PDA

View Full Version : British violent crime underreported by 82%


Silock
06-27-2007, 09:38 AM
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2710596.ece

StcChief
06-27-2007, 09:41 AM
very believable since guns are bad there....

pikesome
06-27-2007, 09:48 AM
A government jiggering data to say what they want it to say? Inconceivable!

Cochise
06-27-2007, 10:11 AM
A government jiggering data to say what they want it to say? Inconceivable!

It seems more like flawed methodology than a concerted effort to deceive.

Silock
06-27-2007, 10:14 AM
Although overall crime is only reduced from 11 to 14 million incidents due to this technique, they somehow managed to hide 82 percent of violent crime in the UK. That isn't a typo. They managed to avoid reporting 82 percent of violent crime in the UK. Violent crime was already pretty high there, but it's actually twice as high as that. Whee.

The answer of course, is to ban guns a second time. Ok, I was joking. This has nothing to do with guns.

patteeu
06-27-2007, 12:23 PM
I think it would be more clear to say that British violent crime is underreported by 45% (with the actual violent crime level from which the underreporting deviates as the baseline). It's still a big number. I wonder what the rationale was behind the 5 crime cap when it was implemented.

patteeu
06-27-2007, 12:26 PM
[T]hey somehow managed to hide 82 percent of violent crime in the UK.

I'm not sure whether you're just saying it wrong or if you misunderstood the article. The methodological limitation hid 45% of violent crime in the UK.

pikesome
06-27-2007, 12:48 PM
It seems more like flawed methodology than a concerted effort to deceive.

But it was flawed on purpose. Guessing at the motivation isn't hard. The limit eliminates two things: 1. a percentage of total crimes which makes the overall problem look better than it is and 2. the numbers of people who are, for whatever reason, victimized repeatably. Both of these things are oblivious to anyone aware of the rule, I don't see how the Gov could hide behind "flawed methodology".

Logical
06-27-2007, 12:56 PM
Do we have some UK BB members? Otherwise I am wondering why this is important.

Radar Chief
06-27-2007, 01:32 PM
Do we have some UK BB members? Otherwise I am wondering why this is important.

The answer of course, is to ban guns a second time. Ok, I was joking. This has nothing to do with guns.

:shrug:

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 01:46 PM
A government jiggering data to say what they want it to say? Inconceivable!
According to some here, this would make you a "conspiracy" theorist! Lol!
As if govt won't protect or be partial its own turf or agendas.

pikesome
06-27-2007, 01:55 PM
According to some here, this would make you a "conspiracy" theorist! Lol!
As if govt won't protect or be partial its own turf or agendas.

There's a limit to how far I think the Gov could/would go (No, 911 was not an inside job) but "cooking books" is a practice as old as the books themselves. It probably dates back to before books. "Hey Dave, how much woolly mammoth have you had?." "Uh, this is my first piece."

Silock
06-27-2007, 02:29 PM
I'm not sure whether you're just saying it wrong or if you misunderstood the article. The methodological limitation hid 45% of violent crime in the UK.

"Violent crime is 82 per cent higher at 4.4 million offences compared with 2.4 million in the BCS, the survey claims,"

In terms of the number of offenses, it's 82% higher than reported.

patteeu
06-27-2007, 02:44 PM
"Violent crime is 82 per cent higher at 4.4 million offences compared with 2.4 million in the BCS, the survey claims,"

In terms of the number of offenses, it's 82% higher than reported.

That's because when you say it that way, the baseline is what has been reported. Higher "than reported."

When you say it the other way, reported violent crimes are 45% lower than actual violent crimes.

Silock
06-27-2007, 02:48 PM
Okay, how about this: There's a 2 million offense difference between reported and actual violent crime, and that's a ****-ton of non-reported offenses to be covering up.

Hog Farmer
06-27-2007, 03:05 PM
94% of all statistics are wrong!

FAX
06-27-2007, 03:16 PM
Ban statistics!!

FAX

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 05:34 PM
94% of all statistics are wrong!
Does this include your 94%? :p

Adept Havelock
06-27-2007, 05:58 PM
Why should we be surprised by this? In the words of one of England's greatest PM's:


There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

Silock
06-27-2007, 07:05 PM
There are three kinds of people in this world: Those who get it, and those who don't.

Adept Havelock
06-27-2007, 08:18 PM
There are three kinds of people in this world: Those who get it, and those who don't.


I thought there were 10 kinds of people. Those that know binary, and those who don't.

Garcia Bronco
06-28-2007, 08:38 PM
I would be more worried about people that have 5 crimes happen to them in a year