Crime at lowest level since at least 1981

I'm personally sceptical about any sets of crime figures, there's a great deal of manipulation of figures going on to hit targets and has been for a long time.

This.
I remember mobile phone theft being a particular problem, making theft figures look bad.
So they just changed the category under which mobile phone theft was recorded, making theft figures look better.
 
If IMEI numbers couldn't be changed phone thefts would drop.
It's a network operator issue, technically it's pretty easy.
 
Any figures can be manipulated.
Looking at one year doesn't really tell the full picture. It must be a rolling year on year to show what is really happening.
Hell I could come up with crime figures miles apart just from looking at what was reported on different days where the weather was extreme, never mind different areas or class of people.

The crime survey goes back to 1981 I think. People keep going on about 'reported' crime. The crime survey does not measure reported crime. I'm not sure why no one seems to understand this. Crime has been falling for many years in most western countries, not just UK. So not all down to Shodan then :D

Falling crime: Where have all the burglars gone? | The Economist

Phil
 
The crime survey goes back to 1981 I think. People keep going on about 'reported' crime. The crime survey does not measure reported crime. I'm not sure why no one seems to understand this. Crime has been falling for many years in most western countries, not just UK. So not all down to Shodan then :D

Falling crime: Where have all the burglars gone? | The Economist

Phil

I get you Phil but do you really think that speaking to 1 in every 500 (selected) households gives an accurate picture of what is going on?
 
I get you Phil but do you really think that speaking to 1 in every 500 (selected) households gives an accurate picture of what is going on?


Yes pretty much actually; over a period of time anomalies average out. It's how all surveys are conducted across the world. 1 in 500 is statistically a huge survey. Of course people are free to disagree with the methods used by statisticians. The only way to do it 100% accurately is to phone up every person in the UK. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
Every survey in countries across the Western world shows similar results. Both reported crime and surveyed crime. They'll all be using different methods of course. Surely you don't think it's all nonsense?
Read the Economist link I put up. I'd like peoples comments as there's some interesting arguments put forward.

Phil
 
s


Yes pretty much actually; over a period of time anomalies average out. It's how all surveys are conducted across the world. 1 in 500 is statistically a huge survey. Of course people are free to disagree with the methods used by statisticians. The only way to do it accurately is to phone up every person in the UK. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
Every survey in countries across the Western world shows similar results. Both reported crime and surveyed crime. They'll all be using different methods of course. Surely you don't think it's all nonsense?
Read the Economist link I put up. I'd like peoples comments as there's some interesting arguments put forward.

Phil

I personally think it's flawed, as far as surveys go it may be huge but 1 in 500 is a very very small percentage to take seriously

As I've also touched on it relies on people who are willing to be contacted, fill in forms and be interviewed. I'd suggest that those committing and subjected to crimes every day in the sub culture of society will not comply.

Certain communities up and down the country police themselves, for example someone will break into a house or shed or steal a bike, they get found out and get a smacking for it, it's evened out in their eyes and nobody mentions anything to anyone. Drug users/street dealers get "taxed" and assaulted by their "associates" but that's just life for them and is not worth reporting. I can't recall the exact figures but it was something like 90% of the crimes are committed by just 5% of the population.

It's all well and good speaking to Mr average Joe public but they're hardly in the thick of it like the 5% are.

Anyway you think the crime survey paints an accurate picture of what's going on, I think otherwise.
 
Crime has been falling for many years in most western countries, not just UK. So not all down to Shodan then :D


Phil
On the contrary, I once shagged a female FBI agent (true story!) so I like to think I've helped improve US crime fighting by adding an influx of my own DNA...
 
Think I should? As my next project....
 
I personally think it's flawed, as far as surveys go it may be huge but 1 in 500 is a very very small percentage to take seriously

Quite simply you are wrong.

Using your logic then every survey ever is flawed unless it included the whole population. (And even then it may not be accurate as some respondents may not always tell the truth).

There is significant science and research that stands behind methods of surveys. They can make allowances for bias. They can make allowances for income level, age, political persuasion, etc. And of course they can identify levels of confidence in the results based on the sample size.

If you are disputing these figures, doing so on the basis that you think the survey sample is small is about as poor a reason as you could use. This is a long running, well respected survey, that has produced results backed up by other information, and which nobody with any credibility has disputed.

I put more stock in the professionals and statisticians behind the range of surveys that are taken every day than some bloke on the internet.

But by all means, please produce your own evidence on why crime is not actually falling.
 
Quite simply you are wrong.

Using your logic then every survey ever is flawed unless it included the whole population. (And even then it may not be accurate as some respondents may not always tell the truth).

There is significant science and research that stands behind methods of surveys. They can make allowances for bias. They can make allowances for income level, age, political persuasion, etc. And of course they can identify levels of confidence in the results based on the sample size.

If you are disputing these figures, doing so on the basis that you think the survey sample is small is about as poor a reason as you could use. This is a long running, well respected survey, that has produced results backed up by other information, and which nobody with any credibility has disputed.

I put more stock in the professionals and statisticians behind the range of surveys that are taken every day than some bloke on the internet.

But by all means, please produce your own evidence on why crime is not actually falling.

When all said and done it's a 1 in 500 survey not fact, people can draw their own conclusions from it
 
When all said and done it's a 1 in 500 survey not fact, people can draw their own conclusions from it

And still far more credible in portraying what is happening with crime than a bloke on the internet.

Really, you are doing yourself no favours by denying statistical method. Crime is falling according to multiple sources. If you think this survey and the other sources are wrong you need a better basis to say so than your own ignorance of surveys and statistical methods.
 
And still far more credible in portraying what is happening with crime than a bloke on the internet.

Really, you are doing yourself no favours by denying statistical method. Crime is falling according to multiple sources. If you think this survey and the other sources are wrong you need a better basis to say so than your own ignorance of surveys and statistical methods.

Where did I say that I disagreed that crime was falling?

I choose to draw my own conclusions from a survey if that's ok with you
 
Your choice, but if you publicly say the survey is flawed as the sample is too small, I'll continue to pull you up on it.

And I'll keep defending my stance, let's just leave it now, we clearly don't agree.
 
Crime has been falling throughout the developed world since the 1990s. It's an interesting phenomenon as it is occurring simultaneously in countries that differ greatly politically and socially.
 
If the latest Crime Survey is reliable then something very strange is happening - violent crime fell by 27% between interviews conducted in April-June and July-September 2013. Did everyone go into a coma over the summer then?
 
Another possibility could be that crime trends have actually just shifted and most of which are not reported any more.
For instance, cyber crime. I wonder how many deceptions or thefts (not only over the internet) have gone up and that are not reported. I bet quite a few (definitely since 1981 ;-) ).
Now everyone has the ability to rip people off, even those who wouldn't have in the 80's.

I read an interesting article linking the drop in crime in the western world to the removal of lead in petrol BBC News - Did removing lead from petrol spark a decline in crime?

Interesting read.

Getting back to statistics, they can be made to read how the author wants them to read.
Looking at 1981...
Crime has come down since seatbelts became compulsory.
Crime has come down since the internet became mainstream.
Crime has come down since there are more tv channels.
You get the picture...
 
The internet has bound us together into the noosphere and made everyone more empathic.

Legalise and regulate drugs and I reckon we'd see a 75% drop in crime.
 
Another possibility could be that crime trends have actually just shifted and most of which are not reported any more.
For instance, cyber crime. I wonder how many deceptions or thefts (not only over the internet) have gone up and that are not reported. I bet quite a few (definitely since 1981 ;-) ).
Now everyone has the ability to rip people off, even those who wouldn't have in the 80's.



Interesting read.

Getting back to statistics, they can be made to read how the author wants them to read.
Looking at 1981...
Crime has come down since seatbelts became compulsory.
Crime has come down since the internet became mainstream.
Crime has come down since there are more tv channels.
You get the picture...

I do agree that correlation <> causation BUT, there is a clear clinical think between lead intoxication and impulse control. There is no data to support TV or internet changing human behaviour. Therefore, the lead correlation has a higher causality than the other examples you posted.
 
I do agree that correlation <> causation BUT, there is a clear clinical think between lead intoxication and impulse control. There is no data to support TV or internet changing human behaviour. Therefore, the lead correlation has a higher causality than the other examples you posted.

You are correct and possibly not a good example by me, but you could say plenty of others like the introduction of saccharin in foods, the banning of smoking in public places, more fast food (or additives), you get my meaning...
 
The internet has bound us together into the noosphere and made everyone more empathic.

Legalise and regulate drugs and I reckon we'd see a 75% drop in crime.

Why?

Ok, I do agree that a lot of crime is committed by drug users (maybe not 75%), but because its legalised or regulated does not mean that there will be a drop. In fact more people may use them so more will want them and not all of those will be able to afford them so will turn to crime. Not only that but there will be more drug fuelled crimes like assaults or drug driving.
It may drop, but them again it may just shift.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom