Reasons to come back to the UK
Jun 30th 2003, 8:11 pm
#31
Forum Regular
Joined: May 2003
Location: Auckland
Posts: 39
Re: Reasons to come back to the UK
Originally posted by gOD
As for crime, well, again, in NZ, homocide is more likely, sex crimes are more frequent, there are more prisioners, burgulary rates are higher, crimes/capita are higher. Crime may be on its way up over here but a lot of it is hype. Crime rates in the UK are still lower than they were in 1991, no matter how much the media try and hype it up.
As for crime, well, again, in NZ, homocide is more likely, sex crimes are more frequent, there are more prisioners, burgulary rates are higher, crimes/capita are higher. Crime may be on its way up over here but a lot of it is hype. Crime rates in the UK are still lower than they were in 1991, no matter how much the media try and hype it up.
"the England & Wales homicide figures are "adjusted". Like most other UK Government statistics, they are at best a ball-park figure on a good day and with a following wind. Here's why...
After the suspension of the death penalty for murder in 1965, the homicide rate in the UK continued to rise, and rise quite sharply. Serendipitously enough, it was soon after that when the Home Office decided to start adjusting the homicide figures for England and Wales... Previously, the headline statistics for homicide were those compiled from police submissions according to their initial inquiries. When the Coroner's court sits, some deaths previously tagged homicide will be recorded as something else, such as suicide or manslaughter, according to further evidence or the result of court actions against persons. After the adjustment regime was instituted, the homicide figures were revised according to these judgments - i.e. downwards. This had not happened prior to 1965, and so the homicide figures prior to 1965 will be artificially inflated compared to those post-1965 (and the method of recording had previously been altered in 1959, rendering 1959-65 figures non-comparable with pre-1959)."
http://www.dvc.org.uk/~johnny/sketches/homicide.html
So, no, your conclusions are not valid.
Jun 30th 2003, 8:18 pm
#32
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 206
Re: Reasons to come back to the UK
Originally posted by grahamclan
Read this link. It demonstrates why it is important to be very careful when using statistical comparisons between different countries:
"the England & Wales homicide figures are "adjusted". Like most other UK Government statistics, they are at best a ball-park figure on a good day and with a following wind. Here's why...
After the suspension of the death penalty for murder in 1965, the homicide rate in the UK continued to rise, and rise quite sharply. Serendipitously enough, it was soon after that when the Home Office decided to start adjusting the homicide figures for England and Wales... Previously, the headline statistics for homicide were those compiled from police submissions according to their initial inquiries. When the Coroner's court sits, some deaths previously tagged homicide will be recorded as something else, such as suicide or manslaughter, according to further evidence or the result of court actions against persons. After the adjustment regime was instituted, the homicide figures were revised according to these judgments - i.e. downwards. This had not happened prior to 1965, and so the homicide figures prior to 1965 will be artificially inflated compared to those post-1965 (and the method of recording had previously been altered in 1959, rendering 1959-65 figures non-comparable with pre-1959)."
http://www.dvc.org.uk/~johnny/sketches/homicide.html
So, no, your conclusions are not valid.
Read this link. It demonstrates why it is important to be very careful when using statistical comparisons between different countries:
"the England & Wales homicide figures are "adjusted". Like most other UK Government statistics, they are at best a ball-park figure on a good day and with a following wind. Here's why...
After the suspension of the death penalty for murder in 1965, the homicide rate in the UK continued to rise, and rise quite sharply. Serendipitously enough, it was soon after that when the Home Office decided to start adjusting the homicide figures for England and Wales... Previously, the headline statistics for homicide were those compiled from police submissions according to their initial inquiries. When the Coroner's court sits, some deaths previously tagged homicide will be recorded as something else, such as suicide or manslaughter, according to further evidence or the result of court actions against persons. After the adjustment regime was instituted, the homicide figures were revised according to these judgments - i.e. downwards. This had not happened prior to 1965, and so the homicide figures prior to 1965 will be artificially inflated compared to those post-1965 (and the method of recording had previously been altered in 1959, rendering 1959-65 figures non-comparable with pre-1959)."
http://www.dvc.org.uk/~johnny/sketches/homicide.html
So, no, your conclusions are not valid.
That article is dated more than seven years ago. I think you will find that the ways of measuring crime have changed substancially so that now pretty much everyone accepts that the figures reported are HIGHER than those previously, even if crime remained the same.
Jun 30th 2003, 8:19 pm
#33
farmer nr Queenstown NZ
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: doing stuff, lots of stuff
Posts: 367
Having come from London recently i feel i have to speak a few lines.The crime rates can be twisted all they want but the facts are that so much crime goes unreported in the UK we really do not know the truth.The labour gov in the UK are determined to show a fall in crime stats and they are not winning!I feel so much safer over in NZ than i could possibly ever have felt wandering anywhere in the UK.Auckland is quite simply sweet compared to any part of London.If your feelings towards education and crime are the reasons to go back to Blighty then your in for a big suprise when you get back....have a nice flight.
Jun 30th 2003, 8:20 pm
#34
Forum Regular
Joined: May 2003
Location: Auckland
Posts: 39
A salient paragraph from the link:
"....completely different legal system to England and Wales and a totally different system of recording crime (and definition of homicide), so its figures simply cannot be compared with those of England and Wales."
It's like comparing oranges with apples.
"....completely different legal system to England and Wales and a totally different system of recording crime (and definition of homicide), so its figures simply cannot be compared with those of England and Wales."
It's like comparing oranges with apples.
Jun 30th 2003, 8:23 pm
#35
Forum Regular
Joined: May 2003
Location: Auckland
Posts: 39
Originally posted by deedee
Having come from London recently i feel i have to speak a few lines.The crime rates can be twisted all they want but the facts are that so much crime goes unreported in the UK we really do not know the truth.The labour gov in the UK are determined to show a fall in crime stats and they are not winning!I feel so much safer over in NZ than i could possibly ever have felt wandering anywhere in the UK.Auckland is quite simply sweet compared to any part of London.If your feelings towards education and crime are the reasons to go back to Blighty then your in for a big suprise when you get back....have a nice flight.
Having come from London recently i feel i have to speak a few lines.The crime rates can be twisted all they want but the facts are that so much crime goes unreported in the UK we really do not know the truth.The labour gov in the UK are determined to show a fall in crime stats and they are not winning!I feel so much safer over in NZ than i could possibly ever have felt wandering anywhere in the UK.Auckland is quite simply sweet compared to any part of London.If your feelings towards education and crime are the reasons to go back to Blighty then your in for a big suprise when you get back....have a nice flight.
Jun 30th 2003, 8:34 pm
#36
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 206
Originally posted by deedee
Having come from London recently i feel i have to speak a few lines.The crime rates can be twisted all they want but the facts are that so much crime goes unreported in the UK we really do not know the truth.The labour gov in the UK are determined to show a fall in crime stats and they are not winning!I feel so much safer over in NZ than i could possibly ever have felt wandering anywhere in the UK.Auckland is quite simply sweet compared to any part of London.If your feelings towards education and crime are the reasons to go back to Blighty then your in for a big suprise when you get back....have a nice flight.
Having come from London recently i feel i have to speak a few lines.The crime rates can be twisted all they want but the facts are that so much crime goes unreported in the UK we really do not know the truth.The labour gov in the UK are determined to show a fall in crime stats and they are not winning!I feel so much safer over in NZ than i could possibly ever have felt wandering anywhere in the UK.Auckland is quite simply sweet compared to any part of London.If your feelings towards education and crime are the reasons to go back to Blighty then your in for a big suprise when you get back....have a nice flight.
I have been back for four+ years. It was a very big, and pleasant surprise thanks
You raised a good point though (even if it was by accident). Most people feel like that stats cannot be right because they don't "feel safe".
That is just perception of crime and I don't think anyone would argue that people perceive there to be more crime in the UK, even though there clearly isn't.
Blaming labour is a pretty poor excuse since the way that they measure crime will always show an increase from the old methods used before they came into power.
Jun 30th 2003, 8:50 pm
#37
Forum Regular
Joined: May 2003
Location: Auckland
Posts: 39
Again, you miss the point. When countries have a different legal system to England and Wales and a totally different system of recording crime (and definition of homicide), then you can't simply compare statistics.
Furthermore, statistics can easily be manipulated even if the methods of recording crime etc were identical.
I remember earlier on this year there was an alarm that NZ had high burglary rates when it was then discovered that in fact NZ had low burglary rates but what had happened was that for NZ they counted each instance of burglary, but for other countries if one person had committed 15 burglaries then they counted that as one instance, whereas for NZ they added 15 to the tally.
Different countries, different recording systems, different definitions of crime sub-classes, all produce different results.
Furthermore, statistics can easily be manipulated even if the methods of recording crime etc were identical.
I remember earlier on this year there was an alarm that NZ had high burglary rates when it was then discovered that in fact NZ had low burglary rates but what had happened was that for NZ they counted each instance of burglary, but for other countries if one person had committed 15 burglaries then they counted that as one instance, whereas for NZ they added 15 to the tally.
Different countries, different recording systems, different definitions of crime sub-classes, all produce different results.
Jun 30th 2003, 8:53 pm
#38
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 206
Originally posted by grahamclan
Again, you miss the point. When countries have a different legal system to England and Wales and a totally different system of recording crime (and definition of homicide), then you can't simply compare statistics.
Furthermore, statistics can easily be manipulated even if the methods of recording crime etc were identical.
I remember earlier on this year there was an alarm that NZ had high burglary rates when it was then discovered that in fact NZ had low burglary rates but what had happened was that for NZ they counted each instance of burglary, but for other countries if one person had committed 15 burglaries then they counted that as one instance, whereas for NZ they added 15 to the tally.
Different countries, different recording systems, different definitions of crime sub-classes, all produce different results.
Again, you miss the point. When countries have a different legal system to England and Wales and a totally different system of recording crime (and definition of homicide), then you can't simply compare statistics.
Furthermore, statistics can easily be manipulated even if the methods of recording crime etc were identical.
I remember earlier on this year there was an alarm that NZ had high burglary rates when it was then discovered that in fact NZ had low burglary rates but what had happened was that for NZ they counted each instance of burglary, but for other countries if one person had committed 15 burglaries then they counted that as one instance, whereas for NZ they added 15 to the tally.
Different countries, different recording systems, different definitions of crime sub-classes, all produce different results.
I don't know any country that would count crimes by the number of criminals, not the number of offences and don't think NZ or the UK do that.
If you won't believe any statistics, how can you say that crime in NZ is lower than the UK?
Jun 30th 2003, 9:01 pm
#39
Forum Regular
Joined: May 2003
Location: Auckland
Posts: 39
Originally posted by gOD
I don't know any country that would count crimes by the number of criminals, not the number of offences and don't think NZ or the UK do that.
I don't know any country that would count crimes by the number of criminals, not the number of offences and don't think NZ or the UK do that.
Statistics can easily be manipulated. Not blatant obvious manipulation, but small subtle rule definition changes can easily skew statistics. With crime-rates crucial to election chances, the incentives are obvious.
Jun 30th 2003, 9:06 pm
#40
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 206
Originally posted by grahamclan
Well you are wrong. In a OECD report (I will try & track it down) this is exactly what happened.
Statistics can easily be manipulated. Not blatant obvious manipulation, but small subtle rule definition changes can easily skew statistics. With crime-rates crucial to election chances, the incentives are obvious.
Well you are wrong. In a OECD report (I will try & track it down) this is exactly what happened.
Statistics can easily be manipulated. Not blatant obvious manipulation, but small subtle rule definition changes can easily skew statistics. With crime-rates crucial to election chances, the incentives are obvious.
Jun 30th 2003, 9:14 pm
#41
Forum Regular
Joined: May 2003
Location: Auckland
Posts: 39
Originally posted by gOD
Yes, but that is not the regular way of recording in either country is it. Probably not the normal way of recording in any country. Otherwise how can you record a crime where the criminal hasn't been caught?
Yes, but that is not the regular way of recording in either country is it. Probably not the normal way of recording in any country. Otherwise how can you record a crime where the criminal hasn't been caught?
Just one example of a multitude of ways in which statistics can be misleading.
Jun 30th 2003, 9:19 pm
#42
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 206
Originally posted by grahamclan
I'm not saying it is the regular way of reporting. It was an example of an OECD report which clearly skewed it's conclusions as a result.
Just one example of a multitude of ways in which statistics can be misleading.
I'm not saying it is the regular way of reporting. It was an example of an OECD report which clearly skewed it's conclusions as a result.
Just one example of a multitude of ways in which statistics can be misleading.
Right. But because the OECD has reported stats one way, clearly doesn't mean that this is the regular way in most countries most of the time, or in this case, it doesn't mean that that is the way that NZ or the UK report statistics.
Again, if you don't believe the stats, why do you think crime is lower in NZ?
Jun 30th 2003, 9:34 pm
#43
Forum Regular
Joined: May 2003
Location: Auckland
Posts: 39
Originally posted by gOD
Right. But because the OECD has reported stats one way, clearly doesn't mean that this is the regular way in most countries most of the time, or in this case, it doesn't mean that that is the way that NZ or the UK report statistics.
Again, if you don't believe the stats, why do you think crime is lower in NZ?
Right. But because the OECD has reported stats one way, clearly doesn't mean that this is the regular way in most countries most of the time, or in this case, it doesn't mean that that is the way that NZ or the UK report statistics.
Again, if you don't believe the stats, why do you think crime is lower in NZ?
My occupation revolves around statistics & I know what can be achieved.
Having lived in NZ for the last 7 years, I know NZ is alot safer for my family. Not for all crime sub-classes, but the majority of them.
Jun 30th 2003, 9:37 pm
#44
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 206
Originally posted by grahamclan
Look at PeteY's post - 1.78/100,000 compared to your example of 3/100,000. Quite a disparity. & yet you seem to have some unerring faith in your figures.
My occupation revolves around statistics & I know what can be achieved.
Having lived in NZ for the last 7 years, I know NZ is alot safer for my family. Not for all crime sub-classes, but the majority of them.
Look at PeteY's post - 1.78/100,000 compared to your example of 3/100,000. Quite a disparity. & yet you seem to have some unerring faith in your figures.
My occupation revolves around statistics & I know what can be achieved.
Having lived in NZ for the last 7 years, I know NZ is alot safer for my family. Not for all crime sub-classes, but the majority of them.
Yes, his were from the governemnt, mine were from the Police force. Which one is more likely to be manipulated?
You can't *KNOW* that you are family is a lot safer, although it can certainly feel safer. Again this comes down to the perception of crime.
Jun 30th 2003, 9:46 pm
#45
Forum Regular
Joined: May 2003
Location: Auckland
Posts: 39
Originally posted by gOD
Yes, his were from the governemnt, mine were from the Police force. Which one is more likely to be manipulated?
You can't *KNOW* that you are family is a lot safer, although it can certainly feel safer. Again this comes down to the perception of crime.
Yes, his were from the governemnt, mine were from the Police force. Which one is more likely to be manipulated?
You can't *KNOW* that you are family is a lot safer, although it can certainly feel safer. Again this comes down to the perception of crime.
As for the police stats, it is actually in their interest to overstate crime stats so they can claim more resource funding in the next budget round. So your query above is flawed.
