“Who controls the present controls the past ….”
Dominic Casciani has been briefed by the Home Office, or Justice Ministry, or whatever they’re called this week, on the underreporting of violent crime. Decent of him to pass the briefing on to us verbatim.
But does this serious error in one particularly crime affect all the figures? No, insist the statisticians and ministers.
What’s more, police chiefs say it’s purely a technical problem with how some forces have recorded violence, rather than how they have investigated incidents and pursued attackers.
They say that all recorded crime is still going down and overall violence in April to June 2008 was down 7% on the same period of last year.
The British Crime Survey, the authoritative rolling study of experiences rather than police records, says your chance of being a victim is at a historically low level.
You’d never know that there were any serious criticisms of the BCS, but let that pass.
It’s the regurgitation of the government spin that’s so misleading. Strange, but “history” doesn’t go back very far when it comes to BBC crime reporting. Not so for all crimes committed in the past, eh ?
For New Labour, statistics tend to start in 1997, when they gained power. A longer time perspective is rare, especially regarding crime. The claim that ‘the risk of being a victim of crime remains historically low’ relates specifically to a comparison of the British Crime Survey of 1981 with the figures for 2003 – as if the nation enjoyed a low crime rate in 1981.
I think this graph, taken from this parliamentary report, may give us more perspective than Dominic Casciani can as to whether crime is “historically low“.
Mark Easton hasn’t exactly covered himself in glory with this.
A while ago, he slapped down people who think crime reporting and recording are, er, mildly ‘gamed’ by saying this: “I have met no-one who has produced a shred of evidence that the numbers have been got at.”
Not that the BBC’s Home Editor ought to be making efforts to speak to professionals who disagree with the crime figures or anything!
He could have tried to speak to members of our blog, including PC David Copperfield who explained two years ago how some of the stats were fiddled. Or Inspector Gadget, who explains different scams in his current book. As the publishers of both books (and WPC E E Bloggs’) explain HERE (there are links to all the blogs and books there too), he hasn’t been in touch but then, ‘it’s so much easier to regurgitate Government press releases than actually to get out and speak to working coppers, isn’t it?’
On the one hand, genuine, actual police officers risking their careers to tell the truth about crime.
On the other hand, Mark Easton toeing the party line.
To say it stinks is an understatement.
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
Quite so. And the Left understand and appreciate Orwell’s maxim. Which is why the BBC and the vast majority of Brit journos are determined to keep this little story buried forever.
this story seems to have been buried somewhat–why haven’t we been informed about this before —a good time to bury bad news?
On ITV 6.30 News last night Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, admitted under some tough questioning that regardless of any statistical anomaly serious violent crime had increased. Only about a third of the 22% figure was down to changes in recording techniques.
Despite this, we had Mark Easton, the BBC “home editor” insisting on the 10 o’clock News, Newsnight and later on Radio 4 midnight news that serious violent crime had not increased at all. He was lying, repeatedly so. He even tried to give the impression that it had gone down — mainly by rapidly changing the topic between serious one crime, violent crime, and crime overall. It was like listening to a Labour spokesman, although even they weren’t quite as dishonest as Easton was.
Mark Easton’s view on crime the stats;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/10/it_is_an_almighty_embarrassmen.html
Today’s statistical fiasco does not demonstrate that serious crime is soaring whatever you may read in the papers. If anything, serious violence in England and Wales is probably stable or even falling.
The real disaster with this is that it will increase people’s distrust of the data and millions will go on believing they are at increased risk of violence.
And the Guardian view;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/oct/24/crime-police
The Home Office asked them to do a recount and they estimated that two-thirds of the 22% rise in this category of violent crime was down to the change in interpretation of the counting rules.
The actual increase in more serious violent offences was only 5% – amounting to about 200 assaults out of a total of 237,000 violent crimes. This view was endorsed by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
==================
So there has been a real increase – despite what the BBC would have you believe.
It’s bollox – all BCU’s have templates taken by the CI in charge of intelligence – rise of criminal damage versus decrease in attempted burglary – quelle surprise. Plus a load of violence is chucked under section 5 offences and paried that way – piece of piss.
Dominic Casciani has been briefed by the Home Office, or Justice Ministry, or whatever they’re called this week,
That would be the Ministry of Thought Crime.
I know from serving police officers that multiple assaults can now be charged as a single crime —so if there is a brawl the police can assess it as one violent assault rather than many —the collection of statistics has been manipulated to suit the government.
That graph looks pretty suspect doesnt it.
The long faltering rise in crime and suddenly a statistically huge drop in the last few years. Too good to be true. policing, sentencing, social attitudes etc would have to have undergone a pretty awesome change in such a short time.
There’s been a fiddle there and no mistake.
For one thing crime has risen strictly in line with immigration since the ’50s. Has immigration fallen since ’97? No.
Certain ethnic groups are associated with certain crimes – not that you would know that from the racial egalitarians who have subverted the coppersblog.
Surely if the BBC had a pro-Labour bias, then they’d kick off the stats in 1979 rather than 1997? “Look how awful it all went under those horrid Tories, and how wonderful Tony and Gordon have sorted it all out”…?