|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 31, 2024 7:23:32 GMT
I was listening to the BBC's Home Editor, Mark Easton, talking about how crime (including violent crime) is on a long term (over 30 years) downward curve. Only Mark Easton could spout this stuff with a straight face.
The Crime Survey is said to be more accurate than police figures because the police have been playing ducks and drakes with the crime figures for years (in particular deleting/not recording crimes in order to meet govt targets). However the Crime Survey also has its own problems. For a start it's a "poll" so its accuracy is highly dependent on how representative their sample is. I have certainly never been polled and I don't know anybody who has. Also the survey relies on talking to people about their own experiences - so it necessarily excludes those who are victims of murder.
Nevertheless this is the kind of BS that we're fed by the liberal Left BBC. Basically we shouldn't be worrying about crime because it's going down. Pull the other one. Hardly a week goes by without some kind of atrocity usually perpetrated by immigrants (or the offspring thereof).
I'm annoyed. This latest attack on a dance class is the final straw. I thought the Manchester Arena attack (which killed 22) was bad but absolutely NOTHING changed. The politicians just mouth platitudes and the police are still frightened to do anything about "ethnics" for fear of inciting a race riot. Yet they come down like a tone of bricks on the likes of Tommy Robinson and the EDL Right wingers are the true evil. I despair.
|
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Jul 31, 2024 9:12:45 GMT
Dont believe any official stats, its all bull. The Southport reaction hopefully is the start to kicking these as sholes out. Im refeering to the establishment, labour tories etc. Thee whole thing is sick.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 31, 2024 9:19:55 GMT
Dont believe any official stats, its all bull. The Southport reaction hopefully is the start to kicking these as sholes out. Im refeering to the establishment, labour tories etc. Thee whole thing is sick. But way less "bull" than angry-joe-blogs reading the Daily Heil and getting angry about "bloody furriners". All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 31, 2024 9:49:08 GMT
Dont believe any official stats, its all bull. The Southport reaction hopefully is the start to kicking these as sholes out. Im refeering to the establishment, labour tories etc. Thee whole thing is sick. But way less "bull" than angry-joe-blogs reading the Daily Heil and getting angry about "bloody furriners". All The Best I think you're wrong PV - not for the first time. There's a lot of truth that's spoken by "angry-joe-blogs". And there's a lot of bollocks spoken by the the liberal left. It seems to me that the lefty idea that crime is going down is an example of Hitler's dictum, that if you're going to tell lies tell big ones - because people are more likely to believe them. And the "angry joe" claim that it's "bloody furriners" is pretty much on the money. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 31, 2024 11:17:26 GMT
But way less "bull" than angry-joe-blogs reading the Daily Heil and getting angry about "bloody furriners". All The Best I think you're wrong PV - not for the first time. There's a lot of truth that's spoken by "angry-joe-blogs". And there's a lot of bollocks spoken by the the liberal left. It seems to me that the lefty idea that crime is going down is an example of Hitler's dictum, that if you're going to tell lies tell big ones - because people are more likely to believe them. And the "angry joe" claim that it's "bloody furriners" is pretty much on the money. Even if there was a "angry-joe-blogs" in every pub in the land spouting the same shite it would not mean that they were right about the whole country. Anecdotal evidence is just that, anecdotal, it ONLY become statistically reliable when it is piled together in a sufficient mass, and checked for bias. You admit they are telling lies, just following Hitler in how they want to lie to people; probably not a good gambit, likely to backfire. I have concerns about the number of immigrants to this country who are committing crimes. I am not 100% certain, but strongly suspect, that as a percentage it is significantly higher than the "national average". However, I also suspect that some ethnic groups are more likely to commit crime than others, and that some ethnic groups will even be committing crime at below the national average rate. Which is why to me it is 100% vital we only target the actual criminals, not the ethnic group they represent. The vast majority of high-end white-collar-crime is carried out by white people, does that mean all white people should be treated as criminals? I don't think it does. For the record, I think that any Foreign National, even those with a "right to remain" who commits a crime that results in more than 3 Month's prison time should have their "right to remain" revoked, and upon completion of sentence should be removed from the country. Furthermore, having committed such a crime I firmly believe that any mitigating circumstances as to why they should not be returned to their country of origin (fear of persecution etc) should be ignored. They came to out country, we offered them shelter, they spat on that by committing a crime, they should not get another second chance. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 31, 2024 13:16:27 GMT
I think you're wrong PV - not for the first time. There's a lot of truth that's spoken by "angry-joe-blogs". And there's a lot of bollocks spoken by the the liberal left. It seems to me that the lefty idea that crime is going down is an example of Hitler's dictum, that if you're going to tell lies tell big ones - because people are more likely to believe them. And the "angry joe" claim that it's "bloody furriners" is pretty much on the money. Even if there was a "angry-joe-blogs" in every pub in the land spouting the same shite it would not mean that they were right about the whole country. Anecdotal evidence is just that, anecdotal, it ONLY become statistically reliable when it is piled together in a sufficient mass, and checked for bias. You admit they are telling lies, just following Hitler in how they want to lie to people; probably not a good gambit, likely to backfire. I have concerns about the number of immigrants to this country who are committing crimes. I am not 100% certain, but strongly suspect, that as a percentage it is significantly higher than the "national average". However, I also suspect that some ethnic groups are more likely to commit crime than others, and that some ethnic groups will even be committing crime at below the national average rate. Which is why to me it is 100% vital we only target the actual criminals, not the ethnic group they represent. The vast majority of high-end white-collar-crime is carried out by white people, does that mean all white people should be treated as criminals? I don't think it does. For the record, I think that any Foreign National, even those with a "right to remain" who commits a crime that results in more than 3 Month's prison time should have their "right to remain" revoked, and upon completion of sentence should be removed from the country. Furthermore, having committed such a crime I firmly believe that any mitigating circumstances as to why they should not be returned to their country of origin (fear of persecution etc) should be ignored. They came to out country, we offered them shelter, they spat on that by committing a crime, they should not get another second chance. All The Best You got one thing right. Plainly the police should target criminals regardless of ethnicity. But the problem is that they DON'T. The figures on crime broken down by ethnicity show, for example, that blacks are vastly over-represented in crime (especially violent crime) - about 8 to 1 relative to the average. But if the pollce stop more blacks than whites they're accused of prejudice. T he same goes for muslims who are over-represented in different crimes. But if, for example a security officer (or the pollce) stops a muslim he's accused of racism. The muslim who killed 22 and maimed countless more people at the Manchester Arena had been pointed out to security by many people - but none of them challenged him because of fears of being accused of islamophobia. Albanians are over-represented in our prison population by 13 to 1. The list goes on. Yet nothing changes. Muslims get away with murder, literally, while white people are treated like second class citizens. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 31, 2024 13:26:13 GMT
If I recall correctly, the BCS is a household survey and excludes many crime types:
Crimes against businesses, like shoplifting. Sexual offences, crimes against minors etc. etc.
I've always wondered what the point of it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 31, 2024 13:40:43 GMT
I think the point was that the police figures are so unreliable, for many reasons. But the Crime Survey is also unreliable. To try and claim that violent crime is on a long term decline is plainly ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 31, 2024 13:41:43 GMT
Even if there was a "angry-joe-blogs" in every pub in the land spouting the same shite it would not mean that they were right about the whole country. Anecdotal evidence is just that, anecdotal, it ONLY become statistically reliable when it is piled together in a sufficient mass, and checked for bias. You admit they are telling lies, just following Hitler in how they want to lie to people; probably not a good gambit, likely to backfire. I have concerns about the number of immigrants to this country who are committing crimes. I am not 100% certain, but strongly suspect, that as a percentage it is significantly higher than the "national average". However, I also suspect that some ethnic groups are more likely to commit crime than others, and that some ethnic groups will even be committing crime at below the national average rate. Which is why to me it is 100% vital we only target the actual criminals, not the ethnic group they represent. The vast majority of high-end white-collar-crime is carried out by white people, does that mean all white people should be treated as criminals? I don't think it does. For the record, I think that any Foreign National, even those with a "right to remain" who commits a crime that results in more than 3 Month's prison time should have their "right to remain" revoked, and upon completion of sentence should be removed from the country. Furthermore, having committed such a crime I firmly believe that any mitigating circumstances as to why they should not be returned to their country of origin (fear of persecution etc) should be ignored. They came to out country, we offered them shelter, they spat on that by committing a crime, they should not get another second chance. All The Best You got one thing right. Plainly the police should target criminals regardless of ethnicity. But the problem is that they DON'T. The figures on crime broken down by ethnicity show, for example, that blacks are vastly over-represented in crime (especially violent crime) - about 8 to 1 relative to the average. But if the pollce stop more blacks than whites they're accused of prejudice. T he same goes for muslims who are over-represented in different crimes. But if, for example a security officer (or the pollce) stops a muslim he's accused of racism. The muslim who killed 22 and maimed countless more people at the Manchester Arena had been pointed out to security by many people - but none of them challenged him because of fears of being accused of islamophobia. Albanians are over-represented in our prison population by 13 to 1. The list goes on. Yet nothing changes. Muslims get away with murder, literally, while white people are treated like second class citizens. Yeah, I get all that. But not one of the ethnic groups you have mentioned a 100% criminal activity rate. Let's be frank here, stop and search is lazy policing. It works on the "if we stop enough people sooner or later random chance means we'll find a genuine suspect". Is that really how we want our police to work? Would you expect an NHS appointment to lead to you having random procedures until they found the one that actually worked? Or would you expect the NHS to target the procedures you do have specifically at what has been diagnosed wrong with you? The Police have been severely cur under the Tory regime, even the much vaunted recruitment push of their final few years in office did not take police numbers back to the level they were when the Tories came into office - that is how little the Tories care about law and order. Stop and Search is used in lieu of properly funded community policing backing up intelligence led policing to prevent crime as well as pick the pieces up after the fact. Yes, I get that far too much Police time is wasted on pointless tick-box form filling, so yes that needs to be addressed as well. But SOME of that tick-box form-filling is needed ensure the Police are doing their jobs properly. Until about 1988 - 1990 the village I live in had a Police House, with a resident village bobby, who knew everyone by name, and on the rare occasions a crime did occur he was a) right there on the scene within minutes, and b) likely to have a damn good idea of what went on because he was embedded within the community. I think it has been roughly 10 months since I last saw a even a Police Car in the village. That's not to say there is no crime, petty vandalism and a minor shoplifting go on almost weekly, but the chances of getting a copper out here to do anything about it is zero. I know for a fact that two houses on my street are involved in weed distribution, I also know for a fact that it has been reported to the police on numerous occasions; nothing has been done. A year or so back a guy in the village, with a criminal record for violence toward women, threatened to bash my mother's head in, she now wears a body-cam whenever she leaves the house; did the police do anything? No, of course not. I did, he has no doubts about the consequences of him laying a finger on my mother, and neither do I, I will end up in prison. I am not proud of that, I genuinely wish I hadn't needed to do it; but the police were simply not interested. At the root of things we need more Police on the streets, and that means more costs, and that means Tax Increases. Taxation is the price you pay to live in a civilised society. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Aug 1, 2024 6:36:18 GMT
A very, very silly post, PV. Stop and search is used basically to try and find people who are carrying drugs or knives. There's no other way of doing it. The police just use their nous to stop likely culprits. And they don't like to waste their time stopping innocent people - like little old ladies. They tend to stop many more blacks than other races but that's because they're the people who are most involved in knife crime. If the police found that none of them were "carrying" they wouldn't stop them.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 1, 2024 9:20:14 GMT
A very, very silly post, PV. Stop and search is used basically to try and find people who are carrying drugs or knives. There's no other way of doing it. The police just use their nous to stop likely culprits. And they don't like to waste their time stopping innocent people - like little old ladies. They tend to stop many more blacks than other races but that's because they're the people who are most involved in knife crime. If the police found that none of them were "carrying" they wouldn't stop them. Given that 71% of Stop and Search lead to no further action it is abundantly clear the Police are VERY MUCH stopping Innocent People. SourceOf course what would be really interesting is what percentage of the S&S that lead to "no further action" involved people from ethnic minorities. If they are genuinely only stopping "likely culprits" you'd expect the percentage of "no further action" to be evenly distributed across all ethnicities. All The Best |
|
ginnyg2
Full Member
Don't blame me - I voted for someone else.
Posts: 408
|
Post by ginnyg2 on Aug 1, 2024 9:36:55 GMT
I was an interviewer on the BCS (British crime Survey) for 10 years. How it works is as follows:
You are given 32 addresses in a target postcode area, and have to attempt an interview at each one.
When making contact at the address you have to go through a selection procedure to ensure you get a cross-section of young/old/male/female respondents.
Children can be interviewed with parental consent, and they can complete an interview on the computer for privacy concerns.
In the event of coming across "deadwood" (empty property) you may conduct interviews at adjacent properties in order to achieve targets.
The interview asks questions about the respondent's experience of crime - especially minor crime such as vandalism and anti-social behaviour, logging that which has not been reported to the police.
The respondent is also asked questions about the area and how safe they feel - especially at night.
As well as logging unreported crime, the survey also gathers information as to the ethnic make up of an area, occupancy, employment, available facilities and any other problems that emerge during the course of the interview. Interestingly, every are has at least one empty property. Maybe we don't need millions of new homes after all!
It must be of use otherwise they wouldn't still be doing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Aug 1, 2024 12:23:06 GMT
A very, very silly post, PV. Stop and search is used basically to try and find people who are carrying drugs or knives. There's no other way of doing it. The police just use their nous to stop likely culprits. And they don't like to waste their time stopping innocent people - like little old ladies. They tend to stop many more blacks than other races but that's because they're the people who are most involved in knife crime. If the police found that none of them were "carrying" they wouldn't stop them. Given that 71% of Stop and Search lead to no further action it is abundantly clear the Police are VERY MUCH stopping Innocent People. SourceOf course what would be really interesting is what percentage of the S&S that lead to "no further action" involved people from ethnic minorities. If they are genuinely only stopping "likely culprits" you'd expect the percentage of "no further action" to be evenly distributed across all ethnicities.All The Best Yes I would expect the percentage of "no further action" to be distributed fairly evenly. Are you saying that it's not. Show me your source. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Aug 1, 2024 12:29:22 GMT
I was an interviewer on the BCS (British crime Survey) for 10 years. How it works is as follows: You are given 32 addresses in a target postcode area, and have to attempt an interview at each one. When making contact at the address you have to go through a selection procedure to ensure you get a cross-section of young/old/male/female respondents. Children can be interviewed with parental consent, and they can complete an interview on the computer for privacy concerns. In the event of coming across "deadwood" (empty property) you may conduct interviews at adjacent properties in order to achieve targets. The interview asks questions about the respondent's experience of crime - especially minor crime such as vandalism and anti-social behaviour, logging that which has not been reported to the police. The respondent is also asked questions about the area and how safe they feel - especially at night. As well as logging unreported crime, the survey also gathers information as to the ethnic make up of an area, occupancy, employment, available facilities and any other problems that emerge during the course of the interview. Interestingly, every are has at least one empty property. Maybe we don't need millions of new homes after all! It must be of use otherwise they wouldn't still be doing it. Interesting. Any idea how they select the postcodes that they survey? That's the crucial thing - that and what proportion of the population they survey. It does look like that it's skewed towards less serious crime, but the BBC is using its results to say that violent crime has been declining for many decades. I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 1, 2024 12:54:22 GMT
Given that 71% of Stop and Search lead to no further action it is abundantly clear the Police are VERY MUCH stopping Innocent People. SourceOf course what would be really interesting is what percentage of the S&S that lead to "no further action" involved people from ethnic minorities. If they are genuinely only stopping "likely culprits" you'd expect the percentage of "no further action" to be evenly distributed across all ethnicities.All The Best Yes I would expect the percentage of "no further action" to be distributed fairly evenly. Are you saying that it's not. Show me your source. It is quite clear I am not saying anything. The sentence before the one you emboldened clearly states that such a breakdown would be interesting. Now, it may be that information is in the link I provided, I have not read the whole thing. However, that 71% of stops result in no further action clearly indicates that this is not plod stopping "likely suspects" - they are stopping people just in the vain hope they'll get a collar. All The Best |
|
