Britain - True scale of violent crime rise revealed

[buster2209]

Imagine my shock that this article doesn't mention the 1997 British gun ban may be a contributing factor to the rise in violent crime......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-revealed.html

True scale of violent crime rise revealed

The true scale of how violent crime has grown under Labour has been disclosed by Whitehall officials.

By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Published: 10:00PM GMT 08 Mar 2010

Violent attacks are estimated to be 44 per cent higher than they were in 1998 after research on the way police record them allowed comparisons for the first time.

The study, by the independent House of Commons Library, shows violence against the person increased from 618,417 to 887,942 last year.

The devastating review comes despite repeated claims by the Government that violent crime has come down substantially since it took power.

It is the first time such a trend in police recorded crime can be made because a change was made in counting rules in 2002 which ministers have always insisted meant figures before that date were not, therefore, comparable.

Instead, they have always used a separate the separate British Crime Survey which suggests violence has dropped by more than 40 per cent since 1998.

The Tories, who requested the new research, said the findings make a mockery of such claims and reinforce the public's fear that violence is in fact rising.

Statiticians in the Commons Library have used a previous Home Office estimate on the effect of the change in counting rules to estimate the impact on previous figures, had those rules been in place then.

Just last week, Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, said violent crime had dropped by 1.5 million offences under Labour before attempting to blame a growing fear of crime on the Tories for "ramping up" public panic.

One criminologist accused the Government of "scheming and manipulation" who knew it was in their interests to avoid historical comparisons.

The figures will also be a boost for the Conservatives who were accused by the head of the Statistics Authority of damaging public trust with their use of statistics on violent crime.

Sir Michael Scholar, the head of the authority, warned Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, that comparisons of police information on violent attacks between the late 1990s and 2008-9 were "likely to mislead the public" as it omitted Home Office warnings that the figures for periods before 2002 were not comparable.

However, that comparison can now be made and shows recorded crime has continued to rise sharply in the last decade.

The row centres on the implementation of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in 2002 which aimed to harmonise the way police recorded offences.

Prior to that date, officers had more discretion to decided whether a crime had been committed and the system left the possibility of offences not being recorded.

The change put the onus on recording the basis of whether the victim believed an offence had occurred, which led to an almost immediate increase in crime figures.

The research by the Commons Library uses an estimate by the Home Office that the change is likely to have resulted in a 23 per cent increase in recorded violent crime.

On that basis, it estimates the official figure in 1998/99 of 502,778 would in fact have been 618,417 had the new counting rules been in force.

Recorded violence in 2008/09 was 903,993 but 15,500 offences have been subtracted as they were recorded by the British Transport Police, whose figures were not included in 1998/99, resulting in the 887,942 figure.

It is in stark contrast with the British Crime Survey, which questions more than 40,000 people, which reports violent crime has dropped from 3.5 million to 2.1 million over the same period.

The BCS also does not include certain offence, including murder and other homicides and offences committed by under 16-year-olds.

Mr Grayling said: "This new analysis confirms that the level of violent crime actually reported to police officers in police stations up and down the country is much higher than it was a decade ago.

"This just serves to underline the scale of the challenge the country faces in fixing our broken society.

"Over the past couple of weeks we have seen a series of horrendous violent crimes committed around the country. Whatever the statistical debates it is absolutely clear that we have deep rooted problems that just have to be tackled.”

David Green, criminologist and director of Civitas, said the Government had a reputation for "scheming and manipulation", adding: "I think the Government knew perfectly well in 2002/03 that it would be very helpful to say 'sorry we cannot go back beyond this date' because they did not want a consistent historical series."

Mr Green, who was a member of a Home Office Crime Statistics Review Group, which in 2006 recommended improvements in the collection of the crime figures, added: "It is very revealing and fits intuitively with what many people feel and what many people have been saying, if anecdotal.

"For people to feel that violent crime is going up and to be told they are suffering from moral panic has always been of some concern."

In a major speech on crime last week, Mr Brown said: "Crime is falling. Fact. Down by more than a third since 1997. Fact. That’s 6 million fewer crimes each year. Fact. Almost 1 million fewer homes burgled. Fact. Almost 1 and a half million fewer violent crimes. Fact."

He went on to claim the Conservatives had "cultivated" fears by abusing official statistics and claiming society was broken.

He insisted that crime had come down under Labour but his own Government's figures show some forms of offences, including violence, were still on the rise.

But figures last November showed that the number of violent attacks committed by strangers had hit its highest level for at least a decade, now standing at the equivalent of 2,896 people every day. Strangers are responsible for half of all violent crime.

Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, said: "Chris Grayling has tried to get cover for his dodgy use of crime statistics and has failed.

"As Sir Michael Scholar, the head of the UK Statistics Authority, states, the British Crime Survey is widely regarded as the most accurate way of recording crime levels,

"This clearly shows a reduction in violent crime of 41 per cent since 1997."

[ajax]

Imagine my shock that this article doesn't mention the 1997 British gun ban may be a contributing factor to the rise in violent crime......

Can't let that get in the way now can we?

Data manipulation and poor excuses for excluding data sets to make things 'seem' like things are going great? Never happen

[Philbert]

So did the BCS change its methodology in 2001 too?

[tsafa]

I made post a while ago about how the British Government was trying to ban drinking pints in bars because people had taken to attacking one another with them. Its just amazing how they just keep outlawing everything people might use to commit violent crimes and criminals just keep finding new tools to use. You figure that at some point they might realize that the gun, the knife, the club, the sword, the drinking pint... does not somehow take over peoples minds and force them to commit crimes... the people first decide to commit a violent crime and then use whatever is available... including a brick to the head or their bare hands around a throat.

They don't have to guts to deal harshly with criminals... and neither do many places here in the US... and then they all wonder why criminals are completely unrestrained. It makes all the sense in the world to me, that if a society does not have the guts to execute murderers, then that society does not deserve to be safe and free. Safety, like freedom, is something that must be earned and maintained. To do this... you must be willing to execute murderers because that is the only thing they respect... not stupid laws that prohibit everything you could possibly hold in your hands.

[NikeBauer21]

...They don't have to guts to deal harshly with criminals... and neither do many places here in the US... and then they all wonder why criminals are completely unrestrained. It makes all the sense in the world to me, that if a society does not have the guts to execute murderers, then that society does not deserve to be safe and free. Safety, like freedom, is something that must be earned and maintained. To do this... you must be will to execute murderers because that is the only thing they respect... not stupid laws that prohibit everything you could possibly hold in your hands.

This right here, is the key. There is NO personal responsibility left in the world anymore.
Oh, you killed someone? Go do your 5-10 and come out a better person. Oh, you raped a little girl now since you've been out? Well, since she didn't come forward soon enough and there is lack of evidence, the charges are dismissed. Oh wait, now you've killed another person? Well, now you're doing 15-life. Don't worry, we won't kill you though! God forbid we do something that takes some balls.

People wonder why crime is rising. Are they that naive or just that stupid? If suspect knows that for selling drugs, he can get off with only a few years (depending on conditions), he will get away with it as long as he can, because 1.) He is making great money in the present time, and 2.) What's a couple years? It's a good way to meet new clients.

Our judicial system is completely screwed to hell. It's corrupt, it's broken, and it has lost it's way from truly representing the safety of the people.

[Nullifidian]

We're talking about the same place where 2 kids, 8 years ago, kidnapped a 2 year old boy. They then tortured him and very brutally murdered him. Those 2 kids got 8 years in a juvenile center. 8 years for kidnap, torture, and murder of a 2 year old toddler.

Both are out now, but one was just recently picked up on child pornography charges.

Those kids would have never seen the light of day had they done that in the US. In Britain, they knew the worst that could happen to them is to be locked up until they are 18. Plus their names and faces aren't known to the public either.

[NikeBauer21]

Both are out now, but one was just recently picked up on child pornography charges..

Imagine my shock knowing a released criminal turned into a repeat offender.

[ira82]

Well I hope everyone is prepared because the UN was behind that disarment of the citizens of the UK. They also did the same in australia and japan as well as a few more countries. You know who is the number one on UN's list don't you? The USA. These times will be here before we all know it so we should be aware and do our part to prevent this or we will have to live with skyrocketed crimes rates like these other countries do and cannot do a damn thing about it.

[NikeBauer21]

Well I hope everyone is prepared because the UN was behind that disarment of the citizens of the UK. They also did the same in australia and japan as well as a few more countries.

All of those countries have a weak citizen base. They are familiar with being controlled throughout history, and never had freedom to fight for. Their countries sold them out, and they did nothing to stop it, in the courts/congress, or physically.

You know who is the number one on UN's list don't you? The USA.

Because we pose the greatest threat of freedom. We are still free (for the most part) and not under complete government rule. That's why the UN doesn't like us having guns. It means we have freedom.

These times will be here before we all know it so we should be aware and do our part to prevent this or we will have to live with skyrocketed crimes rates like these other countries do and cannot do a damn thing about it.

No we wont. If it is not prevented in the courts, and it takes effect in the form of a physical ban, the last thing you will have to worry about is whether the coke dealer down the street is going to assault you. If something like this would take affect, there would be a civil war/revolution. I am most definite on that. THIS is why they have not done it yet. Because they fear us.

[Nullifidian]

No we wont. If it is not prevented in the courts, and it takes effect in the form of a physical ban, the last thing you will have to worry about is whether the coke dealer down the street is going to assault you. If something like this would take affect, there would be a civil war/revolution. I am most definite on that. THIS is why they have not done it yet. Because they fear us.

I'd have to agree with that. If they declared one day that weapons were going to be confiscated, there'd be rebellion. I also don't think it would be only 3% like in the Revolution.