Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Government data on crimes not considered trustworthy and believable

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623

    Government data on crimes not considered trustworthy and believable

    This first reported to us by another contributor from Virginia.

    Continued below.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 10-15-2013 at 01:49 AM.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623

    Government data on crimes not considered trustworthy and believable

    New York --(Ammoland.com)- In 1997, a restrictive firearms law virtually banned handguns in Britain. Crime rose rapidly, but then, according to government figures, crime began to fall.

    Is this really so?

    It has become evident from an examination of official documents that a massive deception has evolved around their reporting of crime statistics. British subjects, themselves, do not trust the sudden turnaround in the figures. Nor do we.
    We think that something stinks in the UK, and it appears to be the cultivation of rotten statistics and its cover-up.

    Here is what we found.
    Professor Adrian Smith, in a report commissioned by the Secretary of State for the Home Office said;
    “The Home Secretary is concerned that public trust in the crime statistics produced by the Home Office has declined to such an extent that it is no longer possible to have a debate about alternative criminal justice policies on the basis of agreed facts about the trends in crime.”

    Professor Smith was on the mark, as British subjects do, in fact, believe that they are the targets of crime. According to Louise Casey in her 2008 survey “one in three (33%) had been a victim of crime, or knew someone well who had been, within the last year”, and “nearly half (45%) knew of someone in their community who had been a victim in the last year.” Casey further reported that “a very significant number [of British subjects] expressed concerns about coming forward more generally to intervene, report crime or give evidence.”

    So, what is the truth about crime in the UK?
    We cannot fully know, as we do not have hidden microphones on the walls of police buildings and in the Home Office.
    Up front, let’s recognize that the Brits do freely admit to massaging crime figures and, to be fair, we know that many police departments, in many nations, massage their crime figures, as well.

    But the Brits are vigorously and openly beating their statistics to a bloody pulp, as they have created a stunningly large bureaucracy to deal with crime figures.

    The created bureaucracy helps make decisions about how a crime will ultimately be reported—or not reported. The Home Office acknowledged the situation and the existence of crime reduction targets;
    “The police do an excellent job but the rise in bureaucracy, targets and paperwork under the last Government turned the police into form-writers instead of crime-fighters…Increasing government interference in recent years has changed the focus of the police. They have become responsive to targets and bureaucracy rather than to people.”

    Note here that the Home Office is admitting to the existence of “targets.” These targets are guides used to reduce the number of crimes reported, and the severity of those crimes. It is openly acknowledged that police are under pressure to reduce the crime statistics, and that they have goals that they must meet. One can notice that the Constable who described exactly how these “targets” work did not face the camera.

    David Barrett, the Home Affairs Correspondent for the UK Telegraph, wrote in an article entitled “Police ‘ordered to slant crime data’,” that “Officers now fear that speaking out about scandals, mistakes and other serious issues – including pressure from senior officers to massage crime figures – will lead to disciplinary measures or the sack….” Barrett cited Steve Williams, head of the 130,000 strong Police Federation, as saying that “bobbies find themselves under huge pressure about how to record crime.”

    We expect that, as Constables retire, they will be more comfortable about coming forward with the truth, and there will be an increase in accurate information. But we would like the truth about the outcome of the British philosophy that disarms victims and enables criminals now, not 20 years later.

    In the British category known as “no crime,” which is similar to our deemed “unfounded” category, in which a reported crime can be removed from the statistics under certain circumstances, a complex social dance occurs. The North Yorkshire Police, following the National Crime Recording Standard, report that in many “no crime” cases, a Crime Recording and Occurrence Management (CROM) unit, or a Force Crime and Incident Registrar (FCIR), or a Dedicated Decision Maker (DDM) is required to correct the record and change the crime to a “no crime” category.

    These alphabet-agency people have a role in other statistical activities. Their function, as described in the document ACPO Reducing Bureaucracy Programme: Understanding Crime Recording (2011), by Alistair Fildes and Andy Myhill, which consists of a report of police interviews and focus groups, was eye-opening because of the amount of bureaucratic steps that are necessary between the initial reporting of a crime and the eventual recording of it. The report described a situation in which up to five individuals are involved in the recording and reclassification process: an officer, a crime screener, a crime manager, an auditor, and a supervisor.

    We believe that if so many groups have been created to change an incident from one category to another, then the process is probably being used to reduce the severity of crime via fudged statistics. Why else would all that funding be wasted on bureaucrats? But so much has been obscured that it is impossible to know the truth.

    According to the Fildes/Myhill report, there is a high level of supervision and auditing that accompanies the original recording, the reclassifications, and the possible entry into the “no crime” category. Many survey respondents felt that their organizations had become “risk averse,” that is, “The culture of ‘covering your back’ seemed to have permeated to frontline officers involved in the crime recording process.” There are audits—internal and external—striking fear into stout police hearts, “intended to ensure that data recorded by the police on crime has integrity.”

    But doesn’t the pressure placed on police to control statistics remove the integrity of the reported data?

    The report noted, “Targets for reducing crime were perceived to lead to pressure to down-grade priority crimes to non-performance managed crime types.…” Examples are “Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) to common assault, robbery to theft, or burglary to criminal damage.”
    The report further continues, “Though central performance targets relating to reducing specific crime types have been discontinued…it appeared that many officers still worked to targets….” Many respondents to the survey indicated “scepticism that national targets had been removed….”

    What about the real figures? Was the promise of reduced crime achieved? Or is the notoriously anti-gun British politician mentality busy cleaning up the embarrassment of skyrocketing crime and failed public policy?

    We know that the handgun ban in 1997 was ineffective as far as reducing the availability of illegal firearms because banned handguns are easily available on the streets, thanks to a healthy black market.

    So, could it be that crime is not as well-controlled as stated?

    We can only guess how far from the truth the published figures really are.

    Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/10/spec...#ixzz2hlKG6xsa
    Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
    Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 10-15-2013 at 01:51 AM.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Regular Member DW98's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    267
    Same thing happens here.

    A lot of murders, shootings, stabbings etc. go unreported by the media.

    According to police officers I've spoken with, police-involved shootings also go largely unnoticed as well. If a police officer shoots and wounds someone, shoots at a vehicle etc., it's usually not reported.
    Last edited by DW98; 10-16-2013 at 10:33 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Griz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    It's like climate change science. Massage the data enough to get the correct results.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Also, in NYC they classified rapes as simple assaults etc...to make their #s look better. A cop whistle blower spilled the beans on them ...

    Ya cannot believe any crime stats coming out of organizations that exist to keep those stats low .. 'cause they will be low, as they report them. Surprise !

  6. #6
    Regular Member DW98's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Also, in NYC they classified rapes as simple assaults etc...to make their #s look better. A cop whistle blower spilled the beans on them ...

    Ya cannot believe any crime stats coming out of organizations that exist to keep those stats low .. 'cause they will be low, as they report them. Surprise !
    Do you believe the claims the crime in the United States is at the same level it was in the 1960's?

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by DW98 View Post
    Do you believe the claims the crime in the United States is at the same level it was in the 1960's?
    Not for a minute.

  8. #8
    Regular Member DW98's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Not for a minute.
    I don't believe our crime is down either. Sure, maybe gun murders/deaths are down, but general violence is up. We rank 6th for violent crime in the first world. Of course not many people will admit this.

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623
    Quote Originally Posted by DW98 View Post
    I don't believe our crime is down either. Sure, maybe gun murders/deaths are down, but general violence is up. We rank 6th for violent crime in the first world. Of course not many people will admit this.
    Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years........

    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/...ublic-unaware/

    The problem with some studies is that the UK and other countries define violent crimes differently - not apples to apples.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ritain-US.html
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by DW98 View Post
    I don't believe our crime is down either. Sure, maybe gun murders/deaths are down, but general violence is up. We rank 6th for violent crime in the first world. Of course not many people will admit this.
    In the US, the general trend has been to less crime.

    Property crime is exceedingly rare in the US, compared to other Commonwealth nations.

    Violent crime in the US is significant, but most of that is peripheral to gangs, drugs, and the prohibition thereof. The average, law-abiding American sees very, very little violence in his life.

  11. #11
    Regular Member DW98's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    267
    I can believe that violent crime in higher in the UK than the United States. I guess you can't really know for sure, though.


    Interesting that you mention how property crimes are low. In my city it's very common to see graffiti, broken windows etc. Not too long ago a house near mine was shot at. Another had a molotov put through the front window. I live in a good area as well.

    As for violence, personally, I've seen a lot. Fights, bashings, stabbings etc. etc. I don't like taking the train at night anymore after I was badly assaulted a few years ago. Same goes for going into the city at night. I've been threatened with knives, syringes and baseball bats. Mugged, chased and so on. Maybe I've just been unlucky.

    If Melbourne is the most livable city in the world, everywhere else must be a hellhole.....
    Last edited by DW98; 10-25-2013 at 04:19 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •