[Aladdin]

What for? Because sure as hell it would not cut crime.

Unless that is you plan to imprison around 15-20 million people at least.

[budda]

One reason we need a lot more prisons.

Because thats working so well in the US isnt it.

[Rich Kid]

The detection rates show that there were 1,071,000 undetected crimes last year. If we catch only a small percentage of them, as of course we should, and would, if Labour got off the Police's back, then we'll need more prisons.

I reckon the actual detection rate is hardly out of single figure which means many criminals are emboldened by the fact that they know theres little chance they'll be caught.

Low detection rates = more encouragement to criminals = more criminals

[Blagsta]

Why do you think people commit crimes Rich Kid?

[Rich Kid]

Why do you think people commit crimes Rich Kid?
Various reasons, drugs, just the fact they're low-life scum, can't be bothered to work, etc

[Aladdin]

Various reasons, drugs, just the fact they're low-life scum, can't be bothered to work, etc With attitudes like that what chance there is of ever cutting down crime?

[/rethorical question] :rolleyes:

[Blagsta]

Various reasons, drugs,

Why do you think some people take drugs?

just the fact they're low-life scum,

What do you mean by this? Do you think people are born bad?

can't be bothered to work, etc

Why do you think some people can't be bothered to work?

[Clandestine]

I'm sure a boastful trust fund kiddie with everything handed to him on a silver platter can tell us firsthand about not having to work for a living.

I wonder if the Christ he claims to so ardently believe and follow would share his views on the disenfranchised being "scum". Hmm lets see now, he consorted with prostitutes and drunkards and condemned the rich and self righteous. The panel says ..... "NEXT contestant please!"

Guess we have yet further demonstration of RK's "phoneyness" shinining through bright and clear!

[Rich Kid]

Why do you think some people take drugs?
No idea. Got a self-destruct button? Thick & stupid? For Gods sake they know the result of drug taking, you'd have to be living your life in a bubble not to know what the end result is.

What do you mean by this? Do you think people are born bad?
We are all born with the stain of "Original Sin" on our souls, some people never get rid of it. Low-life scum are people who simply want to take and contribute nothing to society.

Why do you think some people can't be bothered to work?
Lazy? Prefer living on state handouts and do a bit of thieving on the side? Low-life scum?

[Clandestine]

Low-life scum are people who simply want to take and contribute nothing to society.

Actually that would be the obscenely wealthy and their avaricious corporate structures.

[Rich Kid]

Actually that would be the obscenely wealthy and their avaricious corporate structures.
Pray tell me what knowledge do you have to back up this far-fetched highly generalised misinformed statement?

[Lord Anthony]

Low detection rates = more encouragement to criminals = more criminals

Hello, do you really think that before someone commits a crime they look at the local detection rate for their local police force.

There are many reasons why people commit crimes and I'm pretty sure that most people don't plan on getting caught. If you want to reduce crime you've got to address the reason for it occuring. Ultra tough sentences were tried in the 1800's when you could be hung or transported for stealing food, vandalism of london bridge or for some strange reason, wrongly dressing as a Chelsea Pensioner. Crime however still occured.

[Rich Kid]

According to the published figures of the NCRS:

Last year 1,071,000 crimes were not "detected".

The average rate of "detection" per Police officer is 10 per year.

Question: How many more Police officers do we therefore need to recruit to clear up these undetected crimes?

[Mad Mac]

According to the published figures of the NCRS:

Last year 1,071,000 crimes were not "detected".

The average rate of "detection" per Police officer is 10 per year.

Question: How many more Police officers do we therefore need to recruit to clear up these undetected crimes?
perhaps its quality,not quantity that we need?

[Rich Kid]

perhaps its quality,not quantity that we need?
You could be right Deano.
I just think the average of 10 cases a year per officer is very very low. Its unacceptable.

[Mad Mac]

You could be right Deano.
I just think the average of 10 cases a year per officer is very very low. Its unacceptable.
shocking statistics if they are to be believed.

[Blagsta]

No idea. Got a self-destruct button? Thick & stupid? For Gods sake they know the result of drug taking, you'd have to be living your life in a bubble not to know what the end result is.

Why do you think people might have a self-destruct button? Why do you think some people take drugs anyway, knowing what the end result might be?

We are all born with the stain of "Original Sin" on our souls, some people never get rid of it. Low-life scum are people who simply want to take and contribute nothing to society.

Speak for yourself. I wasn't born with any original sin thanks. Why do you think some people only want to take and not give? (I presume you're not talking about bosses here)

Lazy? Prefer living on state handouts and do a bit of thieving on the side? Low-life scum?

Why do you think that people might prefer living on state handouts? Its not an easy life.



You haven't really answered my questions. You've just said people act bad because they are bad. Its a circular argument.

[Blagsta]

Pray tell me what knowledge do you have to back up this far-fetched highly generalised misinformed statement?

Because thats how capitalism works.

[budda]

Low-life scum are people who simply want to take and contribute nothing to society.


Your posts about New Labour and 'Phoney Blair' I'm not shocked by, your almost total lack of sources I can put up with but this really, deeply saddening.

I ask again, do you have any compassion for your fellow humans at all?

[Rich Kid]

I ask again, do you have any compassion for your fellow humans at all?
I am a very compassionate caring Christian person. I pray for many of you who post on this forum and continually abuse me, but I turn the other cheek and forgive you, for as Jesus said, "they know not what they do".

[budda]

I am a very compassionate caring Christian person. I pray for many of you who post on this forum and continually abuse me, but I turn the other cheek and forgive you, for as Jesus said, "they know not what they do".

Yet you are openly saying you think that there is a sub section of society which are 'scum'.

Are they redeemable in anyway? Or should we maybe just lock them up before they cause anymore trouble?

[Clandestine]

LOL> RK a "caring and compassionate" Christian, now I truly have heard everything.

[Aladdin]

Just like Dubya Clan, just like Dubya... :lol:

[Blagsta]

I am a very compassionate caring Christian person. I pray for many of you who post on this forum and continually abuse me, but I turn the other cheek and forgive you, for as Jesus said, "they know not what they do".

http://www.dqshrine.com/dq/dq3/troll.jpg