|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 1, 2024 13:01:33 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.There is of course the issue of there being a perception of more crime these days because of 24/7 rolling news, and social media as a news outlet, needing to find more "content". Thus incidents that might only have been known about locally 2 decades ago are now regional or even national news items. Anecdotally I don't really see any significant rise in violent crime in my area and I work in the "night time economy" of live entertainment. I have, like almost all of the live entertainment industry, seen a quite significant uptick in unruly and/or anti-social behaviour, but in 15 years in the industry I have only seen it spill over into violence once. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 1, 2024 13:05:08 GMT
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 Nearly 1 in 3 ‘ stop and searches ‘ lead to further action ? |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 1, 2024 13:12:48 GMT
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 Nearly 1 in 3 ‘ stop and searches ‘ lead to further action ? Closer to 1 in 4, than it is to 1 in 3. Yes, quite a low success rate. Suggests there is a significant element of randomness to the "selection process". All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 1, 2024 14:03:39 GMT
Nearly 1 in 3 ‘ stop and searches ‘ lead to further action ? Closer to 1 in 4, than it is to 1 in 3. Yes, quite a low success rate. Suggests there is a significant element of randomness to the "selection process". All The Best I think it’s an overwhelmingly high success rate . 29 out if 100 searches led to further action . Well worth it . |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Aug 1, 2024 15:00:03 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 I'd compare random stop and search by the police to customs officers at airports randomly stopping travellers for further investigation in the customs hall Both stop innocent people who then go on their way Both stop guilty people who can then be dealt with according to the law Both also use intelligence to target transgressors but that can only go so far - random produces the results they would miss |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Aug 2, 2024 6:22:00 GMT
Closer to 1 in 4, than it is to 1 in 3. Yes, quite a low success rate. Suggests there is a significant element of randomness to the "selection process". All The Best I think it’s an overwhelmingly high success rate . 29 out if 100 searches led to further action . Well worth it . I agree - 29% hit rate seems a very high success rate. We're told that about 8 tímes more black people are stopped than the average. I've seen no figures about hit rate broken down by race - I doubt if they exist - but I would expect that the hit rate would be about the same across all ethnic groups. If the police found that stopping led to a lower hit rate they simply stop fewer blacks. There's loads of paperwork associated with S&S and there's no point in stopping innocent people. If the blacks were not breaking the law they wouldn't be stopped. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Aug 2, 2024 6:28:53 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 I'd compare random stop and search by the police to customs officers at airports randomly stopping travellers for further investigation in the customs hall Both stop innocent people who then go on their way Both stop guilty people who can then be dealt with according to the law Both also use intelligence to target transgressors but that can only go so far - random produces the results they would miss Yes, it's basically "profiling" - which is what the liberal Left hate. Í see nothing wrong with profiling. Plainly it's not sensible for the police to stop old ladies - so they don't. Having said that I saw yesterday that the police actually did stop and hand-cuff a 73 year old woman for "rioting" when she was doing nothing. Crazy stuff. But she was white - and the whites are fair game. The wouldn't have handcuffed a muslim. |
|
ginnyg2
Full Member
Don't blame me - I voted for someone else.
Posts: 408
|
Post by ginnyg2 on Aug 2, 2024 9:19:07 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. The survey is ongoing and done on a rolling basis so all UK postcodes are covered periodically. So you may find yourself in the same area 5 years down the line, but at different addresses. Thus crime trends are recorded as to any increase/decrease/types of crime etc.. And yes it is designed to pick up on minor unreported crime, and problems which have previously been unrecorded. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 2, 2024 16:16:29 GMT
I think it’s an overwhelmingly high success rate . 29 out if 100 searches led to further action . Well worth it . I agree - 29% hit rate seems a very high success rate. We're told that about 8 tímes more black people are stopped than the average. I've seen no figures about hit rate broken down by race - I doubt if they exist - but I would expect that the hit rate would be about the same across all ethnic groups. If the police found that stopping led to a lower hit rate they simply stop fewer blacks. There's loads of paperwork associated with S&S and there's no point in stopping innocent people. If the blacks were not breaking the law they wouldn't be stopped. So in any other area of Service Provision that is funded by the Public Purse you'd accept a lowly 29% success rate? So if 71% of GP diagnoses were wrong that would be OK? If your bins only got collected 29% of the time you'd be happy? If MPs only worked 29% of the time we pay them for that's fine? (Hang on, that one may actually be close to being true) If Benefit Fraud was running at 71% you'd consider that acceptable? Of course you wouldn't and don't fucking pretend otherwise. But when 71% of Stop and Search are erroneous, that is OK because it is mostly targeted at ethnic monorities. How very obviously racist of you. You are right, with all the statistical analysis of S&S it would be utterly stupid to stop "innocent people", and yet 71% of the time that is EXACTLY what is happening. And you think it is OK. Edit: Would any of us still be in employment if we only did our job correctly 29% of the time? Must be all that cushy Private Sector employment benefits. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Aug 3, 2024 6:19:15 GMT
Another very silly post PV. BTW I'd say that more than 71% of my GPs' diagnoses are wrong. However we seem to accept that absolutely everyone needs to be searched at an airport - to catch a tiny fraction of a percent of law breakers - so I think stopping a few people "erroneously" is a small price to pay if it saves deaths. And the evidence is that it does save lives. But if you have a better way of doing this let's hear it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 3, 2024 8:34:00 GMT
Another very silly post PV. BTW I'd say that more than 71% of my GPs' diagnoses are wrong. However we seem to accept that absolutely everyone needs to be searched at an airport - to catch a tiny fraction of a percent of law breakers - so I think stopping a few people "erroneously" is a small price to pay if it saves deaths. And the evidence is that it does save lives. But if you have a better way of doing this let's hear it. 1) I think that is a quite obvious lie. 2) If it actually anywhere near close to being true (and face facts it just isn't) then ask for a Second Opinion, or change GP; given that you appear not to have done so I suggest we both know 1) is the truth. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Aug 3, 2024 10:34:38 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. Well, the police figures are subject to Home Office counting rules and strictly audited.
Home Office policy therefore dictates how crimes are to be categorised and recorded and Home Office policy changes according to how the government wants to portray the figures at any given time.
But the BCS is:
(A) Incomplete (see above) and (B) An opinion survey
And let's be fair: Opinions and facts are very different things.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Aug 3, 2024 11:56:02 GMT
Another very silly post PV. BTW I'd say that more than 71% of my GPs' diagnoses are wrong. However we seem to accept that absolutely everyone needs to be searched at an airport - to catch a tiny fraction of a percent of law breakers - so I think stopping a few people "erroneously" is a small price to pay if it saves deaths. And the evidence is that it does save lives. But if you have a better way of doing this let's hear it. 1) I think that is a quite obvious lie. 2) If it actually anywhere near close to being true (and face facts it just isn't) then ask for a Second Opinion, or change GP; given that you appear not to have done so I suggest we both know 1) is the truth. All The Best I resent being called a liar - especially when it's a complete diversion anyway. But the fact is that most of the ailments we get are pretty obvious and we don't need to get the GP to diagnose them. And nowadays we can just use an internet diagnostic tool and type in the symptoms and get a range of possible problems and we can sort it out ourselves.. The problem comes when it's something that's not obvious. I've had a few of these over the years and I can't recall a single occasion where the GP has been of any use. The problem is either cured by the body's immune system or by a consultant. The last health problem I had was never solved by my GP. None of the 3 GPs in my local practice could work out what it was. So it just gradually got worse until it was finally obvious to me what the problem was. And I told them. Most GPs are useless. They're just a gateway that you have to get through to access someone who actually knows something. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Aug 3, 2024 12:19:37 GMT
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 Nearly 1 in 3 ‘ stop and searches ‘ lead to further action ? I'd say that's a pretty good strike rate.
Member of the public says: "Those blokes are dealing drugs" police search the group and one's got drugs on them. That's how it works.
Even if nothing is found, it doesn't make the search wrong: They could have sold the last of the drugs before the police arrived, or ditched them on realising that they'd been rumbled.
(Not having a go at you btw, just saying.)
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 3, 2024 19:33:12 GMT
Nearly 1 in 3 ‘ stop and searches ‘ lead to further action ? I'd say that's a pretty good strike rate.
Member of the public says: "Those blokes are dealing drugs" police search the group and one's got drugs on them. That's how it works.
Even if nothing is found, it doesn't make the search wrong: They could have sold the last of the drugs before the police arrived, or ditched them on realising that they'd been rumbled.
(Not having a go at you btw, just saying.)
Or, far more likely, given the appallingly LOW success rate, never had any drugs in the first place. All The Best |
|
