http://rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] politicartoons2013-03-24 12:17 am
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[identity profile] rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com 2013-03-25 06:25 am (UTC)(link)
Do you understand the distinction between recorded crime and actual crime? This is the entire point of victimization surveys. There has been NO change in victimization response rates. Thus recorded crime increases have gone up from higher reporting to police, not from higher crime rates overall. This is not difficult and is outlined extensively throughout articles I've cited.
Here are more
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http:/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb1899.pdf
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http:/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr3103.pdf
Edited 2013-03-25 06:26 (UTC)

[identity profile] madscience.livejournal.com 2013-03-25 06:41 am (UTC)(link)
Yes, I understand that's the claim the Home Office has made. I'm asking how you respond to well-substantiated criticisms of that claim, such as the two articles I linked.
Edited 2013-03-25 06:48 (UTC)

[identity profile] rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com 2013-03-25 06:49 am (UTC)(link)
Well substantiated? Its a political piece. It's not cited. For fucks sake, they describe crime in total numbers not taking into account population growth. You have no case.

[identity profile] madscience.livejournal.com 2013-03-25 06:55 am (UTC)(link)
One of those articles claims a 5% annual increase in violence against the person offences, after adjusting for the changes in reporting. That is many times the rate of population growth.

[identity profile] rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com 2013-03-25 06:58 am (UTC)(link)
Dude you don't get to take my criticism of one thing and apply it to another. I have no idea what 5% change you are referring to. I'm not going to be bothered refuting the myriad of non scholarly articles that you think are relevant.

[identity profile] madscience.livejournal.com 2013-03-25 07:01 am (UTC)(link)
None of the articles you've cited were scholarly works, either.

"The new police figures show a 28 per cent rise in violence against the person offences, and a 22 per cent rise in overall violence, including robbery and sex crimes.

The Home Office insists the real 'adjusted' figures show more modest, though still deeply troubling, rises of five per cent and two per cent respectively."


That 5%.

[identity profile] rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com 2013-03-25 07:13 am (UTC)(link)
None of the articles you've cited were scholarly works, either.


ummm ok...

""The new police figures show a 28 per cent rise in violence against the person offences, and a 22 per cent rise in overall violence, including robbery and sex crimes.

The Home Office insists the real 'adjusted' figures show more modest, though still deeply troubling, rises of five per cent and two per cent respectively."


That 5%."
If the adjusted figures are related to recorded crime, (though I have no fucking clue given your citations) I'd refer you back to the BCS article I ORIGINALLY CITED. Crime rates are showing little overal change but reporting is up causing recordings to go up. This is much more intuitive than Aussies or Brits suddenly becoming prey to criminals following a gun ban. Have a nice night I'm done here.
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only