[PoleKing]

The collecting criteria may have changed though.
In 30 years it will have, without a doubt.

Has it occurred to you that the changes (detailed in the graph) might make the decline look smaller than it is?  Not saying they do, just that it's entirely possible.  Your argument runs both ways.

Vin

Actually, no, it hadn't. I've not said whether  I think crime has gone up or down.
I'm just saying what is true.

[Tom White]

Your first post is this?!
Wind your neck in.

It's probably someone whose been banned before.  I'll keep an eye on his posts and bump him if I suspect he's just here to antagonise.

[Simon Spencer]

He ain't out is he, should of locked him up for years got no time for drug pushers/Dealers. 👹

Totally agree, scum bag!

I have 2 daughters!!

[rosskesava]

What isn't mentioned in the Guardian article is the numerous changes as to how crime is recorded and what those changes were. Recording crime and how it's been done has been changed by governments over the years to suit their own political agenda which is designed to always show an improvement.

Unless the methods used remain constant, then the data is statistically impotent.

Also, what is a crime in the eyes of the law has changed.

For instance, if someone is given a police warning for a minor offence, it's then not recorded as a crime where as previously it was.

My point is not that crime may have or may not have fallen or remained constant, etc, it's that the graph is pretty much meaningless.

[ben M]

Your first post is this?!
Wind your neck in.

It's probably someone whose been banned before.  I'll keep an eye on his posts and bump him if I suspect he's just here to antagonise.

maybe Tosh but he is right, we don't need drug dealers on this forum!

[Simon Spencer]

Search my name, I've been on here on and off for years!

[gary999]

You should be banned from the forum! You are a convicted class A drug dealer!

Why is everybody treating him with respect?

Your first post is this?!
Wind your neck in.

 if only i could be bothered to formulate an opinion on this subject but
my time is too precious to waste.

Hey ho!

[PoleKing]

The collecting criteria may have changed though.
In 30 years it will have, without a doubt.

And?  You're inferring something, but not actually stating what you're inferring.  Are you saying that crime is getting worse, but that the figures are massaged in the way they're collected?

I'm unsure what your point is.  If you read the link it covers pretty much the whole subject in a nice bite-sized read.  It even covers how our perception of what crime rates are and how the reality of the situation may differ.

But if you look to the countries with the lowest re-offending rates, you'll see they're modern countries that treat their convicts with some degree of respect.  If you know of any examples where harsh prison regimes reduce re-offending, I'd be interested to read about it.

I'm not inferring anything.
My only point is that a lot of figures can be massaged to show/hide what the originator would like to show.

For instance-the foreign aid post a few months back.
We pay £56m a day to (I think...) India, for aid. It sounds a lot when put like that. It is a lot but you get what I mean.
But another way to record it is that it's (again, I think...) 0.005% of our GDP.
My only point is that figures can be spun.

[Tom White]

Your first post is this?!
Wind your neck in.

It's probably someone whose been banned before.  I'll keep an eye on his posts and bump him if I suspect he's just here to antagonise.

maybe Tosh but he is right, we don't need drug dealers on this forum!

As far as I'm aware Ritchie is a human being whose made a mistake, served his time, and is allowed to continue to be a member of the forum.

There's probably all kinds of folk here who get upto all kinds of dodgy stuff.  And?

[PoleKing]

Your first post is this?!
Wind your neck in.

It's probably someone whose been banned before.  I'll keep an eye on his posts and bump him if I suspect he's just here to antagonise.

maybe Tosh but he is right, we don't need drug dealers on this forum!

Or the French

[deeege]

Your first post is this?!
Wind your neck in.

It's probably someone whose been banned before.  I'll keep an eye on his posts and bump him if I suspect he's just here to antagonise.

maybe Tosh but he is right, we don't need drug dealers on this forum!

When did you start modding Ben?

[ben M]

Your first post is this?!
Wind your neck in.

It's probably someone whose been banned before.  I'll keep an eye on his posts and bump him if I suspect he's just here to antagonise.

maybe Tosh but he is right, we don't need drug dealers on this forum!

As far as I'm aware Ritchie is a human being whose made a mistake, served his time, and is allowed to continue to be a member of the forum.

There's probably all kinds of folk here who get upto all kinds of dodgy stuff.  And?

a mistake? only a mistake? if you call a drug dealer a mistake, nothing else to add then...!!!

[gary999]

Your first post is this?!
Wind your neck in.

It's probably someone whose been banned before.  I'll keep an eye on his posts and bump him if I suspect he's just here to antagonise.

maybe Tosh but he is right, we don't need drug dealers on this forum!

Or the French

Beat me to it

[PoleKing]

Your first post is this?!
Wind your neck in.

It's probably someone whose been banned before.  I'll keep an eye on his posts and bump him if I suspect he's just here to antagonise.

maybe Tosh but he is right, we don't need drug dealers on this forum!

As far as I'm aware Ritchie is a human being whose made a mistake, served his time, and is allowed to continue to be a member of the forum.

There's probably all kinds of folk here who get upto all kinds of dodgy stuff.  And?

a mistake? only a mistake? if you call a drug dealer a mistake, nothing else to add then...!!!

Thank God.
Bye Ben

[rosskesava]

You should be banned from the forum! You are a convicted class A drug dealer!

Why is everybody treating him with respect?

That word - everyone. I take it you mean every single person on this forum? Yes?

I think what you mean is that he ought not be treated with any respect because he is a convicted drug dealer. If that is so, how about giving a reason as to why someone who is serving a sentence for a crime gets no respect?

[Tom White]

I blame lazy kids for much of the decrease in crime.  They're too busy glued to their X boxes than to get their overweight bottoms out of the house to go and be naughty somewhere.

[deeege]

I blame lazy kids for much of the decrease in crime.  They're too busy glued to their X boxes than to get their overweight bottoms out of the house to go and be naughty somewhere.

Got any stats to back that up?

 

[rosskesava]

I blame lazy kids for much of the decrease in crime.  They're too busy glued to their X boxes than to get their overweight bottoms out of the house to go and be naughty somewhere.

I think there's more truth in that than is apparent.

[Tom White]

I blame lazy kids for much of the decrease in crime.  They're too busy glued to their X boxes than to get their overweight bottoms out of the house to go and be naughty somewhere.

Got any stats to back that up?

 

Not to hand, but I've a news item that nearly supports it:

The report, by Benjamin Engelstätter, of the Centre for European Economic Research, Scott Cunningham, of Baylor University in Texas, USA, and Michael Ward, of the University of Texas, argue that gamers are 'too busy' playing to cause much trouble in the real world.
The report , released earlier this year, states: "Psychological studies invariably find a positive relationship between violent video game play and aggression.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/8798927/Violent-video-games-reduce-crime.html

[PoleKing]

I blame lazy kids for much of the decrease in crime.  They're too busy glued to their X boxes than to get their overweight bottoms out of the house to go and be naughty somewhere.

Got any stats to back that up?

 

Not to hand, but I've a news item that nearly supports it:

The report, by Benjamin Engelstätter, of the Centre for European Economic Research, Scott Cunningham, of Baylor University in Texas, USA, and Michael Ward, of the University of Texas, argue that gamers are 'too busy' playing to cause much trouble in the real world.
The report , released earlier this year, states: "Psychological studies invariably find a positive relationship between violent video game play and aggression.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/8798927/Violent-video-games-reduce-crime.html

I wonder if those 3 guys get any funding, any at all, from anyone connected to the video game industry?