The Truth About Crime Figures NY and London

[Jaeger]

As London and the UK have increasingly been recording every trivial
crime and inflating crime figures, the US and particuarly NY has
been reclassifying crime and reducing the amount of crime it
records.

The UK's Violence Research Group - Hospital Admisions in England
and Wales Study tallies with the British Crime Survey. However
Bloombergs NY figures are in complete contrast to the NY Hospital
Admissions for Violent Crime.

Violence Research Group - http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/articles/accident-and-emergency-data.html

http://www.cipfa.org.uk/publicfinance/news_details.cfm?news_id=23686

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee240/Pullman1000/moses.jpg
These Stats Are a Crime

While Bloomberg boasts of crime drop, the hospitals'
work on assault victims is booming

by Paul Moses
November 1st, 2005


http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0544,moses,69552,5.html

At the same time advances in Emergency Surgery and Critical Care
have led to far more people surviving gun shot wounds, and this
has had a knock on effect on murder rates, particuarly in America.

http://www.healthleader.uthouston.edu/archive/General_Health/2003/murderrateplunges-0331.html

http://www.healthleader.uthouston.edu/gfx/2003art/murderrateplunges.jpg

Gun Crime - Great Britain

In terms of gun crime there are only a handful of murders in Britain
every year, around 43 for the whole of England and Wales last year.
Scotland had a further 8 gun crime deaths, but this still only makes
a figure of 51.

When it comes to gun related crime, Britain is one of the safest
societies in the world.

[Jaeger]

Something's Missing
Crime-stat revelation: 'Lost property' reports mysteriously soar
by Paul Moses
December 2005


Here is yet another indication that NY city's falling crime rate may be crime fiction:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0552,moses,71322,5.html

[Jaeger]

Gulliani's Crime Figures Examined -




Rudy Giuliani: The rooster who made the sun rise
By Joseph Dillon Davey
Online Journal Contributing Writer
May 31, 2007

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2030.shtml

The current polls indicate Rudy Giuliani is the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. On September 10, 2001, the odds against such a situation were astronomical. New Yorkers were not unhappy about the prospect of Rudy leaving public service and it appeared that his political career was over.

Giuliani’s leadership following September 11 was, if not actually Churchillian, at least a whole lot more inspiring than the seven and a half years that preceded that tragic attack. So it is with a note of admiration for his post-September 11 performance that I would like to set the record straight about Giuliani’s impact on crime in New York.

The public has widely accepted the idea that Rudy’s crime control methods miraculously brought down the crime rate in New York during his two terms as Mayor. There is very good reason to believe this is not so.

To give credit where credit is due, we should acknowledge that the “quality of life arrests” that the NY Police Department made under the Giuliani administration resulted in the removal of so many guns from the streets that the new policy -- aimed at squeegee men originally -- was largely responsible for the much publicized drop in gun homicides.

Minor offenders found themselves subjected to a full custody arrest rather than a “cite and release” ticket. These arrests revealed an extraordinary number of handguns and, under the Sullivan Act, the perpetrator was likely to wind up doing a year at Riker’s Island. More and more guns were, accordingly, left home. However, while Giuliani has claimed much credit for this decrease, a closer look raises some questions.

For instance, between 1995 and 1999 there was a 32 percent decrease in homicides nationwide. While it is true that New York saw a decrease in homicide of 43 percent during this same period, other big cities did even better. Boston, for example, had a decrease in their homicide rate of 67 percent, Los Angeles 54 percent, New Orleans 48 percent and Richmond, Virginia saw a drop of 48 percent. Does Rudy also get credit for those extraordinary decreases?

No one is quite sure why big cities have seen such a dramatic decrease in homicide. Demographic patterns are at least partially responsible, along with low unemployment rates and the historically unprecedented growth of incarceration. But there are few criminologists who think having the right mayor is a very significant explanation for these decreases.

On the opposite end of the crime spectrum from homicide is the rate of minor offenses. Rudy was successful at driving off the “squeegee men” and discouraging panhandling and jay walking.

However, his claims of great success at reducing the rate of felonies in the Big Apple are far from justified. What happened to crime rates elsewhere during Rudy’s regime?

The best method we have of counting crime is the National Crime Victimization Survey. (NCVS) The Survey was introduced in 1973 as an outgrowth of the Presidents Commission on Crime.

It has been widely imitated around the industrialized world and is considered by criminologists to be the most accurate measure of crime ever devised. For the nation as a whole, the NCVS shows a spectacular decrease in serious crime in all 50 states during the years that Giuliani was the Big Apple’s mayor. A close look at the numbers suggests that nothing very special happened in New York.

Giuliani claims that reported felonies decreased by 57 percent during his two terms in office (going from 8,259 to 3,556 felonies per week). How does this compare with other cities in the northeast?

The drop in crime nationwide during the first six years of Giuliani’s mayoralty was close to 40 percent, (Personal Crimes down from 318.9 to 198; Property Crimes down from 52.2 to 33.7).Moreover, the pattern of decreases in crime during the nineties has shown that the biggest decreases came disproportionately in the largest cities, especially those in the Northeast.

Giuliani may have enough of an inflated ego to claim his influence over the crime drop nationwide, but criminologists and political commentators should be expected to have a more discerning eye. And that is just part of it.
The major disadvantage of the NCVS is that it does not break down the figures by geographical location so that it does not provide us with figures on New York City. For the Big Apple, we only have the much less accurate figures from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). These are the figures that Rudy quoted in his State of the City speech.

The UCR depends on both the victim’s willingness to report the crime to the police and the police department’s willingness to characterize the crime as a “felony” and add it to the list of offenses sent to the FBI. By putting police administrators under pressure to lower the numbers, substantial changes can be brought about.

For example, about 65 percent of all felonies are “grand larcenies.” If a theft is reported to the police and the value of the thing stolen is less than $500, then the offense is a misdemeanor and will not be reported to the FBI. The police themselves are in the position of having to determine what the fair market value of the stolen property is.

Likewise, the majority of violent felonies are called “aggravated assault.” While they are included in the UCR, simple assaults are not. A “simple assault” is one that either does not involve a “deadly weapon” or does not involve “serious” injury. Again, the arresting officer is often able to characterize the “deadliness” of the weapon or the “seriousness” of the assault to determine whether or not a felony is being reported to them. (Some prosecutors ask how many stitches it took to stop the bleeding in order to determine if a felony or misdemeanor was committed)

As soon as Giuliani appointed William Bratton as Commissioner of NYPD things changed. In his book Turnaround: How America’s Top Cop Reversed the Crime Epidemic, Bratton brags about the unprecedented pressure he put on precinct commanders to bring down crime statistics. These commanders were called to weekly meetings and excoriated if the crime numbers from their precincts were not decreasing.

In talking about these “Compstat” meetings, Bratton writes: “ . . . one good way to bring your career to a screeching halt was to bomb there consistently. Compstat was police Darwinism; the fittest survived and thrived.” (P.234 Bratton) This direct connection between crime statistics and an administrator’s career had never been seen before.

“Each commander was called upon,” writes Bratton, “to report on his precinct about once a month, and we had his precinct’s numbers in front of us.”(p.232) He goes on to explain how the precinct commander would then pressure the platoon commander who in turn would pressure the sergeants to question individual patrol officer’s. Was that broom handle really a “deadly weapon”? Was that stolen 10-speed bike really worth over $500? Was that car really stolen or just borrowed without permission by a brother-in-law? The discretion of the officer would be pivotal and very often that same officer needed a favor from his sergeant.

There are lots of little things that can make a cop’s life more pleasant. Assignments vary greatly; days off must be approved by someone above you. It was in everyone’s interest to make the number drop -- and under Giuliani this was a greater factor in New York than anywhere else.

The top brass of the NYPD were pressured to lean on their troops. Those troops were the arresting officers who had the discretion to characterize offenses as misdemeanors or felonies. Quite by coincidence a reporter for the New York Post stumbled upon a perfect example of this process about six months after September 11. According to the Post:


NYPD PROBES NUMBERS GAME ON CRIME STATS
By LARRY CELONA

March 14, 2002 -- EXCLUSIVE A Bronx police precinct is under investigation by NYPD Internal Affairs for allegedly doctoring crime statistics -- after The Post uncovered evidence that books were being cooked. Documents obtained by The Post show a rape recorded in the 50th Precinct was logged as a lesser crime -- thus giving a rare look into what some beat cops say is a statistical sleight of hand used by their commanders.

According to many patrol officers, commanders sometimes reclassify major crimes like murder, assault, robbery and rape as lesser offenses to make it appear they are winning the war on crime. But downgrading crimes is a serious violation, and commanders in the past have been removed for such actions. In the incident at the 50th Precinct, the March 8 rape of a woman at a Bailey Avenue hotel was recorded as an “inconclusive” incident.

Only on Tuesday, after The Post started asking questions, was the crime properly classified as rape. In the alleged sex attack, the suspect forced his estranged, 37-year-old wife to have sex at the hotel after she refused. The victim originally reported the attack to the 52nd Precinct, which classified it in its records as a sex assault. But after the assault was transferred to the 50th Precinct -- because of the hotel’s location -- it was downgraded to “inconclusive.”

It remained inconclusive, even after the Bronx district attorney last Saturday charged the man with first-degree rape and other sex crimes. It was changed to a sex assault only yesterday, the same day a Post reporter phoned. On Tuesday, 50th Precinct commander Capt. Thomas DiRusso denied wrongdoing. “I have nothing to hide,” he said. The department routinely inspects precinct crime statistics for irregularities.

Officers complain that commanders who reclassify crimes want to make it appear they are keeping crime down, thus boosting their chance for promotion. In 1998, Capt. Daniel Castro, a promising young commander and one of the department’s rising stars, lost his command after a review found he achieved an 80 percent crime drop after downgrading crimes like robbery and theft to “missing property.”

This unprecedented level of political pressure to reduce crime statistics could very well explain the rather minor differences between the fall in the New York crime rate and the fall in the national crime rate during the eight years of Giuliani’s administration. When two events occur simultaneously, there is a temptation to imply causation between the two. When Giuliani took office the Dow Jones average was about half of what it is today. Should Rudy be given credit for the economic boom across the country?

Rudy Giuliani may have had the good luck to serve as mayor during a period in which crime nationwide was falling at an unprecedented rate but we shouldn’t give the crowing rooster credit for the sunrise. And we should not rely upon cooked books of crime statistics to decide who should be our next president.

Joseph Dillon Davey is a professor in the Department of Law and Justice, Rowan University, Glassboro, N.J.

[Jaeger]

Examples of Violent Crimes - Recorded by the Police in England
and Wales.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6656411.stm

A man from Cheshire who was cautioned for being "found in possession of an egg with intent to throw"

A child in Kent who was arrested after removing a slice of cucumber from a sandwich and throwing it at another youngster

A West Midlands woman arrested on her wedding day for criminal damage after her foot slipped on her accelerator pedal and her vehicle damaged a car park barrier

A child from Kent who was arrested for throwing cream buns at a bus

A 70-year-old Cheshire pensioner who was arrested for criminal damage after cutting back a neighbour's conifer trees

An officer in the West Midlands who was told to caution a man for throwing a glass of water over his girlfriend

Two children from Manchester who were arrested for being in possession of a plastic toy pistol

UK Recorded Crimes are used to secure police funding, don't record enough and you lose your funds, there is also a points system being tried out in parts of the country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/5298208.stm




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/img/global/tol-logo.gif

September 13, 2007

Police chief says officers chasing targets distort
picture of crime

Sean O’Neill

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2441818.ece

The picture of violent crime in Britain is being distorted by nervous police officers recording minor incidents such as playground squabbles as serious incidents, a report on the state of policing says.

Sir Ronnie Flanagan, HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, said yesterday that there was an urgent need for national leadership on cutting bureaucracy and for police officers on the frontline to begin to exercise judgment and discretion.



The police in Britain collect statistics differently to other countries, for instance half of all violent crime in the UK involves no injury to anybody, and involves harrasment, verbal threats and public order.

Simple Assaults, not counted in many other countries crime figures, make up the bulk of the other half of the UK Crime figures. Whilst car crime, burglaries and other crimes are falling.

Furthermore hospital admissions as a result of violent crime in England and Wales have fallen by over a quarter since 2000, and this is believed to be the most accurate indicator by many criminologists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4480525.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4480525.stm)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6593207.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6593207.stm)

The vast majority of violent crime is due to drunken behaviour, and is mainly minor in nature.

Further changes in the way crime was recorded have also impacted on figures. What would have traditionaly been one offence is now recorded as multiple offences, and even the most trivial assaults are now recorded. These changes were bought in to being between 1997 abd 2003 and have had a detrimental impact on UK Crime Figures.

More details here -

http://www.anxietyculture.com/crimescare.htm (http://www.anxietyculture.com/crimescare.htm)

However further changes have been signaled by the Home Office, after an academic report called for trivial offences which result in no injury to anyone what so ever, to no longer be recorded as violent offences.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6157944.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6157944.stm)

http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ES...s/index12.aspx (http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/facts/index12.aspx)

[Jaeger]

While London police record ever more trivial rubbish, the NYPD is
reclassfying crimes, fudging figures and doing the exact opposite.

The police unions in NY have been up in arms, and NY papers and
academics have been writing about it for years.

The end result is a lot more recorded crime for London and a lot less
for NY.

In the UK we don't have a system of felony or misdemeanor,
it all goes on the figures, as do property crime and robberies
under the value $500 (£250), simple assaults are also recorded
and our crime figures cover a much broader area which includes
very trivial offences.

Over half of violent crimes recorded in the UK results in no injury
to anyone whatsoever, and the vast majority of the rest involves
what would be classified as simple assaults and misdemeanors
under the US System and would not be included in NY's crime figures.

Changes in the Law have also had an impact on Crime Figures:
for instance the definition of rape is now far broader in the UK,
since the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, while new offences have
also been added, therefore increasing sex crime figures.

Although London still has very few sex crimes, this has led
to a higher percentage increase.

The 2003 Sexual Offences Act has had a major impact on the
recording and investigation of sexual offences in England and
Wales:

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 was introduced in May 2004 and altered the
definition and coverage of sexual offences. In particular, it re-defined indecent
exposure as a sexual offence which is likely to account for much of the increase
in 2004/05.

The definition of UK rape now also includes Oral Penetratrion.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section7/chapter_a.html

The main provisions of the Act include the following:



Rape is widened to include oral penetration

Significant changes to the issue of consent and the abolition of the Morgan defence

Specific offences relating to children under 13, 16 and 18

Offences to protect vulnerable persons with a mental disorder

Other miscellaneous offences

Strengthening the notification requirements and providing new civil preventative orders.



Other Sexual offences in the UK such as Sexual grooming and Internet
Pornography/Paedophilla have led to a rise in sex crime figures in the UK,
with Scotland Yard and other agencies devoting more and more resources,
and making more arrests.

Marital/Spousal Rape was made an offence in 1991, and recent date rape,
illegal sex trade workers and indeed the advent of new metropolitan police
rape centres have all led to an increase in reported rapes.

[Jaeger]

Finally.......

Crime figures often just reflect police activity.

For Example if the police launch a robbery initiative then street crime arrests
and the reporting of street crime will increase.

If the police launch a crack down on Domestic Violence, then figures for violent assault charges will also increase (One in four assaults in the UK are domestics).

Likewise if the police launch an initiative to encourage rape victims to come forward, then rape figures will increase dramaticaly.

There are also discrepencies in figures, the UK police now record crime that would have just been recorded as one crime in the past as multiple crimes. While half of all violent crime in the UK results in no injury to anyone at all.

Violent crime in the UK covers a much broader area than in the US, for example verbal assault, harrasement, common assault are all recorded as violent crimes (in the same way felonys are in the US) even though they result in no injury. Of the other 50% of Violent Crime, the vast majority are simple assaults resulting in cuts and bruises.

The UK Police are now the subject of a target culture and have to meet targets for recorded crime. The system has been broadly criticised as performance targets have increased numbers of trivial offences and taken discretion away from officers, who now feel that they must make an arrest in order to meet targets and to justify budgets, which will be cut if they don't meet targets.

There have been cases of children arrested for using chalk on the pavement or people being arrested for offences they would not have been arrested for in the past, when police officers had more discretion and could make decisions themselves.

More reliable figures regarding violent crime are hospital casualty
figures.

There has been a 25% reduction in hospital admissions due to violent crime since 2000 in England and Wales according to Professor Shepherd and his violence research group at Cardiff University Medical School - (see my earlier posts)

As for serious assaults, they are often reported in the UK, as the person
assaulted can claim criminal injuries compensation running in to thousands
of pounds.

UK - Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority -

https://www.cica.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=115,64686&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

Likewise anyone who is insured would be stupid not to report a robbery, car theft or house break in, when they could claim the money back on insurance, and a crime must be reported
to the police and given a crime number before an insurance company will deal with any claim.

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

Look. All I know is that I and many other people feel about 10 times safer in Manhattan than in Central London. The lack of the same type of drinking culture that the Brits have is probably more than 50% of the cause of this. The other 50% is something I dont know about.

From The Guardian
Crime doesn't pay

Neal Lawson

April 27, 2007 5:30 PM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/neal_lawson/2007/04/crime_doesnt_pay.html
The rise in street crime (http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2066576,00.html) will come as no surprise to parents of children, especially boys, living in urban areas. I've lost count of the time my youngest son, who is 16, has had his phone stolen under the threat of violence. It now seems to be a routine aspect of young adults lives. Why?
I think there are two factors. The first is the obvious - you have got something that I haven't and I'm big enough and strong enough to take it from you. When I was young we carried nothing of value and neither did anyone else. So street crime was rare. Now kids as young as six and seven might have a mobile and an MP3 player that are worth £500. So there is value in it. But it is more than that. The type of phone or iPod (http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2053271,00.html) you have is of huge symbolic importance. "What does your phone say about you" the advert goes. The answer is a lot. We judge each other and crucially ourselves by the quality of the consumer goods we carry and wear. And it matters much more to poorer children. Also, for those who are short on love, care and hope, the type of trainers or mobile they have in relation to those around them takes on huge significance.
My kids live in a middle class area of south London. It's leafy and pleasant. But all around are estates and towns that are much less well to do. So their area becomes a honey trap for poorer children who want the best phone or music player too - because that is what society tells them matters.
But with phone thefts there is more going on. Now, as soon you report the incident the phone is immobilised and is useless. The thieves know this. So why do it? For no better reason, it seems, than they can. For a moment they can take control of lives in which they mostly feel utterly helpless.
We are breading a generation with no fear. They don't value their own lives, so how can they value anyone else's? Society clearly doesn't value them. It brings them up in poverty on rotting estates. Schools are run for league tables and they can't keep up. Social mobility is declining. Unlike their parents they are more likely to stay poor. They can see the levels of inequality all around them. Their inferiority in our consumer society is continuously pushed in their face. They can't keep pace, let alone ever win, by playing by the rules because the rules are not made for or, by them. So they cheat. And let's face it, they get plenty of encouragement to do that from politicians, business people, sports stars and now television shows (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2064111,00.html).
The response to this line of argument is often: "well not all poor kids steal or mug so why excuse those who do?" It's not to excuse, it is to understand the reasons why things seem to be getting out of hand. It can't just be that by some accident moral codes are slipping. They slip for a reason. And one of the biggest drivers is the possessive individualism (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/josh_freedman_berthoud/2007/03/thatchers_children.html) that was spawned in the Thatcher years and has not been curtailed after 10 years of New Labour.
Every time my son comes home following the frustration and humiliation of having his phone taken or having been chased we talk about where he goes and what he does. But I try to talk to him about the lives of others and what it might be like to feel so insecure, to have such little hope or perhaps parents that don't talk much or show their love.
I can't buy his safety just as I can't keep him in doors forever more. We can only solve the crime wave on our streets by doing it together as a society. That means getting a better balance between the importance of consumption and wider notion of wellbeing and crucially a better balance between the rich and the poor.

One reader from Britain then comments:

Well I could say we haven�t seen anything yet. The country is still relatively prosperous and we can just about afford our current welfare system , health and education services. Of course some of this prosperity comes from the use of cheap unregulated EU labour and illegals. Prosperity for some but a disaster for the already poorly paid unskilled and semiskilled.
We have a seaming inability to deal with illegal immigration which is running at an unprecedented rate and is increasing the breakdown of social cohesion. Not unique to us, it appears that Sweden is starting to feel the pinch and has record levels of crime, particularly in Malmo ( heaviest concentration of immigrants ). Managed migration and integration works but social cohesion breaks down when it is not controlled. Who is suffering the most in the USA? Poor whites and blacks.
What happens when the economic shit hits the fan? It already has. Recent interest rate rises have certainly affected my families standard of living, as have all the other hikes in prices. Not to mention the cap on wage settlements.
I will soon have to seriously consider sending the kids out foraging for extra money to pay the bills. A bit of mugging and burglary of people perceived to be more wealthy. Given my scientific skills I could produce some methamphetamine or even more powerful psychedelics. There will of course be a demand as people increasingly try to avoid the brutal reality of living in 21st Britain.
Of course I and my family would never consider criminality as a solution and we do not consider poverty as a sufficient excuse for indulging in criminality. Smug, no way. I and my wife have struggled all of our lives to keep a roof over our heads and keep the children fed and clothed. We will continue to do so. The world doesn�t owe anyone a living, and given the rise of other economies we all have to knuckle under and do our best. If we don�t we are all lost.

Also from the GuardianA criminal misunderstanding

Natalie Bennett

July 24, 2006 11:34 AM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/natalie_bennett/2006/07/criminal_misunderstanding.html
The latest crime figures are out, and newspapers are, as usual, competing among themselves to find the most negative possible spin to put on them.
"The British Crime Survey, which interviews 45,000 individuals, showed that the total number of crimes rose by 1 per cent to 10.9 million compared with a peak of 19.4 million in 1995," reports The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2277857,00.html).
"A big rise in street robberies across England and Wales rocked the Home Office...," says the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/20/nreid20.xml).
Overall crime recorded by police fell by 1 per cent, while that recorded by the Crime Survey rose by one per cent. Now I was a member of a university class that jointly only passed statistics when they dropped the required mark to about 10 per cent, but I'd confidently guess that neither of those figures is statistically significant, given the range of variables in their calculation.
But even were the swings bigger, would they mean anything at all? Not much.
Those papers with a little sense of perspective already acknowledge, if in nine point body-type rather than a 60-point headline, that the "recorded" figure reflects police activity and interests, rather than any actual conditions. Were police to suddenly decide to focus on jaywalking in central London (which would be a great idea from my point of view as a cyclist - particularly the highly dangerous offence of "mobile phone walking") , the rate of the offence in the figures would suddenly leap, but be no reflection of changed conditions on the ground.
So, it is generally thought, comparisons of what crimes people report privately to questioners are more accurate. And perhaps they are, over a short period. But are comparisons over time by this measure any more accurate?
Public perception of "what is crime" changes over the years and decades, much more, generally, than legal definitions change. So I'd suggest that historical comparisons have little or no veracity.
Some crimes you might say don't change - say the biggie, murder. Well no, at the centre it might be simple - but conceptions of murder and manslaughter change over the years. And what about the specialised case of infanticide - regarded relatively sympathetically in some periods and less so in others? And given the state of modern forensic science, are not cases that previously might have been dismissed as accidents more likely to be identified as murders?
But murder of course is an extremely rare crime. Think of something more common, that really will affect the overall figures. Let's imagine a scenario. Teenage boy regularly beats up and terrorises a fellow school pupil and steals the contents of his pockets. Parents of victim eventually find out; father of victim confronts father of bully. Blows are exchanged. Blood is shed. Bully, who learnt that "might is right" from his father's leather belt, is again beaten by father for causing all the trouble.
Until very recently, the chances of the police being involved at any point in that string of events would be miniscule. Today, it could very easily end up being classified as half a dozen "assaults occasioning actual bodily harm" and "robberies", with a few child abuse charges thrown in for good measure. Certainly, the theft of the victim pupil's mobile phone and iPod will end up in the statistics, so that parents can claim on their insurance.
And that's great. I'm not in any way suggesting that shouldn't be the case. For all the odd obviously ridiculous prosecution of children that got out of hand and should have been dealt with by school discipline, the fact that society is expressing through the law and the courts the fact that physical clashes of any sort are unacceptable is a good thing.
These changes all reflect the fact that we are now more civilised, less violent to each other, than any time in the past. Just think back. Domestic violence wasn't seen as a crime; beating the hell out of your children was just "discipline". Two blokes "having a go" in the pub car park after closing time was highly unlikely to attract attention, unless the whole crowd watching piled in too. Someone of wealth and status would probably drink drive, kill someone, then bulldoze through the police, pay off the necessary relatives and get away with it. These were just "what happened", "a bit of biff", not a "crime".
It mightn't be a fashionable thing to say, and certainly a hard line to get on the front page of a newspaper, but in fact you are almost certainly less likely to be subject to violence now in the UK than in any time in history. And if you are unlucky enough to be a victim, you are far more likely to end up in the statistics than at any time in the past. (And you don't need to just take my word for this, see what a magistrate (http://thelawwestofealingbroadway.blogspot.com/2006/07/exclusive-new-crackdown-on-crime.html) has to say.)
Yet probably more people fear crime, change their lives because of fear of violent crime, than at any time in certainly the recent past, to their harm, and the harm of general society. (The way to really greatly cut your risk is not to go to the pub late at night if you're a drunk young bloke, and if you are a heterosexual woman to be celibate - two sets of recommendations unlikely to have a high take-up rate.) Instead, people are staying in, locking themselves behind giant bars, and getting in their cars rather than catching public transport - measures whose costs usually far outweigh the risks they are trying to avoid.
Partly the fear - and the utter irrational level of terror about the stranger in the later-night street - is because we're now more risk-averse, and partly because we're much more media-saturated. So why not go out and enjoy that late evening summer stroll in comfort and confidence? That's provided, of course, you're celibate and sober.

And as for the guns/no guns debate:

From the Guardian

Unarmed and dangerous?

Ben Whitford

February 23, 2007 7:30 PM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ben_whitford/2007/02/unarmed_and_dangerous.html
The recent spate of shootings (http://society.guardian.co.uk/youthjustice/story/0,,2016191,00.html) in Manchester and London may have shocked Brits, but they came as no surprise to many on this side of the Atlantic. The NRA (rallying cry: “Outlaw guns and you arm the outlaws”) and its allies have long known that British society, with its draconian gun control laws and even - heaven forfend! - a handgun ban, was a ticking bomb.
“The English approach has not reduced violent crime,” notes Joyce Lee Malcolm (http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html), an academic at MIT and Bentley College. “Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them."
The logic is simple: putting guns in the hands of honest citizens deters criminals. With current rules making it impossible for even the Olympic shooting team (http://sport.guardian.co.uk/columnists/story/0,,1687829,00.html) to get their hands on a shooter, it was only a matter of time before the criminal backlash began. Consider this (http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/BritainToyGunsWSJE.html) editorial by John Lott, a researcher whose proclivity for female impersonation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8884-2003Jan31) has not prevented him from becoming one of America’s more influential pro-gun voices:
<b>
"Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels."</b>
QED (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.)? Well, not quite. For starters, in 1998 - just after the UK banned handguns - the police changed the way (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page107.asp) they counted crimes. Crimes like common assault and harassment were reclassified as violent crimes; the underlying crime rates stayed the same, but the recorded crime rate almost doubled overnight. Further changes came in 2002, when police introduced a national standard (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page107.asp#The%20National%20Crime%20Reporting%20S tandard%20%28NCRS%29) for recording crime; the Home Office estimates the move inflated violent crime figures by at least another 20%.
According to the British Crime Survey (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs1.html), which combines police records with a large-scale survey of UK residents and is acknowledged as the gold standard of British crime statistics, the people of Britain are at less risk of being the victim of a crime today than at any point since the survey began in 1981. Violent crime rates have fallen by 43% since 1995; burglary and car thefts have both fallen by more than half. It’s true that murder rates (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp) have been running high in recent years - partly due to the retrospective inclusion of Harold Shipman’s victims - but last year they fell back to about the same level as in 1997, even including the 52 victims of the July bombings.
Even the violent crimes we suffer aren’t usually all that violent. You won’t hear it from the gun lobby, but well over a third of the "violent crimes" recorded in Britain last year were crimes like common assault or harassment that involved no physical injury to the victim. A further 43% of cases involved "less serious woundings" like bruises, grazes or black eyes. These may have been traumatic experiences for their victims, but they were scuffles, not shootings. In the vast majority of these cases, the presence of a gun would only - could only - have made matters worse.
The gun lobby’s fervent belief in the deterrent power of firearms is based on a leaky flotilla of half-truths and half-baked research. The NRA used to fete Kennesaw, Georgia, where gun ownership was made mandatory; unfortunately, subsequent analyses (http://timlambert.org/2003/11/kennesaw/) showed that the town's crime rates didn't change after the law was passed. Others trumpet criminologist Gary Kleck (http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php), whose work suggests that firearms are used defensively 2.5 million times a year in the United States, preventing some 400,000 murders. Since this would mean gun-toting vigilantes preventing about 15 deaths for every murder that actually takes place, it’s clear his estimate is far too high. (More reliable studies, based on victim surveys and police data, put rates of defensive gun uses at less than a twentieth of Kleck's figure.)
Still, if the cowboys have trouble with calculators there’s plenty of reliable evidence for one thing: the availability of guns leads to murder and mayhem. Ninety people a day were killed with guns in America during the 1990s; three hundred a day more were wounded. People with guns in their home are three times more likely to commit suicide; people living in states with weak gun control laws are ten times more likely to die in an accidental shooting. American children are ten times as likely to die in a gun accident as children in other developed countries. The studies and statistics are too numerous to list here (check out David Hemenway’s excellent Private Guns, Public Health (http://www.amazon.com/Private-Public-Health-David-Hemenway/dp/0472114050) for many, many more) but the facts are clear: guns may not kill people, but people with ready access to guns are far more likely to kill.
The US gun lobby are past masters at cherrypicking nuggets of data to lend a veneer of credibility to their claims; and it’s true that there are areas in which Britain still has much work to do. We have higher rates of crime (http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VTPDPT) than many other rich countries; worse, the brunt is born by the most impoverished few percent of the population. But we aren’t a nation under siege; the recent shootings notwithstanding, our problem with violent crime can more often be traced to a surfeit of Stella than to a shortage of Saturday night specials. We shouldn’t let the US gun lobby convince us otherwise - and nor should we hold still while they twist the facts, presenting us as a dreadful warning in order to advance their own agenda.

[Jaeger]

Central London is probably one of the safest areas in the world, every car number plate coming in to the city is scanned and virtually every street in central london has CCTV Survailance, there are tens of thousands of cameras, which are watched 24 hours a day. Like Manhattan the whole area is on terrorist alert, and you are constantly being monitored.

There were 50 gun crime deaths in Britain last year (population 60 million) and 750 murders (the murder rate is falling here btw) compared with 8,000 gun crime deaths in America and 17,000 murders. There were 170 murders in London last year, compred to around 550 in NY.

America has five times the population, but if it had the UK's gun crime figures, the US would only have 250 gun deaths a year and around 4000 murders.

As for the robbery rise it mainly related to kids stealing other kids, ipods and mobile phones,
each one being recorded by the Metropolitan Police so they can get a crime number and go
to the insurance company and get a new phone. The fact is these figures have been massively increased by kids claiming their phones were stolen, getting a crime number and then claiming on insurance to get a more up to date phone. Fortunately the police are becoming more wise to this and have started prosecuting.

In NY property crime under $500 is a misdemeanor and not counted in felony figures, again London counts everything, and even counts one crime as multiple crimes.

Oh and it's best not to use articles with Joyce Lee Malcolm, as most of her assumptions are idiotic and have no bearing on UK Society.

Firstly guns aren't banned in Britain, only automatic weapons and handguns, we still have rifle clubs, shotguns and hunting, and the shooting industry is a major money earner running in to billions of pounds.

Secondly prior to the handgun ban (pre-Dunblane) only 50,000 people owned handguns in the UK, and there were strict controls regarding how they should be stored and where they could be used, there certainly was no concealed carry.

Thirdly the British Crime Survey (the most reliable crime figures) have shown a massive decrease in violence in the last ten years, as have figures relating to hospital treatment for violent crime injuries in England and Wales.

As I have already explained the police have changed the way they count crime, they count trivial crime, and are increasingly pushed to meet targets.

If UK Police (Basic Command Unit) Management do not show enough detected and recorded crime they face budget cuts , and therefore they record as much trivial nonsense as possible in order to justify budgets.

The whole system has been criticised in a recent report, and there have been calls to scrap the system and give officers their discretion back.

Half of all violent crime in the UK involves no injury to anyone and the rest is mainly very trivial in nature.

A good website - http://www.anxietyculture.com/crimescare.htm

NY police management have the opposite problem, they are increasingly pushed to show as little crime as possible, to reclass crimes and downgrade them, to sweep them under the carpet, in order to please the City Fathers.

Finally I know both London and NY, and to be honest, I have never had a problem with crime in either city. I naturally feel safer in London, because it's my home, and I am sure most New Yorkers feel safer in their familiar home surroundings than they do in cities abroad.

[ablarc]

Interesting and alarming thread.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Look. All I know is that I and many other people feel about 10 times safer in Manhattan than in Central London.
I would totally agree.

[ablarc]

^ Times have changed, huh?

Have the British grown violent?

[Capn_Birdseye]

^ Times have changed, huh?
Have the British grown violent?
The British have always had a violent streak in their nature - just look at our history, but now, according to Metropolitan Police figures, foreigners are now responsible for more than one-in-five crimes committed in London.

Around a third of all sex offences and a half of all frauds in the capital are carried out by non-British citizens. The biggest offenders are the Poles, who have flooded into Britain since the 2004 expansion of the EU. They were responsible for 2,310 crimes in the first six months of this year - including 583 violent attacks and 32 sex attacks.

Romania joined the EU in January this year and its citizens are fifth on the list with more than 1,000 offences - an eightfold rise on the same period in 2006.

The figures released under the Freedom of Information Act, (the scope of which has been much reduced by our Labour government), revealed Jamaicans committed the second largest number of crimes (1,750), followed by the Irish (1,390), and Somalians (1,105).

London is a dangerous city compared to Manhattan.

[Jaeger]

London is not a violent city, did you actually read my posts regarding crime figures, as for foreigners (given 2/5th's of Londons population is foreign born) - 40% of Londons population is Foreign Born, so I should imagine one fifth of crime is committed by foreigners - there are up to a million polish now living here alone.

http://www.london.gov.uk/londoner/07mar/p10a.jsp?nav=city&utm_source=article-favourite-city&utm_medium=email-mar07

As for Manhattan, it's NY's Central Area and like the centre of London it is watched continously by cameras and police - Central London is extremely safe.

Btw I wasn't aware Manhattan was a city, it's a 22 Square Mile (Population 1.5 million) tiny island, which people here seem determined to compare to the 609 Square Miles than make up Greater London. Manhattan is a heavily guarded financial and entertainment compex and like centraL London is relatively safe with CCTV cameras and lots of police, however what about the other 6.5 million people who make up NY and the other 300 odd square miles of the city.

Out of London's 33 Boroughs, if you put together just four boroughs - Westminster, Chelsea and Kensington, Hammersmith and Fulham, plus add the Citys Square Mile (Financial District) and you have an area equal to Manhattan Island. These four boroughs had 10 murders last year, and had extremely low figures for violent crimes - even Manhattan doesn't have figures that low.

London has a lower murder rate than NY, less gun crime (there were 50 gun murders in Great Britain Last year), serious crime has fallen, and recorded crime figures are compiled differently.

*NY has a system of Felony and Midemenour - any robbery/property crime under $500 (£250) is a misdermeanor, however all property crimes are listed in London from mobile phones, ipods to petty thefts.

*NY does not count simple assaults, it only counts aggrevated assaults - assaults that result in serious injury or involve a weapon - London doesn't just count simple assaults, it counts
common assault (no injury), harrasement (no injury), Verbal Assault (no injury), of the violent crimes recorded in the UK, half involve no injury to anyone, whilst the other 50% are mainly simple assaults (black eyes, cuts, bruises etc)

*The definition of many crimes is far broader in the UK, and police targets and recording methods have inflated crime rates.

* The BCS (regarded as the most reliable crime figures by criminologists) has shown a massive decrease in violent crime rates in England and Wales, and this is backed up by hospital casualty figures provided by the NHS and published by the Violence Research Group every two
years.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Jaeger, I live in London and you can quote all the figures you like but I know from first hand experience just how dangerous a place it is. I wouldn't believe any "official" crime stats even if they were chiselled on blocks of granite and vouched for by Archangel Gabriel himself, surrounded by a heavenly choir of harp-playing angels adorned in gossamer, floating on puffy white clouds all proclaiming they're true.

Do you live in London Jaeger? If so, where?

[Jaeger]

Jaeger, I live in London and you can quote all the figures you like but I know from first hand experience just how dangerous a place it is. I wouldn't believe any "official" crime stats even if they were chiselled on blocks of granite and vouched for by Archangel Gabriel himself, surrounded by a heavenly choir of harp-playing angels adorned in gossamer, floating on puffy white clouds all proclaiming they're true.

Do you live in London Jaeger? If so, where?

I live in London as well, and to be honest I have never had a problem in this city, and don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Have you even been to other cities, and not just Manhattan.

Take a city like Philadelphia with a population of 1.5 million and 360 murders last year, compared to London with a population nearing 8 million and 170 murders last year. I would rate Philadelphia is a violent city, but London is not that violent as far as major cities go.

Most big cities have a violent element, however you are making London to be something it's not, and if you had read my posts I have constantly said police recorded figures just reflect police activity and that the figures underestimate crime in NY, while over estimate crime in London.

For someone who doesn't believe in crime figures you are extremely quick to post an article
suggesting crime is due to immigrants, even though 2/5th of London's population are immigrants and they are only responsible for 1/5th of crime, which actually is half the crime rate of the native population. London is a safe city by international standards.

I suggest if you feel so fearful in London, you move somewhere else and whinge about how life is terrible there.

[Fabrizio]

I don't live in either, but NYC is denser, has more foot traffic. It's grid of streets, lack of alleys etc. hold few surprises.

I believe you can fool around a lot with statistics.... and no matter what statistics say, the night feels more secure in NYC than in London.

Also if you are used to a night out in Italy or France for instance, the Brits binge drinking problem creates an unsettling feeling for those not used to such a spectacle.

I love London, but I'll take Manhattan over London any day...or night.


---

[Capn_Birdseye]

I suggest if you feel so fearful in London, you move somewhere else.
Why? Should the fear of crime drive us all from our beloved homes? Do we let the criminal class who represent a small but violent minority dictate to the decent law-abiding majority? No.
Violent crime is rampant in the UK and our prisons are full. The Police no longer have a presence on our streets, they have surrendered them to the yobs as they have become increasingly tied to their desks due to bureauracy. Unfettered and uncontrolled immigration has allowed vast numbers of undesirables to enter the UK with most settling into their life of crime in our main cities. The Police are reluctant to even give you a crime number or visit the scene of the crime in many cases so its little wonder the public have lost faith in our Police. The only time most of us come in contact with the Police is when they are busy catching speeding motorists which of course puts more revenue into their pot!

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2710596.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/31/do3101.xml

As a matter of interest in what part of London do you live in Jaeger?

[Jaeger]

Why? Should the fear of crime drive us all from our beloved homes? Do we let the criminal class who represent a small but violent minority dictate to the decent law-abiding majority? No.
Violent crime is rampant in the UK and our prisons are full. The Police no longer have a presence on our streets, they have surrendered them to the yobs as they have become increasingly tied to their desks due to bureauracy. Unfettered and uncontrolled immigration has allowed vast numbers of undesirables to enter the UK with most settling into their life of crime in our main cities. The Police are reluctant to even give you a crime number or visit the scene of the crime in many cases so its little wonder the public have lost faith in our Police. The only time most of us come in contact with the Police is when they are busy catching speeding motorists which of course puts more revenue into their pot!

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2710596.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/31/do3101.xml

As a matter of interest in what part of London do you live in Jaeger?

Firstly I disagree with that article - we are not missing two million crimes, so the BCS neglects to interview under 16's and pensioners (this is currently being rectified), however the failure to interview under 16's and over 65's in the 50,000 people interviewed most probably means that a higher percentage of adult males are interviewed between the ages of 18-30 years of age and guess what - that male age range has the highest percentage of violent assaults against them than any other group in society.

Secondly the BCS tallies with the NHS Casaulty Figures for Violent Crime, which have shown a marked decrease since 2000 of some 20%, and are published bi-yearly by the Violence Research Group.

Thirdly there may be some crimes missing but the BCS has never claimed to be a hundred percent accurate, it is at best a guess based on the experiences of 50,000 people out of 53 million in England and Wales.

Whilst the BCS may not be 100% accurate, it is a far more accurate guide than the NYPD Figures, The FBI UCR, UK Police Recorded Crime and covers a far greater percentage of population than the American NCVS.

I have already mentioned the police target culture as a major reason for crime being inaccurate, as for not being on the streets, the police are putting neighbourhood police teams on to the streets in London and every area is to get them.

Btw all you have to do to get a crime number is usually ring metcall, and they will issue you with a crime number over the phone, which is one of the reasons the system is open to abuse.

As for serious violent crime, I would suggest it has a much better chance of being reported in the UK than most countries, as the UK has one of the best criminal injuries compensation authorities in the world, and you can claim anything from £1000 to £250,000 for injuries sustained.

https://www.cica.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=115,64686&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

Likewise you would be stupid not to report a burglary or robbery if you ae insured and can claim goods back, and unlike NY the police here record and give a crime number to all robberies. We do not have a system where anything under $500 (£250) is not a felony, or where it's left to police to decide whether to record the incident. Crimes deemed as Midemeanors aren't usually recorded in US crime figures and are not part of NY City Figures or police crimes listed in Schedule 1 of the FBI 'Uniform Crime Reports'.

As for where I live in London - Islington.

[Jaeger]

I don't live in either, but NYC is denser, has more foot traffic. It's grid of streets, lack of alleys etc. hold few surprises.

I believe you can fool around a lot with statistics.... and no matter what statistics say, the night feels more secure in NYC than in London.

Also if you are used to a night out in Italy or France for instance, the Brits binge drinking problem creates an unsettling feeling for those not used to such a spectacle.

I love London, but I'll take Manhattan over London any day...or night.


---

Manhattan isn't a city, it's 22 Square Mile Island, with 1.5 million population,
and is not comparable to the 609 Square Miles of Greater London with a 7.8 million population.

[Fabrizio]

Uh...OK...then let me change my statement:

"I love London, but I'll take New York over London any day...or night."

yeah, yeah...I know... New York is not only a city, it's also a state and Manhattan is not really a... whatever...

Listen, all I know is I feel safer there.

[ramvid01]

*NY has a system of Felony and Midemenour - any robbery/property crime under $500 (£250) is a misdermeanor, however all property crimes are listed in London from mobile phones, ipods to petty thefts.

*NY does not count simple assaults, it only counts aggrevated assaults - assaults that result in serious injury or involve a weapon - London doesn't just count simple assaults, it counts
common assault (no injury), harrasement (no injury), Verbal Assault (no injury), of the violent crimes recorded in the UK, half involve no injury to anyone, whilst the other 50% are mainly simple assaults (black eyes, cuts, bruises etc)

*The definition of many crimes is far broader in the UK, and police targets and recording methods have inflated crime rates.

* The BCS (regarded as the most reliable crime figures by criminologists) has shown a massive decrease in violent crime rates in England and Wales, and this is backed up by hospital casualty figures provided by the NHS and published by the Violence Research Group every two
years.

I think your trying to compare the two societies based on crime statistics but it is a bit difficult. A good portion of the population here wants results from the crimes done (which involve for the most part prison). Prisons are very full in this state. Also crime can be reclassified for a number of reasons. Here are two that I feel and know that are true.

The first being judicial efficiency. Cases cost money and the fact that there are thousands of cases in the system make it very taxing (time and more importantly tax payer money). The court system here wants to be more efficient and the reality is you cannot take people to court for every petty offense so some offenses are reclassified. Even with this the court system in this state is still backed up case wise.

Secondly prisons are crowded. For misdemeanors and the such Rikers Island is used to hold these prisoners. For the most part though this is such a relatively small facility compared to the crimes that happen that some offenders are given probation of 6 months to a year were the record of their misdemeanor will be stricken from the record.

[Capn_Birdseye]

the police are putting neighbourhood police teams on to the streets in London and every area is to get them.

The great expansion within the UK Police forces is the recruitment of so-called Police Community Safety Officers (PCSO's), who receive minimum training (I think its 3 weeks), have no powers of arrest, can detain someone for only a maximum of 30 minutes, and are about as useful as a pork chop at a kosher restaurant! They don't even have to pass fitness tests, can enter with lower educational standards, and, here's the real issue, are paid well below what a normal proper cop gets.
Quite frankly they're a cop-out for the authorities, (if you'll excuse the unintended pun), its "policing" on the cheap.
As a Home Office report has said, "there is little evidence that PSCO's have had much impact on anti-social behaviour". I would add, "and crime prevention & detection."

Take a look at this recent example of their "professionalism"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=482921&in_page_id=1770

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=483227&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true

[Jaeger]

The great expansion within the UK Police forces is the recruitment of so-called Police Community Safety Officers (PCSO's), who receive minimum training (I think its 3 weeks), have no powers of arrest, can detain someone for only a maximum of 30 minutes, and are about as useful as a pork chop at a kosher restaurant! They don't even have to pass fitness tests, can enter with lower educational standards, and, here's the real issue, are paid well below what a normal proper cop gets.
Quite frankly they're a cop-out for the authorities, (if you'll excuse the unintended pun), its "policing" on the cheap.
As a Home Office report has said, "there is little evidence that PSCO's have had much impact on anti-social behaviour". I would add, "and crime prevention & detection."

Take a look at this recent example of their "professionalism"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=482921&in_page_id=1770

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=483227&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true

I don't really want read Daily Mail rubbish, the police in England and Wales are 140,000 strong, which is an all time high. PCSO's aren't police officers, they are support officers and as such they are there to gather intelligence and become the eyes and ears of a community. A security guard doesn't have the same powers as a police officer, but companies employ them to help stop theft and other crimes. By the way PCSO's are quite popular among many of the communities they patrol.

People volunteer to be PCSO's and the pay is not bad, it's a lot more than security guards and shop security are often paid, and a lot more than Special Constables.

PCSO's and Special Constables may yet be merged in to a police reserve, which may be an improvement, and in terms of operational effectiveness I also support a Border Police Force. However it should be noted that while 40% of London's population is born abroad, so is 38% of New York's.

[Jaeger]

I think your trying to compare the two societies based on crime statistics but it is a bit difficult. A good portion of the population here wants results from the crimes done (which involve for the most part prison). Prisons are very full in this state. Also crime can be reclassified for a number of reasons. Here are two that I feel and know that are true.

The first being judicial efficiency. Cases cost money and the fact that there are thousands of cases in the system make it very taxing (time and more importantly tax payer money). The court system here wants to be more efficient and the reality is you cannot take people to court for every petty offense so some offenses are reclassified. Even with this the court system in this state is still backed up case wise.

Secondly prisons are crowded. For misdemeanors and the such Rikers Island is used to hold these prisoners. For the most part though this is such a relatively small facility compared to the crimes that happen that some offenders are given probation of 6 months to a year were the record of their misdemeanor will be stricken from the record.

In terms of judicial efficeiency, most British Crime Figures recorded, do not involve a court appearance, they are just recorded crime figures.

Furthermore I have been as critical of the way Britain records trivial offences as crimes (which usually don't involve anything other than a police warning or fine in the post) as I have been of the NYPD for it's under reporting.

Midemeenors don't usually involve prison (it's usually Felonies), as for Rikers Island, I wouldn't say a facility that holds up to 20,000 prisoners is small. The US Prison system is predicted to reach 2,500,000 within the next decade, and currently stands at over 2,100,000. Britain has a fifth of the US population (60m compared 300m) and in order to imprison the same percentage of population would have to jail 500,000 people rather than the 80,000 in England and Wales, 7,000 in Scotland and 1,500 in NI that we currently jail.

[Jaeger]

Uh...OK...then let me change my statement:

"I love London, but I'll take New York over London any day...or night."

yeah, yeah...I know... New York is not only a city, it's also a state and Manhattan is not really a... whatever...

Listen, all I know is I feel safer there.

Yes and I feel a lot safer in London than the graffati ridden streets of Rome or Naples.

[nick-taylor]

Yes and I feel a lot safer in London than the graffati ridden streets of Rome or Naples.Correction its not graffiti ridden streets of Naples, its the corruption and 'waste management issues'.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/features/2005/07/images/070530newspic_2.jpg

You are more likely to be murdered in New York, but more likely to get your wallet pick pocketed in London. Nearly as many people in the UK are murdered in New York.

[Fabrizio]

I have found so many nice things for my apartment by the side of the road.

One man's garbage is another man's coffee table.

----

So let's see... we've gone from where-do-you-feel-safer-London-or-New-York, to Naples' "waste management issues".

Do I note just a hint of desperation from you fellows?

------

http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=12296


---

[Capn_Birdseye]

Whatever way you dress it up a cow-pat is still a cow-pat. The British people want, and deserve proper fully trained Police officers on their streets not cardboard cut-outs like the PCSO's. We pay enough in taxes to have what we used to have, Police Stations that don't close at 5pm or at weekends, Police Officers released from the miles of red tape they have to endure in order to satisfy government targets! Police Officers so cowered by "Political Correctness", (a curse of this Labour government), that they frightened to deal with certain elements of criminal behaviour.

The public have lost faith in our once-respected Police force, (now called Police Service, as though its a branch of social services!). They don't necessarily blame the Police but their political masters who have reduced them to the sorry state they now find themselves in.

PSCO's are a blot on our crime-ridden, yob-dominated streets, they need to be abolished and the money better spent on real bobbies!

_____________

Quote:
PCSO's court appearance is an evident disaster

The alarming consequences of the poor training given to PCSOs is graphically illustrated in this account from a Federation constable member in east London of what happened when one of them had to give evidence in court.

The police officer, who is a member of a Safer Neighbourhoods team, writes:

I arrested a youth for Section 5 POA outside a school. It was a straightforward case involving a very nasty up-and-coming young man. I had a PCSO with me and a teacher came forward as a witness for police.

In court, the teacher gave evidence, followed by myself and there were no problems. But then the PCSO entered the witness box.

What followed can only be described as an embarrassment to the Metropolitan Police and will lead to an appeal against conviction.

The PCSO, when questioned, froze, gave completely the wrong answers, contradicted himself almost every time and was totally overcome by the whole occasion. He fell apart in the box.

In the words of the defence solicitor, we had two different 'police officers' giving two different stories.

The PCSO assisted the defence by disagreeing with his own statement and agreeing with the defence that his own statement was not correct. The statement itself, although a little brief, was correct and had been written by him two hours after the incident with no input (deliberately) from any other officer.

I have since questioned him, along with two other PCSOs and discovered that the only training given for court appearances came in the form of a 20-minute video.

They have not been prepared for giving evidence in any sense of the word. As a result, police officers cannot have faith in PCSOs as witnesses.

The argument that they can give evidence as ordinary members of the public does not stand up to scrutiny.

As the defence solicitor in this case intended, the magistrates and everyone else in the court saw two 'police officers' in the box giving evidence. They expected a professional case to be presented. That this was not done is unacceptable and represents a failure by the organisation.

The whole PCSO team needs immediate training in court procedure, evidence writing and the presentation of evidence in court. Without this training, they cannot be relied upon as professional witnesses.

I believe PCSOs should give evidence in plain clothes until this issue is dealt with. That way, the court will accept that they are not trained police officers and treat them accordingly.

As things stand, I feel there are serious implications for police officers as more cases are lost.

The PCSO in the case I have just described told me that he was very upset by the experience and feels let down by the Metropolitan Police Service.

__________

http://www.pcsos-national.co.uk/mirror.html

[krulltime]

You are more likely to be murdered in New York, but more likely to get your wallet pick pocketed in London. Nearly as many people in the UK are murdered in New York.

Then I feel much safer in NYC. Murders commited in the city are more likely to be drug related or family abuse. None of which is a situation that I am in. So I am sure glad that I am more likely to keep my life and my wallet in NYC.

[Jaeger]

Whatever way you dress it up a cow-pat is still a cow-pat. The British people want, and deserve proper fully trained Police officers on their streets not cardboard cut-outs like the PCSO's. We pay enough in taxes to have what we used to have, Police Stations that don't close at 5pm or at weekends, Police Officers released from the miles of red tape they have to endure in order to satisfy government targets! Police Officers so cowered by "Political Correctness", (a curse of this Labour government), that they frightened to deal with certain elements of criminal behaviour.

The public have lost faith in our once-respected Police force, (now called Police Service, as though its a branch of social services!). They don't necessarily blame the Police but their political masters who have reduced them to the sorry state they now find themselves in.

PSCO's are a blot on our crime-ridden, yob-dominated streets, they need to be abolished and the money better spent on real bobbies!



Given that there were 80,000 Police Officers in England and Wales in the 1960's and there are now 140,000 Police Officers in England and Wales, plus a further 17,000 in Scotland, I would say the numbers have significantly increased. On top of this there are 2,700 British Transport Police, 12,000 Special Constables and a planned 25,000 PCSO's.

What do you want, we have more per capita police officers than most of America, where cities such as Los Angeles have around 9000 officers and massive budget constraints.

PCSO's need to be given more training and powers, in order to be succesful members of neighbourhood teams, which will include Beat Officers, but your claims regarding police numbers are way off the mark.

[Jaeger]

You are more likely to be murdered in New York, but more likely to get your wallet pick pocketed in London. Nearly as many people in the UK are murdered in New York.

Nobody knows how many pockets get picked in NY because anything under $500 is swept under the carpet and labelled a misdemeanor rather than as a felony, in order to keep the crime figures low. Most midemenours are not included in NY Crime Figures, and the NYPD Mangement are trying all ways possible to hide and conceal crime figures.

Thr NYPD Union has been up in arms at the concealing and downgrading of crime for years now.

[Jaeger]

So let's see... we've gone from where-do-you-feel-safer-London-or-New-York, to Naples' "waste management issues".

Do I note just a hint of desperation from you fellows?




I don't think Italians have any room to criticise London or NY and I would rather be in London or NY from a health point of view than Naples.

I am not desperate to catch Typhoid or Cholorea.

As for getting your wallet nicked, just go to Rome, it leads the world, get the contents of your wallet nicked while machine gun wielding police stand around do nothing.

[Ninjahedge]

Nobody knows how many pockets get picked in NY because anything under $500 is swept under the carpet and labelled a misdemeanor rather than as a felony, in order to keep the crime figures low. Most midemenours are not included in NY Crime Figures, and the NYPD Mangement are trying all ways possible to hide and conceal crime figures.

Thr NYPD Union has been up in arms at the concealing and downgrading of crime for years now.


Nobody knows but the people that are living and visiting here.

There are other forms of information exchange besides the news and internet. If there was something juicy or fear-mongering like pick-pocketing or tourists being mugged, you would hear about it through word-of-mouth most definitely. On top of that, it would most likely be exaggerated and blown out of proportion.

Of the 12 years I have worked in NYC I have yet to hear a single gunshot. Manhattan just is not the same animal it was in the 70's! Most of the crimes you hear about are committed in the non-gentrified areas. Areas of Brooklyn, Wueens and the Bronx that were pointed out in other threads here (see "Questions and Answers" are the hot-spots responsible for the majority of crime, recorded or not, in NYC.

Jaeg, I do not agree with Captain. He tends to get a little over-reactuve and link to sites that are not the best/most trustworthy (even-keeled) sources.

But, you seem to be coming on a little strong with your dumping on NYC...

I think the two are very similar in many ways, having friends from both. I think this crime figure thing is getting very nit-picky. You really just have to look at the hard numbers in relation to comparable sets to get an idea of what is going on. But in addition to that, you always need context.

So whatever.

[Jaeger]

Nobody knows but the people that are living and visiting here.

There are other forms of information exchange besides the news and internet. If there was something juicy or fear-mongering like pick-pocketing or tourists being mugged, you would hear about it through word-of-mouth most definitely. On top of that, it would most likely be exaggerated and blown out of proportion.

Of the 12 years I have worked in NYC I have yet to hear a single gunshot. Manhattan just is not the same animal it was in the 70's! Most of the crimes you hear about are committed in the non-gentrified areas. Areas of Brooklyn, Wueens and the Bronx that were pointed out in other threads here (see "Questions and Answers" are the hot-spots responsible for the majority of crime, recorded or not, in NYC.

Jaeg, I do not agree with Captain. He tends to get a little over-reactuve and link to sites that are not the best/most trustworthy (even-keeled) sources.

But, you seem to be coming on a little strong with your dumping on NYC...

I think the two are very similar in many ways, having friends from both. I think this crime figure thing is getting very nit-picky. You really just have to look at the hard numbers in relation to comparable sets to get an idea of what is going on. But in addition to that, you always need context.

So whatever.

I am not dumping on NYC, I am questioning the NYPD and Bloombergs Crime Figures, and btw Central London is very safe, most of the crime in London is carried out in the non-gentrified areas. Btw London has even lower gun crime than NY.

London is nearly twice the size in terms of square miles as NYC, the London Police cover a massive area of 609 Square Miles, and gentrification has therefore been a much slower process, however many areas from parts of Hackney through to the Docklands and now areas such as Stratford (the 2012 Olympic Venue) are gradually becoming regenerated and redeveloped.

To be completed by 2012, Stratford City will be a collection of offices, residential and shopping connecting Stratford International and Stratford Regional stations to the Olympic Park.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1314/649128203_091d4bd596_o.jpg

[Meerkat]

I don't trust statistics relating to crime. Living and working in London as i have for 8 years, i have never been the victim of crime, and i feel safe when out and about during the day or night. I felt safe when i was out and about in NYC a couple of years ago (although my friend had $200 stolen by an illegal taxi driver), and i don't really think this 'my city is better / safer than yours' discussion is particularly constructive (leave nonsense like that to the likes of 'GT').

And Fabrizio, not all us Brits binge drink, please don't generalise because a few teenagers get paraletic when on holiday in Italy.

[Jaeger]

I don't trust statistics relating to crime. Living and working in London as i have for 8 years, i have never been the victim of crime, and i feel safe when out and about during the day or night. I felt safe when i was out and about in NYC a couple of years ago (although my friend had $200 stolen by an illegal taxi driver), and i don't really think this 'my city is better / safer than yours' discussion is particularly constructive (leave nonsense like that to the likes of 'GT').

It's not a case of which city is better, if anything NY City and London share more in common than NY does with Los Angeles or London does with Paris, and the so called NY-LON thread is stronger than ever.

However I do question Bloombergs and his predessors crime statistics as undereporting crime and London/UK police recorded crime statistics for including so much trivial crime that they have become a nonsense. The fact that half of all UK Violent Police Recorded Crime Offences result in no injury to anyone whatsoever, says a lot really.

I am being just as critical of the UK and inparticuarly Londons crime reporting as I am of NY Cities, but for opposite reasons.

[kliq6]

Manhattan isn't a city, it's 22 Square Mile Island, with 1.5 million population,
and is not comparable to the 609 Square Miles of Greater London with a 7.8 million population.

Crime stats drop in NYC is not just Manhattan its the whole city all five boros that decreased

[ramvid01]

Then I feel much safer in NYC. Murders commited in the city are more likely to be drug related or family abuse. None of which is a situation that I am in. So I am sure glad that I am more likely to keep my life and my wallet in NYC.

This is very true. I am not sure if there are any statistics that can break murders down into certain classifications, but if there are I am sure the murder rate would be significantly smaller than the total.

[kliq6]

Most crime in NY is not random like it is in other major cities like London. Most people who are killed often no there killers here

[ZippyTheChimp]

Violent crime in the US:

More than 75 percent of victims know their offender. (U.S. Department of Justice, National Crime Victimization Survey — September 2004)

But is violent crime more random in other countries?

[Eugenious]

Violent crime in the US:

More than 75 percent of victims know their offender. (U.S. Department of Justice, National Crime Victimization Survey — September 2004)

But is violent crime more random in other countries?

Availability of guns is a huge issue, people say it doesn't matter but it does. It got a lot harder to get guns IN NYC, but people can still get one within 2hr drive of the city so it's a moot point. In England it's a different story where guns are not a civil rights issue. Ghetto areas in NYC also got alot smaller and safer too so that's where the crime decreased also.

[Jaeger]

Crime stats drop in NYC is not just Manhattan its the whole city all five boros that decreased

Yes and the figures for all five boroughs are questionable.

[Jaeger]

Violent crime in the US:

More than 75 percent of victims know their offender. (U.S. Department of Justice, National Crime Victimization Survey — September 2004)

But is violent crime more random in other countries?

Most violent crime in the UK is also carried out by someone known to the
victim - and the NCVS is a survey like the British Crime Survey.

[kliq6]

Yes and the figures for all five boroughs are questionable.

I grew up in Brooklyn and when I go to areas I use to go that were crime ridden, it amazes me the changes. The figures may not be 100% but the drop in crime since the mid 90's is large

[Jaeger]

I grew up in Brooklyn and when I go to areas I use to go that were crime ridden, it amazes me the changes. The figures may not be 100% but the drop in crime since the mid 90's is large

I am sure it is, NY was in the midst of a crack cocaine epidemic in the 80's and 90's.

However this diesn't mean that the stats are correct, Brooklyn may be safer, but the Police and Bloombergs figures don't add up.

[Jaeger]

http://www.world-productions.com/outlaws/pages/behind_the_scenes/writers_room/criminal_justice_6.htm

Last year, 100 times more children were murdered by strangers on TV than in real life.

In the same year, there weren't any real serial murders. But God knows how many were portrayed on BBC and ITV.

There were 886 real homicides, compared to an estimated 1800 pretend ones on terrestial TV.

If you exclude the 800 "domestic" homicides, i.e. killings committed by a member of your extended family or a close friend, there are 20 imaginary murders to every real one.

30% of tabloid news coverage is devoted to crime. 60% of that coverage is devoted to non-domestic murder which represent less than 0.1% of reported incidents.

A study in Birmingham found that 53% of crime coverage concerned the 6% of known crimes involving offences against a person.

In an NOP poll, the British public estimated that 47% of reported crimes involved violence. The real figure is 6%.

Another poll for the BBC found that on average the public believed that one in four people would fall victim to violent crime in the next 12 months. The true figure is one in a hundred.

If you are a child under the age of 10, you are 57 times more likely to be killed by a member of your own family than to be murdered by a stranger.

More than half of all violent crimes take place in the home with wives, girlfriends and children being the most likely victims.

Outside the family, 80% of violent crimes are committed by men between the ages of 16-24, but they also account for the vast bulk of the victims.

In one sense, the figures for violent crime aren't a reflection of a violent society, they're a record of domestic and family breakdown in the UK.

So our perception of the likelihood and nature of violent crime is wildly at odds with reality.

In 2001/2, there were 812,954 recorded crimes of violence:
650,154 crimes against the person
121,375 robbery with violence (muggings etc.)
41,425 sexual offences

Of the 650,154 crimes against the person, 32,350 are counted as serious offences.

The other 617,804 less serious offences are largely made up of common assault, other wounding (i.e. not life threatening), possession of weapons, harassment and assault on a constable.

You could call them "Saturday night" crimes: a punch-up outside a pub or a club or domestic violence usually fuelled by drink or drugs.

You could also call them crimes of the poor. They're not trivial, but by and large they're not pre-meditated either. So they're a long way from the public perception of violent crimes where organised gangs of thugs patrol the streets targetting perfect strangers.



They also probably involve a deal of double-counting. Let's say you go to the pub, come home drunk and start knocking your wife about. A neighbour tries to complain, so you pop him one and when the police arrive there's a struggle.

When it comes to court, you're charged with wounding, actual bodily harm, common assault and assaulting a police officer. So it's one incident, but four offences for the record.

If your neighbour wore glasses, they might throw in a few property offences like criminal damage as well.

We also don't suffer violence equally. 45% of all violent crimes are reported 14% of victims. In other words, it's not spread evenly throughout out society. The same people tend to be assaulted again and again.

Turning to the more serious offences, the first thing to note is they represent less than 0.6% of all recorded crimes and divide up as follows:

Homicide (inc. manslaughter and infanticide): 886
Attempted murder 858
Conspiracy to murder 13,648
death by driving 407
Serious Wounding 16,537

In other words, if there were such a thing as an average bobby, he'd only come across a serious wounding once every seven and a half years.

Equally, although "conspiracy to murder" is a serious charge, it may not have involved much or any actual violence.

Doing the Police in Voices:

I've yet to meet a policeman who doesn't love The Bill. But it's not the portrayal of coppers they prize, it's the picture of crime.

The Bill is full of professional criminals planning bank jobs, Mr Bigs supplying cocaine behind the barrels of Uzis and Kosovan gangsters muscling in on the Yardies patch. There are lots of murders and serious woundings and there are few juveniles or drug addicts.

In other words, it's a complete fantasy and the police know it.

But the police love violent crime. Without violent crime, the police are in big trouble. Without violent crime, the public might want to know what's happening to their £7.8 billion pa. Without violent crime, we might want to give the job to someone else.

Violent crime is what makes us want to put more bobbies on the beat or more criminals inside. Violent crime makes us happy to build more prisons and abolish the jury system.

When it comes to violence, we don't care about cost, we just want the job done.

And violent crime appears to be the one job the police are good at. The clear-up rates for property crime may look pretty sick, but when it comes to crimes of violence, the clear-up rate is an impressive 68%, rising to 92% for serious offences.

So we forgive the police their failings in other areas. When it counts, they do the job and they do it well.

[Jaeger]

Violent Crime Fact Sheet UK.

http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/facts/UK/index28.aspx?ComponentId=7103&SourcePageId=18134

The murder rate for England and Wales is showing its first sustained fall since the 1960s, according to the annual crime figures published today. A total of 765 people were killed, including the 52 victims of the July 7 bombings, in the 12 months to April 2006.

This is the third successive year that homicides in England and Wales fell and are down from a peak of 1,047 in 2002 which included the murders committed by Harold Shipman.

One of the most dramatic falls in the last 12 months is in the number of fatal shootings which have fallen from 77 to 46 largely as a result of targeted police operations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1824692,00.html

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1466343,00.html

Police Recorded Crime - England and Wales

Serious Violent Crimes - There were a total of 21,624 offences of serious
violence recorded by the police in 2005/06 in England and Wales (pop - 53 million).

This represents a decrease of 769 offences from the previous year.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/files/images/TREND_Total_more_serious_violence_06.gif

[Capn_Birdseye]

Given that there were 80,000 Police Officers in England and Wales in the 1960's and there are now 140,000 Police Officers in England and Wales, plus a further 17,000 in Scotland, I would say the numbers have significantly increased. On top of this there are 2,700 British Transport Police, 12,000 Special Constables and a planned 25,000 PCSO's.
So where are all the real Police Officers? Every public survey I've read produces the same complaint, the public asking "where have all the Police gone, why aren't they patrolling our streets reclaiming them from the yobs, rapists, burglars & muggers?"
Police Officers on the beat are as rare now as hen's teeth - they're simply nowhere to be seen! Yes you can tell me about increased numbers but they're not where it counts, on the frontline preventing & detecting crime.

When one woman stood outside Downing Street quietly reading out the names of the British war dead in Iraq, 7 Police vans and 20 cops turned up to arrest her!
When the the poor innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes was shot at Stockwell tube station, the Police were there in force to shoot him 8 times, 7 times in the head!
So when there's a bit of action to be carried out they're there but when Joe Public wants the Police they're nowhere to be seen.

As I've already said we don't want cardboard cut-out PSCO's as a substitute for real Police officers, we're being cheated, we want what we pay for & expect, real professional Police officers who are visible and who can hopefully regain the trust of the public.

[nick-taylor]

Then I feel much safer in NYC. Murders commited in the city are more likely to be drug related or family abuse. None of which is a situation that I am in. So I am sure glad that I am more likely to keep my life and my wallet in NYC.This is going to be an unfortunate example, but TLOZ Links5 probably makes that response void.

Not quite sure why this thread was started, a bit of a random one this one, much like Private Birdseyes'!




Police Officers on the beat are as rare now as hen's teeth - they're simply nowhere to be seen! Yes you can tell me about increased numbers but they're not where it counts, on the frontline preventing & detecting crime.That is down to three reasons:
- A drop in crime
- The increased focus on combating 'hidden' crimes, eg computer fraud, people smuggling, etc...
- People living in cul-de-sacs, tower blocks and villages that would make such visibility expensive

That is where CCTV comes in, it allows a policeman to be in more places than one and co-ordinate movements to aid those in help and apprehend those who are in trouble.

As for the Mr de Menezes case, that was unfortunate, the combination of poor intelligence (ironically better intelligence from more invasive procedures would be something you'd be against), and a day after 5 attempted suicide bombings failed with the suspects on the run, is going to put a bit of pressure on the police. A suicide bomber on the run who wants to maim and kill as many people as possible, is a tad bit more important than a pick pocketer.

PSCO's provide the police with a presence on the street for less money, meaning the police have more people on the street to ensure that people can feel reassured. If you take away the PSCO's, you'd actually be cutting back the street presence.

[Fabrizio]

Jaeger some crime statics for you:

GB vs Italy:

GB higher murder rate (per capita)

GB higher total crimes (per capita)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

And hey... I wouldn't worry so much about dying in Naples... after all the Italian life expectancy is the world's 8th highest. The GB? At a sorry 21st place.

So maybe trip to Naples might do ya some good...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_lif_exp_at_bir_yea_mal-life-expectancy-birth-years-males

And if you SHOULD get sick, just know that you'll at least be getting good health care...

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html

Ciao!

[Jaeger]

Jaeger some crime statics for you:

GB vs Italy:

GB higher murder rate (per capita)

GB higher total crimes (per capita)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

And hey... I wouldn't worry so much about dying in Naples... after all the Italian life expectancy is the world's 8th highest. The GB? At a sorry 21st place.

So maybe trip to Naples might do ya some good...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_lif_exp_at_bir_yea_mal-life-expectancy-birth-years-males

And if you SHOULD get sick, just know that you'll at least be getting good health care...

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html

Ciao!

The nationmaster figures are not accurate, for precisely the reasons I have already given concerning the under-reporting and over reporting of crime.

They are also extremely old and do not even accurately cover rates of recorded crime in the UK.

Btw as pure usually nationamaster is totally inacurate, life expectancy in the UK
is not 69.1 it is -

UK Life Expectancy - M: 76.6 F: 81.0

Source ONS - BBC Website - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6168466.stm

[Jaeger]

So where are all the real Police Officers? Every public survey I've read produces the same complaint, the public asking "where have all the Police gone, why aren't they patrolling our streets reclaiming them from the yobs, rapists, burglars & muggers?"

Police Officers on the beat are as rare now as hen's teeth - they're simply nowhere to be seen! Yes you can tell me about increased numbers but they're not where it counts, on the frontline preventing & detecting crime.



It's been proven that a Bobby on the Beat would come across a burglary while patrolling - once in seven years. Most criminals now use cars, therefore the police need a mix of people in cars and on the beat. The Police are currently investing heavily in neighbourhood teams.

http://www.neighbourhoodpolicing.co.uk/

The police are also looking to cut down on paperwork, and are also looking to civilianise roles such as Custody Officers to free up more officers for frontline duties.




When one woman stood outside Downing Street quietly reading out the names of the British war dead in Iraq, 7 Police vans and 20 cops turned up to arrest her!

When the the poor innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes was shot at Stockwell tube station, the Police were there in force to shoot him 8 times, 7 times in the head!

So when there's a bit of action to be carried out they're there but when Joe Public wants the Police they're nowhere to be seen.



I am sure the police in other countries turn up in strengthy for demonstrations, although our police are generally more restrained than many
other police across the globe.

The Jean Charles De Menezes shooting was tragic but was part of an Anti-Terrorist Operation and has little to do with everyday policing.




As I've already said we don't want cardboard cut-out PSCO's as a substitute for real Police officers, we're being cheated, we want what we pay for & expect, real professional Police officers who are visible and who can hopefully regain the trust of the public.

We have real police officers, PCSO's have an identified role reporting back to a Beat Office and Building a bridge between the police and the local community. PCSO's take the time to check on old people, talk to people and deal with local issues, and do many things that police officers do not have the time to do.

[Jaeger]

Btw Cheers Nick :) ;)

[Fabrizio]

Jaeger: mi dispiace caro....but London has a much higher crime rate than Rome. And in general GB has one of the highest crime rates in all of Europe.

Statistics are fine with you... until you disagree with their findings.

From the European Crime and Safety Survey:

"The UK, however, remains a relatively high-crime country when compared to the EU average, according to the report."

"Risks of crime victimisation varied by type of crime. Risks of being assaulted were found to be highest in the United Kingdom, Ireland the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and Denmark."

"Risks were lowest in Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Spain and France. Rates of violent crime were found to be associated with the levels of consumption of alcohol per population. "


http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics/statistics060.htm

[nick-taylor]

Jaeger some crime statics for you:

GB vs Italy:

GB higher murder rate (per capita)

GB higher total crimes (per capita)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

And hey... I wouldn't worry so much about dying in Naples... after all the Italian life expectancy is the world's 8th highest. The GB? At a sorry 21st place.

So maybe trip to Naples might do ya some good...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_lif_exp_at_bir_yea_mal-life-expectancy-birth-years-males

And if you SHOULD get sick, just know that you'll at least be getting good health care...

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html

Ciao!I'd be careful in comparing crimes between countries (and this goes for everyone) for two reasons:
- The first is that countries have different methodologies behind recording crimes, some countries just acknowledge those recorded, others contrast this with other databases (eg mortuary, tax, insurance records, etc....) to try and highlight any discrepancies, while some countries don't even have accurate recordings, eg LEDC's where the police is either non-existant or corrupt.
- The second is that people are less likely to report crimes in countries where crime is engrained in society or where the police presence is void or non-existant (ie militas or vigilante groups are the police!).

Take Italy, an MEDC, where the Mafia is recognised as a part of Italian society/culture as pasta, rich history and fashion. I'd bet heavily that most crime in Italy is committed by the Mafia and that the fear of reprisals from such a large criminal organisation (that has had no problems with assassinating jurors, judges and prosecutors) puts people off reporting them to the police. This 'criminal society' is non-existent in Britain, France and Germany because a criminal organisations never managed to consolidate in these countries, and so I'd expect these countries to be more open with reporting crimes, unlike say in Italy. I doubt you'd testify in a court if it involved the mafia.

I suspect if we were to look into Mafia murders caused by infighting, the murder toll for Italy would shoot up, saying that both would appear to have almost identical murder rates from a statistical perspective (46th and 47th respectively).

Last but not least, your own source backs me up with a definition of the results:
Crime (http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Crime) statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime (http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Crime), than actual prevalence. Per capita figures expressed per 1,000 population (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_pop).

Case closed.

[Fabrizio]

No bud... the case is not closed. Continue picking at straws.

The GB has one of the highest crime rates in all of Europe and it is overall higher than Italy.

Rather than having us listen to your own OPINIONS and twisted hypotheses on the subject (when all else fails, drag in the Mafia, LOL) please show us statistics to the contrary.

We are all looking forward to seeing them.

Thanks.

---


From the European Crime and Safety Survey:

"The UK, however, remains a relatively high-crime country when compared to the EU average, according to the report."

"Risks of crime victimisation varied by type of crime. Risks of being assaulted were found to be highest in the United Kingdom, Ireland the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and Denmark."

"Risks were lowest in Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Spain and France. Rates of violent crime were found to be associated with the levels of consumption of alcohol per population. "


http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/sta...tistics060.htm


-----

"But Policy Exchange say their survey disproves the government's claim that gun and knife crimes are restricted to certain urban communities."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6988205.stm


---

[Jaeger]

No bud... the case is not closed. Continue picking at straws.

The GB has one of the highest crime rates in all of Europe and it is overall higher than Italy.



No Britain records more crime, which is different - a lot of our crime is very trivial - half of violent crime results in no injury to anyone.

I would be very careful about comparing like to like on an international basis -
crime definitions are different and methods relating to counting crime also vary.

There were around 21,624 Serious Violent Crimes in England and Wales last year and serious violent crime is falling.




Rather than having us listen to your own OPINIONS and twisted hypotheses on the subject (when all else fails, drag in the Mafia, LOL) please show us statistics to the contrary.

We are all looking forward to seeing them.

Thanks.



It seems you are the one determined to make this in to a UK V Italy thread.

As for the Italian Mafia I should imagine it has some bearing on crime rates in Italy





---


From the European Crime and Safety Survey:

"The UK, however, remains a relatively high-crime country when compared to the EU average, according to the report."

"Risks of crime victimisation varied by type of crime. Risks of being assaulted were found to be highest in the United Kingdom, Ireland the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and Denmark."

"Risks were lowest in Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Spain and France. Rates of violent crime were found to be associated with the levels of consumption of alcohol per population. "


http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/sta...tistics060.htm

Your link isn't working.


Crime (http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Crime) statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime (http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Crime), than actual prevalence. Per capita figures expressed per 1,000 population (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_pop).

Exactly - recorded crime usually just reflects police activity, willingness to report, differences in statistical methodology and crime definitions.

Crime Surveys can also be inaccurate, they are at best a guess based on interviews with a tiny amount of population. Some surveys are better than other, the BCS is believed to be one of the better ones, but surveys also reflect peoples willingness to report crime, peoples willingness to tale part in surveys and at best they record 0.01% of societies experiences.

In my opinion the best crime indicator in terms of violent crimes, is hospital casualty figures, and if you look at my earlier posts, the UK Violence Research Group publish admissions to hospitals due to violence in a bi-annual study.

[Fabrizio]

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics/statistics060.htm

http://www.gallup-europe.be/euics/Xz38/downloads/EUICS%20-%20The%20Burden%20of%20Crime%20in%20the%20EU.pdf

----

AND if Italy's mafia, trash woes, pick-pockets, graffiti, air-borne disease are so horrifying, funny that one of the WORLDS MOST authoratative publications ranks Italy's quality of life so far ahead of Britians.

http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:q7VIosn93qcJ:www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf+economist+life+quality+survey&hl=it&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=safari

---


Geeee.... even the United Nations in it's Human Developement Index ( measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standard of living for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being...) ranks Italy ahead of Britain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

OF COURSE they are all WRONG and you guys are right. LOL.

---

As for: "It seems you are the one determined to make this in to a UK V Italy thread."

Re-read the thread: YOU are the one who brought this stuff up.

---

[Jaeger]

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics/statistics060.htm

http://www.gallup-europe.be/euics/Xz38/downloads/EUICS%20-%20The%20Burden%20of%20Crime%20in%20the%20EU.pdf

----

AND if Italy's mafia, trash woes, pick-pockets, graffiti, air-borne disease are so horrifying, funny that one of the WORLDS MOST authoratative publications ranks Italy's quality of life so far ahead of Britians.

http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:q7VIosn93qcJ:www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf+economist+life+quality+survey&hl=it&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=safari

---


Geeee.... even the United Nations in it's Human Developement Index ( measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standard of living for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being...) ranks Italy ahead of Britain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

OF COURSE they are all WRONG and you guys are right. LOL.

---

As for: "It seems you are the one determined to make this in to a UK V Italy thread."

Re-read the thread: YOU are the one who brought this stuff up.

---

Firstly have you read the methodology for that crime survey, it's based on 1200 phone calls, not even face to face interviews. Since when did asking 1200 people over the phone constitute a reliable crime study. :rolleyes:

That crime survey is ridiculous at best, the BCS only interviews of 50,000 people in face to face interviews, the American NCVS interviews 90,000, and both are extemely small samples, from which a guess on national crime figures are drawn.

[Fabrizio]

Amico mio... as I said, statistics are fine with you.... until you disagree with their findings.

Since every survey I've shown... even from the most respected sources is WRONG according to you. Will you please show us some factsabout the GB having a lower crime rate than the European average.

Thank you. we are looking forward to it.


---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6156684.stm


---

[Jaeger]

Amico mio... as I said, statistics are fine with you.... until you disagree with their findings.

Since every survey I've shown... even from the most respected sources is WRONG according to you. Will you please show us some factsabout the GB having a lower crime rate than the European average.

Thank you. we are looking forward to it.

Which statistics did I say were fine, I have criticised the NYPD's statistics for under reporting, the UK Police for over-reporting, and crime surveys - the only figures that I have really championed are hospital admission figures.

http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/articles/accident-and-emergency-data.html

As for the surveys you have posted, they simply use inadequate methodology and nobody has mentioned the G8 in this discussion.

Btw Italys HDI score was the same as the UK.

Although the HDI has been widely criticised, particuarly by American Commentators.

Btw you keep mentioning UK Drinking

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/uk_drinking_in_the_uk/img/2.jpg

Southern Europe seems to be catching up when it comes to binge drinking -

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/health/autocodes/countries/spain/med-binge-drinking-on-rise-$1139350.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070924163108.htm









:)

[Fabrizio]

I did not write G8, I wrote GB.

OK, ALL of the surveys I posted are dead wrong, all use inadequate methodology. You're really on to something... the folks that put all their effort into those surveys and statistics could have saved their time and money.

If only they had talked to you first.

---

BTW: thanks for that link (above) from Professor Jonathan Shepherd and Dr Vaseekeran Sivarajasingam, from the Violence Research Group, School of Dentistry at Cardiff University.


If you have more links from them please post them. I think those British dentists hold the key to this whole issue.

---

About binge drinking behing on the rise in Spain (yes... let's get the Spanish into this too...) the survey is based on TELEPHONE interviews.

SUDDENLY phone interviews are OK.

Go figure.

Funny too that the article you posted mentions: "More northerly European countries including Britain are usually associated with problem drinking, with policies geared towards achieving a seemingly more responsible Mediterranean attitude to alcohol."

Yet in an earlier post where I wrote: "Also if you are used to a night out in Italy or France for instance, the Brits binge drinking problem creates an unsettling feeling for those not used to such a spectacle."

I write that and get wrath.

Why is that?

---

[Jaeger]

I did not write G8, I wrote GB.

OK, ALL of the surveys I posted are dead wrong, all use inadequate methodology. You're really on to something... the folks that put all their effort into those surveys and statistics could have saved their time and money.

If only they had talked to you first.



Bad methodology and an extremely poor survey sample are going to effect any study, no matter how much work you put in.




BTW: thanks for that link (above) from Professor Jonathan Shepherd and Dr Vaseekeran Sivarajasingam, from the Violence Research Group, School of Dentistry at Cardiff University.

If you have more links from them please post them. I think those British dentists hold the key to this whole issue.



They are not Dentists they are Professors of oral and maxillofacial surgery , you have to study 5 years in Medical School and a further 3-5 years at Dental School to qualify as a maxillofacial surgeon. So they are qualified doctors, dentists and surgeons, as well as being Professor and teaching their subject, and carrying out violence research as well.

Shepherd wrote a Phd paper on Violence and Assault.

About Shepherd.

Stockholm Prize in Criminology -

http://www.criminologyprize.com/extra/pod/?id=47&module_instance=3&action=pod_show&navid=47

Biographies -

http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/dentistry/research/phacr/violence/staff/bio_jps.htm

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/pioneers+in+patient+care+-+foreword~Pioneers+in+patient+care+-+Pioneers+in+patient+care+:+consultants+leading+ch ange.+Wales~Pioneers+in+patient+care+-+Pioneers+in+patient+care+:+consultants+leading+ch ange.+Wales.+Professor+Jonathan+Shepherd


About oral and maxillofacial surgery

http://student.bmj.com/back_issues/1201/careers/464.html

Maxillofacial Surgery Training Path.

http://student.bmj.com/back_issues/1201/careers/464.gif

Thats up to 18 years Training, and Shepherd also completed a Phd in Violence
Research, he also Heads the Violence Research Group, on top of his medical
commitments.




About binge drinking behing on the rise in Spain (yes... let's get the Spanish into this too...) the survey is based on TELEPHONE interviews.

SUDDENLY phone interviews are OK.

Go figure.


Funny too that the article you posted mentions: "More northerly European countries including Britain are usually associated with problem drinking, with policies geared towards achieving a seemingly more responsible Mediterranean attitude to alcohol."

Yet in an earlier post where I wrote: "Also if you are used to a night out in Italy or France for instance, the Brits binge drinking problem creates an unsettling feeling for those not used to such a spectacle."

I write that and get wrath.

Why is that?

---

Still 12,000 phone interviews are more reliable than 1200. You Southern Europeans must be drinking yourselves to death every night, according to the 12,000 phone interviews. :p :o

[nick-taylor]

No bud... the case is not closed. Continue picking at straws.

The GB has one of the highest crime rates in all of Europe and it is overall higher than Italy.

Rather than having us listen to your own OPINIONS and twisted hypotheses on the subject (when all else fails, drag in the Mafia, LOL) please show us statistics to the contrary.

We are all looking forward to seeing them.

Thanks.
---
From the European Crime and Safety Survey:

"The UK, however, remains a relatively high-crime country when compared to the EU average, according to the report."

"Risks of crime victimisation varied by type of crime. Risks of being assaulted were found to be highest in the United Kingdom, Ireland the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and Denmark."

"Risks were lowest in Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Spain and France. Rates of violent crime were found to be associated with the levels of consumption of alcohol per population. "


http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/sta...tistics060.htm


-----

"But Policy Exchange say their survey disproves the government's claim that gun and knife crimes are restricted to certain urban communities."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6988205.stm
---Like I said, comparisons are hard/non-existant due to so many different variables in comparisons. Even your source illustrates this, and I will repeat it for your convenience:

Crime (http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Crime) statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime (http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Crime), than actual prevalence. Per capita figures expressed per 1,000 population (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_pop).


In other words, while the figures are likely to make a place look more dangerous than it is, in reality it is most likely (especially in MEDC's) down to better record keeping, and trust in the police.




AND if Italy's mafia, trash woes, pick-pockets, graffiti, air-borne disease are so horrifying, funny that one of the WORLDS MOST authoratative publications ranks Italy's quality of life so far ahead of Britians.

http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache...&client=safari (http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:q7VIosn93qcJ:www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf+economist+life+quality+survey&hl=it&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=safari)I do believe that we've been over this before, but I'll repeat what I've said previously, in that these surveys are based upon specific criteria that match the philosophy of a group or individual, and are in reality not a general perception of what a good quality of life is. The following indicators are used by the EIU to rank what you refer to:

1. Material wellbeing
gdp per person, at ppp in $. Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
2. Health
Life expectancy at birth, years. Source: us Census Bureau
3. Political stability and security
Political stability and security ratings. Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
4. Family life
Divorce rate (per 1,000 population), converted into index of 1 (lowest divorce rates) to 5 (highest). Sources: un; Eu-romonitor
5. Community life
Dummy variable taking value 1 if country has either high rate of church attendance or trade-union membership; zero otherwise. Sources: ilo; World Values Survey
6. Climate and geography
Latitude, to distinguish between warmer and colder climes. Source: cia World Factbook
7. Job security
Unemployment rate, %. Sources: Economist Intelligence Unit; ilo.
8. Political freedom
Average of indices of political and civil liberties. Scale of 1 (completely free) to 7 (unfree). Source: Freedom House
9. Gender equality
Ratio of average male and female earnings, latest available data. Source: undp Human Development Report

For a start, organised crime, general crime, and vandalism are not used in any indicator (so that ranking doesn't prove your point), instead church attendance and divorce rates are used to garner results.

Is divorce bad? It is an unfortunate situation, but then divorce is a form of expression and independence, the alternative is an un-happy/arranged/abusive marriage that all would agree is wrong.

And is going to church a real indicator to whether one country is better than another? I think many Americans would agree that such a variable is highly questionable, especially in regards to the entire church being a haven for paedophiles and numerous homophobes.

My only other issue would be with climate? Countries don't just lie on one latitude, nor do they have one climate. Italy has numerous climates, just like any other country, and what is a better climate? Its subjective, people like hot climates, but its a pain to work in!

In other words, only 1,2,3,7,8 and 9 really carry any statistical backing that can be appropriately compared. Of those, I'd suspect that the UK performs better in 1,3,7,8,9, but lags behind in 2.


Case re-opened, appeal denied!

[krulltime]

This is going to be an unfortunate example, but TLOZ Links5 probably makes that response void.

Not quite sure why this thread was started, a bit of a random one this one, much like Private Birdseyes'!

Don't rubbed in. As I said, you are more likely to be kill by someone you know. So I am not too worry about been murder by a stranger in NYC. Now, I do get more worry about getting hit by a car in the city.

[krulltime]

Crime on the decline in New York


Diane Hess
September 25. 2007 3:29PM

Statewide, crime dropped 5% in the first half of 2007, led by double-digit decreases in rapes, robberies and motor vehicle thefts, Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s office reported on Tuesday.

Overall violent crime was down 6% for the first six months of the year, the Division of Criminal Justice Services reported.

DCJS reported decreases in various crime areas, including murder (down 4%), rape (down 19%), robbery (down 13%), assault (down 1%), burglary (down 7%), larceny (down 3%) and motor vehicle thefts (down 15%).

“Government has no more fundamental role than to protect the public, and I am pleased to see crime decreasing across the state,” Gov. Spitzer said in a statement. “Safe communities are vital to the social and economic fabric of the state and we will continue working tirelessly with law enforcement officials to achieve lower crime rates and to target problem areas.”

Within New York City, aggravated assault -- the only crime category to rise in the first half of the year -- increased less than 1%. Meanwhile, violent crime dropped 5% and property crime decreased by 4%.

The state is targeting upstate and Long Island crime pockets through Operation IMPACT, for which Gov. Spitzer increased funding this year by 14% to $17 million.

In June, the Federal Bureau of Investigation named New York City the safest big city in the country in 2006. The city experienced a 5.3% decline in overall crime -- which included a 24.2% drop in rape and a 13.3% decrease in motor vehicle thefts.


http://newyorkbusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070925/FREE/70925006/1097

[krulltime]

Within New York City, aggravated assault -- the only crime category to rise in the first half of the year -- increased less than 1%.

Hmmm, the cops are getting sloppy and let that increased of less than 1% get out of under the rug! :rolleyes: What happened!

[Fabrizio]

NicK/Jaeger: you guys don't stand a chance here. From what I've gathered, from my own observations, the guys and gals here (intenational group btw) are crazy about NYC.

Paris ranks number 2.

With a strong love of things Italian.

Although, lately Spain has been having a good showing.

They also have a weakness for all things Colombian. (I don't know what that's all about).

London? Oh they love it too, but have a hard time with relentless cheer leading.

I don't want to speak for them, but I have a feeling they find it vulgar and suspect.

Do either of you have nice calves by any chance?


---

[krulltime]

And what is the purpose of this thread? Just for you guys to say that London is better than NYC? :rolleyes: Well congratulations, if that makes you happy. Now let me go back to my daily life in what I think is the best city in the world. ;) Oh a city FULL of skyscrapers galore! Yummy.

[lofter1]

The purpose ^^^ of this thread?

It's an example of what to expect in one of the rings of hell :cool:

[Ninjahedge]

I still do not get how "Professors of oral and maxillofacial surgery" somehow qualifies them as resident experts in crime and social studies/trends.

He may have written some papers about this and that, but the number of years it takes to become a surgeon does not have ANY BEARING WHATSOEVER on the study of societal trends and charactersitics in relation to crime rates.


Guys, I think you are just going about this discussion wrong. You are trying to get into a fight to prove that GB is better and, ironically, less violent than XXX or YYY.

You may be bringing up some valid points, but the way you have been phrasing and presenting them, both here and on other threads makes most just glance and scroll down.

If you want to present a good case for your opinions on something, try not to do it in a way that puts the recipient on the defensive rather than the inquisitive.

But when does that ever happen on a BBS/Forum.... *sigh*

[Capn_Birdseye]

That is down to three reasons:
- A drop in crime
- The increased focus on combating 'hidden' crimes, eg computer fraud, people smuggling, etc...
- People living in cul-de-sacs, tower blocks and villages that would make such visibility expensive
I don't think you'd find many people living in the UK today who'd believe you! Love your last one, I suppose the same logic applies to the countryside as well! So we shouldn't expect to see Police in cul-de-sacs, tower blocks, villages, or the countryside .... mm... plenty on motorways cruising around in their BMW's though ... oh, and an army of Police to pick up one solitary woman protesting peacefully .... oh, and a whole team to shoot an innocent man in the head 7 times .....


As for the Mr de Menezes case, that was unfortunateI hardly think the word is "unfortunate" ......


PSCO's provide the police with a presence on the street for less money, meaning the police have more people on the street to ensure that people can feel reassured.But its the precise opposite thats happening! The Public see no proper Police presence on our streets, all we see occasionally are the cardboard cut-outs that "pose" as Police, 3-weeks of training, a uniform and off they go, but heaven forbid if they see anyone in distress (e.g., the recent example of the boy who drowned), they're not trained to intervene, in fact they told not to get involved but to call for help! Call the real Police perhaps? The public is being "conned" and they know it. They can't even arrest anyone!!!

[Fabrizio]

Sorry, Nick but I believe the "The Economist Intelligence Unit" over you:

http://www.economistgroup.com/eiu.html

I'll leave you guys with the "Professors of oral and maxillofacial surgery".

[Jaeger]

Sorry, Nick but I believe the "The Economist Intelligence Unit" over you:

http://www.economistgroup.com/eiu.html

I'll leave you guys with the "Professors of oral and maxillofacial surgery".

What the one with the Phd in studying assault, who has just one the Stockholm Medal - the nobel prize of criminology.

Btw Maxillofacial Surgeons know more than most, they put peoples faces back together after violence.

Cardiff Universities Violence Research Group work closely with Cambridge Universities Institute of Criminology and use figures from the health service.

[Fabrizio]

Btw Maxillofacial Surgeons know more than most, they put peoples faces back together after violence.


And considering that Great Britain has such a high crime rate, they've really got their work cut out for them.

[Ninjahedge]

Jaeg, you keep climbing out of the hole you are digging, digging it deeper, and jumping back into it.

The facial surgeons have no advantage whatsoever over any other person studying violence in society.

Stop defending every little bit you are posting here.

You say he has studied assault. In what way? Has he studies the damage caused by it? the type of assaults comitted? Or is he actually studying the social and statistical end of it? You leave that totally open ended.


The fact that he is a doctor lends him more respect than the average Joe on the street, but harping on it as if putting peoples faces back together somehow makes him an expert in sociology is just not the right track.

[Jaeger]

And considering that Great Britain has such a high crime rate, they've really got their work cut out for them.

What 21,600 Serious Assualts, I should imagine the Italian Mafia manage that in 6 months. :rolleyes:

[Jaeger]

Jaeg, you keep climbing out of the hole you are digging, digging it deeper, and jumping back into it.

The facial surgeons have no advantage whatsoever over any other person studying violence in society.

Stop defending every little bit you are posting here.

You say he has studied assault. In what way? Has he studies the damage caused by it? the type of assaults comitted? Or is he actually studying the social and statistical end of it? You leave that totally open ended.


The fact that he is a doctor lends him more respect than the average Joe on the street, but harping on it as if putting peoples faces back together somehow makes him an expert in sociology is just not the right track.

Shepherds head of the Violence Research Group, which uses figures supplied by Hospital Casualty Departments, he has Phd relating to the social implications of assault, has written widely about subjects ranging from assault statistics, assault prevention through to the mental gealth implications of assault, he also happens to be a facial surgeon.

Btw these links are already posted on the first page of this thread, along with
information regarding the Violence Research Group.

Here's some BBC Links to Shepherds Work -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4480525.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4480525.stm)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6593207.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6593207.stm)

Shepherds Work wins him the Top International
Prize in Criminology for 2008 -

http://a2mediagroup.com/?c=170&a=18524

Cardiff University Violence and Society Research Group bridges the Schools of Dentistry, Medicine, Psychology and Business, and collaborates with the Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge and the National Health Service.

[Jaeger]

Crime on the decline in New York


Diane Hess
September 25. 2007 3:29PM

Statewide, crime dropped 5% in the first half of 2007, led by double-digit decreases in rapes, robberies and motor vehicle thefts, Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s office reported on Tuesday.

Overall violent crime was down 6% for the first six months of the year, the Division of Criminal Justice Services reported.

DCJS reported decreases in various crime areas, including murder (down 4%), rape (down 19%), robbery (down 13%), assault (down 1%), burglary (down 7%), larceny (down 3%) and motor vehicle thefts (down 15%).

“Government has no more fundamental role than to protect the public, and I am pleased to see crime decreasing across the state,” Gov. Spitzer said in a statement. “Safe communities are vital to the social and economic fabric of the state and we will continue working tirelessly with law enforcement officials to achieve lower crime rates and to target problem areas.”

Within New York City, aggravated assault -- the only crime category to rise in the first half of the year -- increased less than 1%. Meanwhile, violent crime dropped 5% and property crime decreased by 4%.

The state is targeting upstate and Long Island crime pockets through Operation IMPACT, for which Gov. Spitzer increased funding this year by 14% to $17 million.

In June, the Federal Bureau of Investigation named New York City the safest big city in the country in 2006. The city experienced a 5.3% decline in overall crime -- which included a 24.2% drop in rape and a 13.3% decrease in motor vehicle thefts.


http://newyorkbusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070925/FREE/70925006/1097

We can all post similar stories - although the figures often just record police
activity or changes to recording methods. As I have already mentioned
UK police record extremely trivial offences. While the NYPD under report
using the destinction between felony and midemeanor within the reporting
process.





London crime at an eight-year low

BBC News

19th April 2007

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifhttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39711000/jpg/_39711225_gun203.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/inline_dashed_line.gif

Crime in London has dropped to its lowest level for eight years, according to Metropolitan (Met) Police figures.

Figures show crime in the capital fell by 6.3% in the 12 months to the end of March, to 921,779 offences.

The number of murders fell by 3.6% with gun/knife crimes (-11.3%), sex attacks (-9.6%), and burglary (-6.6%) down.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifCRIME STATS

Murder down 3.6%

Rape down 3.9%

Other sexual offences down 11.3%

GBH down 6.2%

ABH down 7.3%

Racist crime down 11.9%

Homophobic crime down 8.5%

Domestic violence down 9.4%

Vehicle crime down 5.8%

Criminal damage down 6.9%

Metropolitan Police - http://cms.met.police.uk/news/policy_organisational_news_and_general_information/crime_figures_show_an_eight_year_low

[Fabrizio]

Considering the state of British teeth, wouldn't Professor Jonathan Shepherd and Dr Vaseekeran Sivarajasingam better serve their country as dentists?


http://www.customcomedy.net/AustinPowers.jpg

[Jaeger]

Considering the state of British teeth, wouldn't Professor Jonathan Shepherd and Dr Vaseekeran Sivarajasingam better serve their country as dentists?


http://www.customcomedy.net/AustinPowers.jpg

Very Amusing - yes we all have terrible teeth and Italians are all members of the Mafia.

[Capn_Birdseye]

I do not for one minute believe the stats showing that crime has reduced across all categories in London, as published by the Met Police - it just doesn't stack up with people's every day experience of living & working in London. I believe its more a case of "there are lies, damn lies and statistics."

But what about the detection rate, the clearing up of these crimes? Well, surprise, surprise, more than 80% of crimes do not solved - not a very impressive hit rate if I may say so! The criminals are winning in London, and indeed throughout the country!

It is interesting to examine the Police methodology for counting how many recorded crimes can be classed as cleared up - or "detected" in the official language.

If the Police know who did, it but no further judicial action is taken, such as if a witness cannot give evidence or if the Crown Prosecution Service drops the case, then this can be classed as a "detection"!!!

Think about this for a moment. What this is really saying, is that despite the lack of evidence to take the person to court, despite the fact there has been no trial, this person is deemed "guilty" by the Police, and they can quite blatantly include this as a "cleared up" case in official public statistics.
So Joe Public can be guilty without having to go to court just because the police think its him! - this is British justice today and it stinks. It's one reason why I don't believe the Met Police statistics.

And what a waste of time & money CCTV is! Love last paragraph in second link.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-details/Tens+of+thousands+of+CCTV+cameras%2C+yet+80%25+of+ crime+unsolved/article.do


http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/09/21/londons-cctv-network-is-a-waste-of-cash

[ZippyTheChimp]

Very Amusing - yes we all have terrible teeth and Italians are all members of the Mafia.Well yes, we all know that. What's your point?

[dtolman]

We can all post similar stories - although the figures often just record police
activity or changes to recording methods. As I have already mentioned
UK police record extremely trivial offences. While the NYPD under report
using the destinction between felony and midemeanor within the reporting
process.

Where is this idea of a faked crime statistics turnaround coming from?

Murder is not a crime that can be turned into a misdemeanor. Rape and Auto Theft are reported by the victim, so the classification is not really up to the police. These are the major indicators of violent crime and property crime, and are not easily manipulated by changing definitions or criteria.

[Jaeger]

Where is this idea of a faked crime statistics turnaround coming from?

Murder is not a crime that can be turned into a misdemeanor. Rape and Auto Theft are reported by the victim, so the classification is not really up to the police. These are the major indicators of violent crime and property crime, and are not easily manipulated by changing definitions or criteria.

You haven't read this thread, the NYPD even tried to downgrade a rape,
simple assaults are counted on NYPD Crime Stats - just aggravated assaults ie. assault with a weapon or involving serious injury, and finally the NYPD class crimes under $500 as a midemenour, so they are missed off the figures.

I suggest you go to the start of the thread and re-read it.

[Jaeger]

I do not for one minute believe the stats showing that crime has reduced across all categories in London, as published by the Met Police - it just doesn't stack up with people's every day experience of living & working in London. I believe its more a case of "there are lies, damn lies and statistics."

But what about the detection rate, the clearing up of these crimes? Well, surprise, surprise, more than 80% of crimes do not solved - not a very impressive hit rate if I may say so! The criminals are winning in London, and indeed throughout the country!

It is interesting to examine the Police methodology for counting how many recorded crimes can be classed as cleared up - or "detected" in the official language.

If the Police know who did, it but no further judicial action is taken, such as if a witness cannot give evidence or if the Crown Prosecution Service drops the case, then this can be classed as a "detection"!!!

Think about this for a moment. What this is really saying, is that despite the lack of evidence to take the person to court, despite the fact there has been no trial, this person is deemed "guilty" by the Police, and they can quite blatantly include this as a "cleared up" case in official public statistics.

So Joe Public can be guilty without having to go to court just because the police think its him! - this is British justice today and it stinks. It's one reason why I don't believe the Met Police statistics.

And what a waste of time & money CCTV is! Love last paragraph in second link.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-details/Tens+of+thousands+of+CCTV+cameras%2C+yet+80%25+of+ crime+unsolved/article.do


http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/09/21/londons-cctv-network-is-a-waste-of-cash


How many times do I have to repeat the US Police only count felonies (the most serious offences) on their crime stats, and there clear up rates are for felonies.

The British Police generally have reported everything from mobile phone thefts, through to petty vandalism and lots of other trivia, it is therefore little wonder that the British police have a low detection rate.

If half of all recorded violent crime results in no injury, and many crimes recorded are of such a trivial offence, then of course a lot of it is going to go unrecorded, the US just doesn't record anywhere near as much trivial crime.

The British police do have a good detection rate for serious crimes, and are amongst the best in the world.

As for CCTV it has a purpose both in helping to detect retail theft, pickpockets etc and it also
helps police intervene much more quickly to incidents of violence.





"One of the important reasons for saying that is that CCTV in town and city centres seems to act to allow the police to find out about more violence and then to intervene early.

"It's much like a teacher in a school playground, if the police get to an argument early, then okay, an incident has still happened but harm and serious harm have been prevented."



Finally the CPS, won't go ahead with a prosecution if there is not enough evidence, and the
crime remains on record.

Do you really think that if the CPS drop a murder case because of lack of evidence before it goes to court, that the case is then marked solved, I don't think so.

Do you think other countries have a better system where by defendents plea bargain - which means the state gets them to admit to a crime or crimes in exchange for a lesser sentence.

Plea Bargaining is popular throughout the US Judicial System and helps increase clear up rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain

[dtolman]

You haven't read this thread, the NYPD even tried to downgrade a rape,
simple assaults are counted on NYPD Crime Stats - just aggravated assaults ie. assault with a weapon or involving serious injury, and finally the NYPD class crimes under $500 as a midemenour, so they are missed off the figures.

I suggest you go to the start of the thread and re-read it.

I have read it. A single anecdote about a rape doesn't create a giant conspiracy to reclassify crimes. If hospitals are always improving techniques, thats great - but the murder rate is still decreasing, and I haven't seen any studies that state medicine is the sole cause. And I saw nothing about the decrease of auto thefts being faked.

The worst I can see here are that marginal crimes - crimes that are near the borderline between felony and misdemeanor are being kicked to the lesser offense. But I don't see anything that suggests this is something new. And these stats are not collected in a consistent manner - Compstat and the NYPD's stat focus is new - so I would suggest any statistics from before that era are probably suspect since methods and standards changed.

The bottom line is that crime is down from its peak. Maybe an increase in crime rate could be supressed for a year or two - but its been flat or down year after year for almost two decades - thats not fakeable. If its up 1% instead of down 1%, who cares? Both are practically flat.

Finally - its pointless to compare crime rates between different cities in different countries. Its not even apples and oranges - its apples and steaks - different laws, different standards, different approaches to stats. About all you can compare is murder rate - which is also kind of pointless since most murders are by someone you know. Unless you're visiting a war zone, most people don't need to worry about being killed when you visit somewhere as a tourist.

[Jaeger]

I have read it. A single anecdote about a rape doesn't create a giant conspiracy to reclassify crimes. If hospitals are always improving techniques, thats great - but the murder rate is still decreasing, and I haven't seen any studies that state medicine is the sole cause. And I saw nothing about the decrease of auto thefts being faked.

The worst I can see here are that marginal crimes - crimes that are near the borderline between felony and misdemeanor are being kicked to the lesser offense. But I don't see anything that suggests this is something new. And these stats are not collected in a consistent manner - Compstat and the NYPD's stat focus is new - so I would suggest any statistics from before that era are probably suspect since methods and standards changed.

The bottom line is that crime is down from its peak. Maybe an increase in crime rate could be supressed for a year or two - but its been flat or down year after year for almost two decades - thats not fakeable. If its up 1% instead of down 1%, who cares? Both are practically flat.

Finally - its pointless to compare crime rates between different cities in different countries. Its not even apples and oranges - its apples and steaks - different laws, different standards, different approaches to stats. About all you can compare is murder rate - which is also kind of pointless since most murders are by someone you know. Unless you're visiting a war zone, most people don't need to worry about being killed when you visit somewhere as a tourist.

I agree with some of what you say, even what constitutes rape is different in the UK, an act of rape here may only require oral penetration under the 2003 Sexual Offences Act.

As for missing crimes off figures, it's mainly thefts under $500, simple assaults and other trivial crimes.

I have been just as critical of the London police, who record extremely trivial crimes, with once again, half of all violent crime in England and Wales resulting in no injury to anyone whatsoever, while the other half is mainly made up of simple assaults.

The truth is the two cities do have massively different systems, with London reporting trivial rubbish and NY neglecting to include midemenours which probably constitute the vast majority of UK Crime Figures. In terms of serious crime England and Wales has 21,600 Serious Assaults last year, 50 gun shot crime murders and a total of 765 murders. not bad for a population of 53 million.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Police forces use two special measures to count how many recorded crimes can be classed as cleared up - or "detected" in the official language.
The first group of offences are "sanction detections" - those which result in someone being charged, cautioned, given a warning or some form of judicial penalty.
The other group of offences are those where the police know who did it but no further judicial action is taken, such as if a witness cannot give evidence or if the Crown Prosecution Service drops the case.

Home Office

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7004377.stm

[nick-taylor]

I don't think you'd find many people living in the UK today who'd believe you! Love your last one, I suppose the same logic applies to the countryside as well! So we shouldn't expect to see Police in cul-de-sacs, tower blocks, villages, or the countryside .... mm... plenty on motorways cruising around in their BMW's though ... oh, and an army of Police to pick up one solitary woman protesting peacefully .... oh, and a whole team to shoot an innocent man in the head 7 times .....

I hardly think the word is "unfortunate" ......

But its the precise opposite thats happening! The Public see no proper Police presence on our streets, all we see occasionally are the cardboard cut-outs that "pose" as Police, 3-weeks of training, a uniform and off they go, but heaven forbid if they see anyone in distress (e.g., the recent example of the boy who drowned), they're not trained to intervene, in fact they told not to get involved but to call for help! Call the real Police perhaps? The public is being "conned" and they know it. They can't even arrest anyone!!!That is related to perception via the media which has become disconnected from reality and figures. It doesn't happen in many other countries because the media isn't as invasive or critical.

Take youth gun crime, you'd actually believe from the papers and TV that it is out of control with a death toll rising, with kids dying on every street corner. The reality is that child gun crime is lower than being struck by lightning or winning the lottery, and that levels have been decreasing pretty drastically over the last few years.

I don't believe you are understanding me correctly, previously bobbies would patrol grided terraced streets where density was high and dead-end roads practically unknown. Now there are sprawling estates with dead end roads and tower blocks that contain corridors leading off to everywhere. Quite simply it isn't economical enough in the general scheme of policing to ensure that every cul-de-sac and corridor has a bobby patrolling it, not when this would cause an inconvenience in lowering crime in general and would diffuse the police.

I would have thought that it is pretty simple to think why there are police visible on the motorways: motorways handle hundreds of thousands of cars a day, far more than your average cul-de-sac, while far more accidents are likely to occur on motorways than in the average cul-de-sac. The police aren't idiots, they have to budget where to put their resources to best manage security and respond to incidents.

Like I said, he was a suspected suicide bomber due to poor intelligence, they aren't going to send one bobby to question him are they if they were under the impression that he was a bomber! Common sense please!

Well yes it is, they didn't target him knowing that he was innocent. The 'big brother' state that you believe we live in would have not made that mistake, because they would have had more details and information.

Again, like I said, we don't live on streets anymore, we live in cul-de-sacs, tower blocks, detached from the urban fabric which makes it far harder to police.

As for the incident where the boy drowned, that was again unfortunate, but again that isn't the whole story. Firstly it was a flooded quarry with low-visibility, secondly the PSCO's arrived there several minutes after the boy had submerged meaning he would have been dead before they arrived, lastly nobody knew where he had gone under. Even if PC's were at the scene, they also would have not gone in, the same for firemen. The reason is simple - there are specialist diving units and coastguard services that are trained in this field. Again common sense, otherwise we would probably have ended up with 3 fatalities.

The public isn't getting conned, they simply live in an environment of their choice which is far costlier to police, but for which they don't want to pay for.

You still haven't left the country though, so I must be right :D





Sorry, Nick but I believe the "The Economist Intelligence Unit" over you:

http://www.economistgroup.com/eiu.html

I'll leave you guys with the "Professors of oral and maxillofacial surgery".You can believe the EIU, hell I'm even a subscriber to The Economist, but that doesn't mean I blindly take everything I read without thinking about it. Clearly you opted out of higher education because you would actually understand that.

[Fabrizio]

Sorry, Nick but I believe the "The Economist Intelligence Unit" over you:

http://www.economistgroup.com/eiu.html

I'll leave you guys with the "Professors of oral and maxillofacial surgery".


You can believe the EIU, hell I'm even a subscriber to The Economist, but that doesn't mean I blindly take everything I read without thinking about it. Clearly you opted out of higher education because you would actually understand that.

Clearly you are a man with a degree.

Yep, a certified "Professor of Oral"

[Ninjahedge]

Enough, both of you.

It is one thing to criticize a source, or even a post. But you two are getting personal.

I do not give a rats arse who "started it", just stop it already and grow the hell up.

Now, what were we talking about? ;)

[krulltime]

Now, what were we talking about? ;)

We were talking about why London is better than New York. ;)


* Ok London is number #1 in everything! :D I think now Londoners will feel very happy to hear that. And stop making stupid comparison threads.


Just play along with me.

[Capn_Birdseye]

We were talking about why London is better than New York. ;)

* Ok London is number #1 in everything! :D I think now Londoners will feel very happy to hear that. And stop making stupid comparison threads.

Just play along with me.
I'm a Londoner and disagree. I'd prefer to live in Manhattan anytime before London, in fact I'd prefer to live in many other places before London! It's just where I'm berthed at the moment but I intend to up anchor and move at some future point to a safer, cleaner, more civilised city. And that's a salty old seadog talking, someone who's seen a few places & things in his time! London is a hell hole, don't believe the stuff that some of my compatriots are posting on here.

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

I'm a Londoner and disagree. I'd prefer to live in Manhattan anytime before London, in fact I'd prefer to live in many other places before London! It's just where I'm berthed at the moment but I intend to up anchor and move at some future point to a safer, cleaner, more civilised city. And that's a salty old seadog talking, someone who's seen a few places & things in his time! London is a hell hole, don't believe the stuff that some of my compatriots are posting on here.

I just fell off my chair.

[Fabrizio]

I just snapped my peg leg.

[Capn_Birdseye]

I just fell off my chair.


I just snapped my peg leg.
Well shiver m'timbers lads, be a mite careful with those chairs & peg legs or you'll be 'urtin' yourself badly! We wouldn't want any misfortune to befall ye! There's seas to be sailed and a crew to be sought, ever fancied joinin' up GT or Fab?
GT, a tip - If you want to join I'd temper your outfit a bit, more rough & ready than smooth & sophisticated, Barnacle Bill has already expressed a yearning ...... and he hates being rejected!

[nick-taylor]

I'm a Londoner and disagree. I'd prefer to live in Manhattan anytime before London, in fact I'd prefer to live in many other places before London! It's just where I'm berthed at the moment but I intend to up anchor and move at some future point to a safer, cleaner, more civilised city. And that's a salty old seadog talking, someone who's seen a few places & things in his time! London is a hell hole, don't believe the stuff that some of my compatriots are posting on here.If perhaps the mods sent you on your way, that might allow you the extra time to get on your way out of London! Two birds killed with one stone.

[Fabrizio]

He certainly won't be alone in leaving... and they'll surely be an Eastern European or other to take his place...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5237236.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6210358.stm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=482557&in_page_id=1770

[nick-taylor]

He certainly won't be alone in leaving... and they'll surely be an Eastern European or other to take his place...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5237236.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6210358.stm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=482557&in_page_id=1770
They aren't just being replaced, far more people are coming to Britain then are leaving. London alone is growing by the equivalent population of Florence every 4 years.

This is all at the benefit to Britain because OAP's form the majority who are leaving, thus reducing their dependency on the country's' finances. In return, economically-active, young and healthy people are flooding into the country making it more diverse, and exciting.

Even Sarkosy had to come to London to gather support for his election.

That said, there are those who would take such an opportunity to abuse it, but for the greater whole immigration has been a bonus to Britain, I'd know I'm one of them (from Singapore).

[Jaeger]

Police forces use two special measures to count how many recorded crimes can be classed as cleared up - or "detected" in the official language.

The first group of offences are "sanction detections" - those which result in someone being charged, cautioned, given a warning or some form of judicial penalty.

The other group of offences are those where the police know who did it but no further judicial action is taken, such as if a witness cannot give evidence or if the Crown Prosecution Service drops the case.

Home Office

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7004377.stm


And your point is.

Many trivial reported crimes, which would be sanction detections remain
unsolved and this adds to police figures, the vast majority of crimes are
sanction detection, which ranges from urinating in the street, public order
offences through to motoring offences. Sanction detected cases would
nearly all be classed as midemenours in the US, and wouldn't even appear
as crime figures never mind detected crimes.

As for the second group, if there is not enough evidence, and the CPS (an independent group of Lawyers) drop the case, or if a witness refuses to testify, there is little the police can do about it, however there were relatively few cases when compared to succesful convictions.

In the US a crime is noted as being cleared up on arrest (and not when found guilty in a Court of Law) and the US burglary clear up rate is 12%, while the US murder clear up rate is 65% compared to 95% here.

Crimes are also counted as cleared in the US in exceptional circumstances, such as the Victim being no longer be prepared to testify.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_cleared/index.html

[Fabrizio]

It must be "Talk Like a Politician Day".

[Jaeger]

Another serious case of Grevious Bodily Harm in the UK :rolleyes:




Charged with GBH, the boy, 12, who flicked paper at a classmate

By EMILY ANDREWS -

29th September 2007

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7018228.stm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484412&in_page_id=1770

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_04/elasticboyDM2809_228x577.jpg

Hauled before the courts:

The boy, whose identity has been obscured

A boy of 12 boy was dragged through the courts for three months after being charged with grievous bodily harm for flicking a piece of paper at a classmate.

He was told to go to his local police station where he was arrested, held for four hours and had his DNA and fingerprints taken.

The schoolboy and his family had to endure three court appearances before the Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case.

Despite repeated recommendations by his solicitor that it was not in the public interest to prosecute, the CPS never reviewed the case and even lost the file of papers.

The failed prosecution is estimated to have cost the taxpayer at least £10,000.

It was brought after another 12-year-old boy was hit in the eye as a group of eight friends fired rolled up pieces of paper at each other with elastic bands during morning break at their London state school.

His eye started bleeding.

He is said to have made a full recovery but the alleged attacker, who has never been in trouble before, was suspended from school for three days while teachers investigated.

He was allowed back to school but the other boy's parents went to the police.

The mother of the alleged attacker said: "What happened was absolutely ridiculous and a complete overreaction by the police.

"It was a stupid thing for him and his friends to do but they were all playing a game and it was just a bit of horseplay.

"Afterwards he did everything I would have expected him to: he apologised immediately, looked after the boy, took him to the bathroom and then to a teacher.

"He was told off by his headmaster and by me, and that should have been the end of it.

"Instead, he was hauled through the legal system and could have had a criminal record, which would have sent him down the wrong path completely.

"He didn't hit anyone or stab anyone and if the police had only bothered to ask the school what had happened, it would never have gone this far."

The alleged attacker, a talented drama student and ballet dancer, suffered stress-related epileptic fits and has moved schools due to the incident.

He and his mother were asked to attend Brixton Police Station on July 2 where he was arrested. He was held for four hours before being released on bail, his mother said.

"They threatened to put him in a cell with drug dealers and other criminals," she added. "The police said they would investigate, but we later discovered they didn't talk to the school, the headmaster or the other pupils to find out exactly what had happened. They just took the other mother's word.

"When we returned on July 20 we expected to be told it had all blown over and it was a mistake but I was stunned when they charged him."

The boy was then forced to appear at Balham Youth Court on three occasions.

Each time his solicitor, Richard Conley, said the prosecution was not in the public interest and called for it to be dropped, but his written representations sent to the CPS had not been filed and not been read.

At one of the hearings the boy was also charged with the lesser offence of assault causing actual bodily harm, but he still also faced the GBH charge.

On Thursday, Mr Conley asked the case to be listed before a judge for time-wasting as the CPS was not responding, and only at that point did the CPS capitulate and drop the case.

Mr Conley, of OBG Chadwyck Healey, said: "After murder and attempted murder, GBH is the third most serious offence.

"It's the kind of charge they lay against people who commit stabbings and glassings in pubs.

"This 12-year-old schoolboy's case was put in the same category as those kind of cases which is absurd.

"The CPS were so sloppy that they did not read my recommendations, did not do a review and worse their administration was so bad that my paperwork was not even filed in the proper place.

"They only threw in the towel when they realised they would be criticised by a judge.

A CPS spokesman said: "An alleged attempt to cause an eye injury has to be taken very seriously. The CPS brought the initial charge because we were informed that the boy had lost sight in one eye.

"There also appeared to be an intention to cause harm. As with all cases, it was kept under review.

"When the medical evidence confirmed that there was no permanent damage to the eye, the charge was downgraded to assault.

"After further review, a decision was taken to discontinue the case as not in the public interest in view of the boys' ages, the effect of a court case on them and the fact that the harm caused was only minor in the end."



Girl of 10 fingerprinted and fined £40 for writing on neighbour's wall in crayon (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484469&in_page_id=1770)

[BXGear]

Culture (or lack of) separates America from the world. While the rest of the world has ancient roots, America is about 200 years old. Take that into consideration while comparing New York to London

[Jaeger]

Culture (or lack of) separates America from the world. While the rest of the world has ancient roots, America is about 200 years old. Take that into consideration while comparing New York to London

I am not sure what this has to do with crime figures and the diffrences relating to definitions of crimes and counting methods have already been mentioned.

The UK records very trivial crime, while the US tends to only record more serious crime or felonies.

Most UK crime is of a trivial nature, whilst the US Police are under increasing pressure to downgrade crimes.

[Capn_Birdseye]

They aren't just being replaced, far more people are coming to Britain then are leaving. London alone is growing by the equivalent population of Florence every 4 years.
.... and putting great strains on our infrastructure. We will have to build over 200 houses a day over the next 20 years just to cope with the needs of immigrants. That's a lot of England's pleasant green fields being covered in urban sprawl for the sake of people who contribut very little to this country, most of what they earn they send home.


This is all at the benefit to Britain because OAP's form the majority who are leaving, thus reducing their dependency on the country's' finances.People who have fought & died for this country, people who have paid their taxes throughout their working lives, people who have been honest law-abiding citizens are leaving and nicky boy welcomes the fact because they are not a drain on resources!! It just indicates how he has no real understanding or appreciation of those British people who have done so much for this country, a country that is being turned into a hell hole by unfettered & uncontrolled immigration.

In return, economically-active, young and healthy people are flooding into the country making it more diverse, and exciting.In return we get the criminal scum of eastern Europe and those who come here for a free ride on the great gravy train known as British Social Services - free housing, free education, free medical care, cash benefits, etc etc.


but for the greater whole immigration has been a bonus to Britain, I'd know I'm one of them (from Singapore).Immigration has been a disaster for the UK because it has been so uncontrolled - I'm sure Singapore would love to have you back nicky boy! Go on make us all happy!

[Meerkat]

I'm a Londoner and disagree. I'd prefer to live in Manhattan anytime before London, in fact I'd prefer to live in many other places before London! It's just where I'm berthed at the moment but I intend to up anchor and move at some future point to a safer, cleaner, more civilised city. And that's a salty old seadog talking, someone who's seen a few places & things in his time! London is a hell hole, don't believe the stuff that some of my compatriots are posting on here.

Actually you aren't a Londoner, you're from Chalfont St.Giles!!!

Well there is no time like the present capn', why not weigh anchor now and sail off to NYC - i'm sure old Greggy will be more than happy to 'put you up' until you get settled.

As for me, well i'll be staying put. London is my home and i love it.

Jaegar/ nick you are both wasting your time saying anything positive about London- just have a read through 'GT' s old posts to see the utter contempt many New Yorkers seem hold us Limey scum - its certainly opened my eyes since i joined wired new york, and leaves me feeling very depressed. With friends like these....

Anyway, this thread is pointless. Crime figures are usually so manipulated that they barely resemble reality, so its impossible to say which city / country has the highest crime rate. It seems that this discussion is just an excuse for various individuals to say that their city is better than the other. NYC and London are both great cities and they are both very different so impossible to compare, just leave it at that.

And captain ^^^^^ i agree with vitually everything you have said in the above post. Try getting into parliament, we could do with someone who has the balls to say what they are really thinking.

[BXGear]

I am not sure what this has to do with crime figures and the diffrences relating to definitions of crimes and counting methods have already been mentioned.

The UK records very trivial crime, while the US tends to only record more serious crime or felonies.

Most UK crime is of a trivial nature, whilst the US Police are under increasing pressure to downgrade crimes.

I believe America is more violent because of the culture differences. America is a relatively new country. Other countries have ancient histories with kings and empires. The other countries are somewhat repressed and calmer, kind of like, they had already been through it all. America is more of a fresh face. America blew up and it blew up fast. All of a sudden we're number 1. Put 2 and 2 together, logically

[Jaeger]

Actually you aren't a Londoner, you're from Chalfont St.Giles!!!

Well there is no time like the present capn', why not weigh anchor now and sail off to NYC - i'm sure old Greggy will be more than happy to 'put you up' until you get settled.

As for me, well i'll be staying put. London is my home and i love it.

Jaegar/ nick you are both wasting your time saying anything positive about London- just have a read through 'GT' s old posts to see the utter contempt many New Yorkers seem hold us Limey scum - its certainly opened my eyes since i joined wired new york, and leaves me feeling very depressed. With friends like these....

Anyway, this thread is pointless. Crime figures are usually so manipulated that they barely resemble reality, so its impossible to say which city / country has the highest crime rate. It seems that this discussion is just an excuse for various individuals to say that their city is better than the other. NYC and London are both great cities and they are both very different so impossible to compare, just leave it at that.

And captain ^^^^^ i agree with vitually everything you have said in the above post. Try getting into parliament, we could do with someone who has the balls to say what they are really thinking.


Thanks Meercat :)

I realise I am wasting my time, and how somebody from the quiet village of Chalfont St Giles in Buckinghamshire can go on and on about London is beyond me, it's like someone from a quiet Connecticut suburb talking about how bad NY City is. :rolleyes:

As for Americans view of the UK, they probably couldn't find us on a map, and seem to like to come out with weird sterotypes such as we all have rotten teeth and live on a diet of lard and suet. The fact that Americans themselves have a very poor diet and extremely poor dental coverage doesn't seem to have entrered their heads. Whilst the UK now has a booming multi-billion dollar cosmetic dentistry industry, some of the best restaurants in the world and a massive variety of different foods from all over the world.

This simply reinforces the fact that 75% of Americans don't own a passport and of the 25% that do, they don't get the holidays we get in Europe in which to travel.

The Chalfont St Giles Hood

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/18/92534481_f47f244844.jpg

108 Million people in the US Lack any form of dentistry (over a third of the population), whilst
nearly 50 million lack any health cover whatsoever.

http://www.uninsureddental.com/articles/us-dental-care-outlook-low-cost-or-free-dental-care/

http://www.cfah.org/factsoflife/vol7no5.cfm

The American Diet is so poor, that the average American is becoming smaller, while Europeans grow Taller. Although Americans are getting wider.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1185387,00.html

The Average American gets less than half the holidays that his or her European Counterpart gets.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2836192.ece

A recent health study showed the British to be far healthier than their American Counterparts.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/42717.php

America has the largest prison population on earth, some 2.1 million, and is predicted to rise to
2.5 million. The UK would have to incarcerate 420,000 people rather than 90,000 in order to match the US 2.1 Million figure and the UK would have to increase this to 500,000 to match a predicted US Figure of 2.5 million.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4858580.stm

http://www.countercurrents.org/hr-ford280207.htm

America is a country all about squeezing every dollars worth in profit out of everything and everyone, a country with little compassion for it's poorest and a country where all that matters is tax cuts and more tax cuts. It's very much a why should the poor get any of my money attitude, whilst at the same time they happily hand over money to fund massive defence and prison programmes. America now spends more on Defence than the rest of the world combined. :eek:

Nice Society!!!! :(

[Fabrizio]

The TRUTH is, most prestigious survey groups rate Great Britain's quality of life rather poorly compared to the US and other European countries:

The UN Development Index continually ranks England well BELOW the US.

(measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standard of living)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

The Economist Intelligence Unit also ranks Great Britain very low in terms of quality of life.

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf

Please note the International Livings "Quality of Life" index:

http://www.il-ireland.com/il/qofl06/index.php

(notice that in most of these indexes even my own country usually out performs the UK)

Even as a tourist destination Great Britain is not first choice (from the World Tourism Organization... the latest collected data is through 2004):

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0198352.html

Of course reading these surveys one can understand why so many Brits long to leave their country or have already packed their bags and done so:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article494641.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article2511938.ece

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article1466128.ece


---

[Jaeger]

The TRUTH is, most prestigious survey groups rate Great Britain's quality of life rather poorly compared to the US and other European countries:

The UN Development Index continually ranks England well BELOW the US.

(measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standard of living)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

The Economist Intelligence Unit also ranks Great Britain very low in terms of quality of life.

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf

Please note the International Livings "Quality of Life" index:

http://www.il-ireland.com/il/qofl06/index.php

(please note that in most of these indexes my own counrty usual way out preforms the UK)

Even as a tourist destination Great Britain is not first choice (from the World Tourism Organization... the latest collected data is through 2004):

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0198352.html

Of course reading these surveys one can understand why so many Brits long to leave their country or have already packed their bags and done so:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article494641.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article2511938.ece

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article1466128.ece


---




I do believe that we've been over this before, but I'll repeat what I've said previously, in that these surveys are based upon specific criteria that match the philosophy of a group or individual, and are in reality not a general perception of what a good quality of life is. The following indicators are used by the EIU to rank what you refer to:

1. Material wellbeing
gdp per person, at ppp in $. Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
2. Health
Life expectancy at birth, years. Source: us Census Bureau
3. Political stability and security
Political stability and security ratings. Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
4. Family life
Divorce rate (per 1,000 population), converted into index of 1 (lowest divorce rates) to 5 (highest). Sources: un; Eu-romonitor
5. Community life
Dummy variable taking value 1 if country has either high rate of church attendance or trade-union membership; zero otherwise. Sources: ilo; World Values Survey
6. Climate and geography
Latitude, to distinguish between warmer and colder climes. Source: cia World Factbook
7. Job security
Unemployment rate, %. Sources: Economist Intelligence Unit; ilo.
8. Political freedom
Average of indices of political and civil liberties. Scale of 1 (completely free) to 7 (unfree). Source: Freedom House
9. Gender equality
Ratio of average male and female earnings, latest available data. Source: undp Human Development Report

For a start, organised crime, general crime, and vandalism are not used in any indicator (so that ranking doesn't prove your point), instead church attendance and divorce rates are used to garner results.

Is divorce bad? It is an unfortunate situation, but then divorce is a form of expression and independence, the alternative is an un-happy/arranged/abusive marriage that all would agree is wrong.

And is going to church a real indicator to whether one country is better than another? I think many Americans would agree that such a variable is highly questionable, especially in regards to the entire church being a haven for paedophiles and numerous homophobes.

My only other issue would be with climate? Countries don't just lie on one latitude, nor do they have one climate. Italy has numerous climates, just like any other country, and what is a better climate? Its subjective, people like hot climates, but its a pain to work in!

In other words, only 1,2,3,7,8 and 9 really carry any statistical backing that can be appropriately compared. Of those, I'd suspect that the UK performs better in 1,3,7,8,9, but lags behind in 2.


Case re-opened, appeal denied!


:p

The UK is such a good country we attract people from across Europe and not just East Europeans, there are also 400,000 French living here, with the majority 300,000 living in London.

Oh and btw the UK has higher Life Expectancy than the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy


http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee240/Pullman1000/FrenchWomenWindow.jpg

French opt for the Anglo model; whilst the French have successfully demonstrated against the proposed employment laws, which were meant to have made it easier for the young to get jobs in small firms, the Guardian says that hundreds of thousands of their compatriots have voted with their feet and come to work in Britain. It says that- contrary to popular perception- there may be more French people living in Britain than there are Brits living in France. According to the Office for National Statistics since 1999, about 15,000 French people have moved to the UK annually whilst 10,000 British have gone the other way. About two-thirds of the French moving to Britain are under 36 and three-quarters are single. The French Consulate estimates that there are 300,000 to 400,000 French living in Britain, of which 70 per cent live in London, and 300,000 Britons living permanently in France but widely dispersed. Guardian 08.04.06

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/radio/specials/1557_london_extra/page2.shtml

[Fabrizio]

Working in another country (espacially countries that border one another) is different than "leaving" your country:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200408020014

In the meantime, I think most would find the United Nations, The World Health Organization, The Economist Intelligence Unit, International Living...the most reputable for hard facts... and in their opinion, the UK can not measure up to the US or most European countries.

[Jaeger]

Moving to another country and working there is different than "leaving" your country:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200408020014

In the meantime, I think most would find the United Nations, The World Health Organization, The Economist Intelligence Unit, International Living...the most reputable for hard facts... and in their opinion, the UK can not measure up to the US or most European countries.

Look you don't like the UK you have made that abundantly clear, and to be honest I don't like Italians - so this going nowhere.

Nick Taylor will probably fill you in with the stats, and btw millions of people have chosen to make the UK their home.

It's beyond me why you are crowing on about the HDI, when it gives Italy virtually the same score as the UK. Btw I think you will find the HDI is not a very comprehensive study, it fails to take in to account inequality and it's methodology has been questioned.

Also I don't recall Italy being the intelectual capital of the world in terms of Education, I don't recall to many Italian Universities up there with Oxford and Cambridge, Imperial or the LSE.

Britain is spending record amounts on health and massively improving education under the present Government.

[Fabrizio]

Look you don't like the UK you have made that abundantly clear...

It's not about my opinion. Or yours.

In most quality of life surveys by the most reputable organizations, the UK does poorly.

----

"Btw I think you will find the HDI is not a very comprehensive study, it fails to take in to account inequality and it's methodology has been questioned."

Yes, I agree I think it's flawed. It is an embrassment to rank equal to the UK and I think Italy has not been not given a fair assessment by them.

[Jaeger]

UK Education -

http://www.tes.co.uk/2434373

[Jaeger]

It's not about my opinion. Or yours.

In most quality of life surveys by the most reputable organizations, the UK does poorly.

----

"Btw I think you will find the HDI is not a very comprehensive study, it fails to take in to account inequality and it's methodology has been questioned."

Yes, I agree I think it's flawed. It is an embrassment to rank equal to the UK and I think Italy has not been not given a fair assessment by them.

The only reason Ireland is up there is because of it's high GDP, however Ireland has massive inequality and very poor levels of welfare based around low tax provision.

If the HDI took in to account inequalities and other issues then it would read very differently.

[Fabrizio]

Gee... you guys have it over the UN... The Economist... etc.... amazing!

---

Re: education: Italy lacks the number of great Univerities that other countries may have BUT:

http://www.brainy-child.com/article/reggioemilia.html

http://www.reggioalliance.org/about/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/nyregion/thecity/23regg.html



----

[Jaeger]

It's already been explained and there are many critics of the HDI.

Once again the HDI does not take in to account inequality and other such social issues.

Look at Ireland's model, a country that reguarly tops the HDI.





By “the Irish model” these parties mean that they want to emulate the success of the Irish Republic in attracting foreign direct investment. It is a strategy that has seen the Irish economy grow by an average of five percent in the late 1990s and in some years by as much as 11 percent. Last year the growth rate was 7.4 percent. At one point the Irish economy was the fastest growing in Europe and among the fastest in the world. It has gone from being one of the poorest countries per capita in Europe during the 1970s to being one of the richest today. Last year Ireland was ranked as the second richest country per capita in the world, just behind Japan and ahead of the UK, US, France, Germany, Italy and Canada.

So what could possibly be wrong with the Irish model?

Inherent in the Irish model is a widening gulf between rich and poor. The economic growth that the Irish Republic has experienced has been at the expense of working people. There has been a massive redistribution of wealth from the poorest members of society to the richest. Anyone who advocates the Irish model has to accept that the impoverishment of the majority is part of the package. There are now 30,000 euro-millionaires in Ireland and at least 300 individuals who are worth more than 30 million euros (US$40 million, £20 million) even without calculating the value of their houses.

Alongside this wealth, Ireland has one of the highest levels of relative poverty in the European Union. According to internationally recognised measures, 22.7 percent of the Irish population live in poverty and the level of poverty has increased as the economy has grown. In 1998, 19.8 percent of the population lived in poverty, in 2000 20.9 percent and in 2001 21.9 percent according to a study by Bridget Reynolds for the CORI Justice Commission. Between 1987 and 2003, the share of income going to the poorest half of Irish society has fallen from 25.25 percent to 23.62 percent. The poorest 20 percent have seen a similar fall in their share of the national income from six percent in 1987 to 4.85 percent in 2003. The top 10 percent of the population received 23.55 percent, which was almost the same as the income of the poorest 50 percent.

These figures are confirmed by other studies. At 15.7 percent, the level of child poverty in Ireland is comparable to that in Portugal, according to a recent UNICEF study. Ireland ranks along with the UK, Portugal, Italy and New Zealand as one of the developed countries with the highest levels of child poverty, and the level of child poverty in Ireland is rising despite sustained economic growth. One of the major reasons for this is that the already low level of social spending in Ireland is decreasing. Ireland spends only 14.1 percent of its Gross Domestic Product on the welfare state. This is the lowest level in Europe. By comparison, Sweden spends 32.3 percent and the UK 26.8 percent. Spain, one of the poorest countries in Europe, spends 20.1 percent of its GDP on the welfare state and would have to spend much more without European Union subsidies.

Closely related to the low level of welfare spending in Ireland is the taxation system.

Ireland has the lowest rate of direct tax in Europe, 28.6 percent of GDP, compared to 50.6 percent in Sweden. But it also has the highest rate of indirect tax, at 43.7 percent, compared to 27.9 percent in Belgium Direct tax is levied on capital or income and is a progressive tax that increases in proportion to the individual’s wealth (though much less so than in the past thanks to the pro-big business policies of all the world’s governments). Indirect tax is a flat rate tax levied irrespective of wealth and therefore falls most heavily on the poorest members of society.

The effect of the low level of direct taxation and the high level of indirect taxation is to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich. It might instead be called an anti-welfare state. The Irish fiscal system is designed to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. Anyone who advocates the Irish model as a way forward for needs to come clean about the implications for social spending and the growth of poverty. In portraying Ireland as a glowing example of economic growth without reference to the social conditions that growth has produced.

They would need to cut spending on health, education, housing and social security by almost half to match the Irish model.

[Fabrizio]

WOW. Interesting that DESPITE all of that, the Economist Intellegence Unit, the HDI, International Living etc... still rank it so far above the UK.

It is truly a testament to how bad things are in Great Britain.

( But anyway... as i said, I also agree that the HDI is flawed. For Italy to be ranked down there with the UK is very disappointing and quite frankly, hard to believe)

And BTW Jaeger, that's an interesting web site where you got that article. Is that why you didn't post sources?

http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/

http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/RecentArticles/RecentIrishModelForScotlandAndWales.html

LOL.

---

[Jaeger]

Gee... you guys have it over the UN... The Economist... etc.... amazing!

---

Re: education: Italy lacks the number of great Univerities that other countries may have BUT:

http://www.brainy-child.com/article/reggioemilia.html

http://www.reggioalliance.org/about/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/nyregion/thecity/23regg.html



----

We have one of the highest levels of primary education spending in the world, the OECD were very impressed with UK Primary Education.

We have a good universal health care system, and now spend more than the European Average on health care, and have a very good welfare system.

We also have some of the best Universities in the World.

Perhaps the fact that more people go to Church in Ireland means that they have a better quality of life - it must be the crucial deciding factor, despite the fact they have mass inequality, which isn't taken in to account.

[Fabrizio]

Maybe you have some more articles from the authoratative World Socialist Website to back up you claims?

[Jaeger]

Maybe you have some more articles from the authoratative World Socialist Website to back up you claims?

They are quite factual - the HDI is no more an effective measure of the quality of life than is GDP per capita for developed nations, arguably where income most fails to explain happiness. Sen and Anand have explored a method of refining the HDI for middle and high income countries by using additional criteria (such as secondary school enrolment, infant mortality, income inequality) that will differentiate between countries of similar basic human development.

Furthermore GDP does not mean equality, a country such as the United States has extremely high rates of GDP, but some of the worst rates of poverty and inequality in the developed world.

The HDI is too simplified, yes life expectancy is a good indicator of health, however is life expectancy universally equal in a system such as the US one, where up to 50 million people don't have Health care and a third of the population don't have any dental care.

Are levels of health care spending that good an indicator, the US has possible the most expensive health system in the world and massive levels of health spending, however the system does not cover everyone and levels of healthcare are not always better, nor is the health of society at large better than many other nations.

Education levels are also good indicators, however what about equality within the education system, if your life chances are curtailed by not being able to afford university education or you have to pay massive fees then this will also effect your happiness.

Countries with high or growing levels of GDP, may also be prone to higher levels of pollution, suffer poorer enviroments and contribute more to global carbon output.

Leisure time is probably more important in terms of human happiness than GDP. Does the throw away society, based on ever more consumption really bring happiness.

The HDI seems very narrow in terms of methodology, and seems to ignore many of the real factors that contribute to happiness and contentment in a society.

Norway has high GDP because it has a very small population and a vast amount of oil, which
will however run out within the next couple of decades, Ireland has high GDP based around a system of low taxes, but as a result has low public and welfare spending, and a growing inequality gap. These factors and many other simply aren't addressed by the HDI, which is not a very reliable indicator when it comes to moren in-depth analysis.

[Fabrizio]

Re: "Chris Talbot" from the World Socialist website.


They are quite factual

So factual that not even you had the courage to post the source for that article.

Nuf' said.

[Jaeger]

Re: "Chris Talbot" from the World Socialist website.



So factual that not even you had the courage to post the source for that article.

Nuf' said.

http://www.eapn.ie/policy/94

http://www.galway.ie/en/Services/CommunityEnterprise/SocialInclusion/PovertyinIreland-Stats/

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2002/10/feature/ie0210203f.html

[Fabrizio]

As one of your own sources mentions in Ireland "absolute or consistent poverty has declined"

While in the same period in Britain it has INCREASED.

---

From the NYTIMES:

"In February, Britain scored at the bottom among 21 industrialized countries in a Unicef report that used 40 indicators, like relative poverty, health and family relationships, to measure children’s well-being".

"A third factor is the growing gulf between rich and poor in an increasingly affluent society. According to the advocacy group Save the Children, although Britain has the world’s fourth-largest economy, it also has one of the worst rates of child poverty in the industrialized world, with 3.4 million children, more than one in four, living in poverty, and about a million, or nearly 10 percent, living in severe poverty."

"Last year a paper published by the Institute for Public Policy Research, a progressive study group, concluded that Britain’s young people were the worst-behaved in Europe, spending less time with their parents, drinking and fighting more, and trying drugs and sex earlier than their counterparts across the Continent."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/world/europe/10britain.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/U/United%20Nations%20Children's%20Fund

[Jaeger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index

Lets have a look at the UN Human Poverty Index, whats that Italy right at the bottom below the UK and US. :eek:

[Fabrizio]

The great cuisine and good sex makes up for it.

[Jaeger]

Italy has the highest rates of children living in below the poverty line at 19.5%, compared to 16.2% in Britain and just 2.4% in Sweden.

The highest child poverty rate by country for the entire study was found in Russia, which had 23%, where the researchers found that child nutrition was often poor and more like parts of sub-Saharan Africa.

But even though the figures in Britain are shocking they are nowhere near the rates in the USA, where the relative child poverty rate measures 20.3% and rises to a massive 26.3% in New York.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1184856.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31census.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1191170803-cdktXYtVkSVz9RYKrZiKdw

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/economics/story/0,,1256932,00.html

[Fabrizio]

Why are you posting articles from 2001?

Latest UNICEF figures rate a difference between the UK and Italy at only slightly over 1 point.

UK: 15.4 ; Italy 16.6

Considering that Denmark is rated at 2.4., one can see how the difference between Italy and the UK is very, very slim.

"Child Poverty In Rich Countries" :

http://www.unicef.org.uk/press/pdf/ReportCard6.pdf

Yet despite this, we do better in over all quality of life indexes.

[Jaeger]

The great cuisine and good sex makes up for it.

Italians in London

St Peters Italian Church - Clerkenwell - London

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc194/Aspinal1000/1021.jpg

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc194/Aspinal1000/1022.jpg

Sicilian Avenue - Bloomsbury (London) - Home

of many fine Italian Restaurants

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc194/Aspinal1000/1023.jpg

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc194/Aspinal1000/1024.jpg

A Sicilian Wedding in Clerkenwell - London

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc194/Aspinal1000/1025.jpg

Italians Celebrating Winning the 2006 World Cup in London's Soho.

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc194/Aspinal1000/1026.jpg

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc194/Aspinal1000/1027.jpg

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc194/Aspinal1000/1028.jpg

[Fabrizio]

Note the good teeth and nice skin.

[Jaeger]

Note the good teeth and nice skin.

Yeah they came to London to get their teeth done, and you can't fail to notice their swarthy skin.

[Fabrizio]

Uh..no, they do not go to Britain for dental care:

http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/private-dentistry/cosmetic-dentistry-abroad/italy

[Capn_Birdseye]

Actually you aren't a Londoner, you're from Chalfont St.Giles!!!
Just for the record Meerkat & Jaeger. I may have been born in Chalfont St Giles, (a delightful little village), but we moved 25 miles up the road to London when I was a mere babe in arms. I went to schools in London and to the LSE. I worked in London for a number of years, had home & family in London, (still have), and apart from voyages abroad sailing the seas in search of treasure, I have spent a lot of my life in London, probably far more than you have. So on that basis I call myself a Londoner but what a hell hole London has become!! Some lunatic tried to fire bomb my boat last year!! Apparently he was mentally ill and had been released from hospital on the basis he was ok as long as he took his medication - but who checked??? Answer: Nobody!! The streets of London are filled with drug-crazed and/or severely mentally ill people, sleeping in doorways, on the tubes, in cardbaord boxes on the embankment, etc.


And captain ^^^^^ i agree with vitually everything you have said in the above post. Try getting into parliament, we could do with someone who has the balls to say what they are really thinking.Nice of you say so Meerkat, there's many a politican I'd like to tie to the main mast and flay their backs with a cat o' nine tails, rub sea salt into their wounds and leave them there all day in the hot sun.
On the political front I've got a whole set of exciting policies I'd like to pursue, given the chance!

[Capn_Birdseye]

Two of my favourite countries are Ireland & Italy. Why? Their people know how to enjoy themselves, they're unpretentious, open, generous in spirit, and great company.

Italy is my favourite continental European country, I love its food, wine, scenery, and the sense of history everywhere you travel. They make great coffee, cars with character, great shoes and fashionable clothes. Their young women are great lookers!

Ireland has great rugged scenery on its west coast, brew some great Guinness or Murphy's, their whiskey, (they invented it first), is far better than the Scotch version, they're always up for the "craic", and are great story tellers and philosphers. Many authors that the English all their own and consider to be British are in fact Irish!!

[Jaeger]

Uh..no, they do not go to Britain for dental care:

http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/private-dentistry/cosmetic-dentistry-abroad/italy

The British Cosmetic Dental Industry is a billion pound or multi-billion dollar business.

http://www.dental-plans.co.uk/news/2007/Aug/brits-obessed-with-having-a-celebrity-smile-through-cosmetic-dentistry.html

Yes some Brits do go abroad, however it's no different to Americans going to Mexico for tratments.

[Jaeger]

Just for the record Meerkat & Jaeger. I may have been born in Chalfont St Giles, (a delightful little village), but we moved 25 miles up the road to London when I was a mere babe in arms. I went to schools in London and to the LSE. I worked in London for a number of years, had home & family in London, (still have), and apart from voyages abroad sailing the seas in search of treasure, I have spent a lot of my life in London, probably far more than you have. So on that basis I call myself a Londoner but what a hell hole London has become!! Some lunatic tried to fire bomb my boat last year!! Apparently he was mentally ill and had been released from hospital on the basis he was ok as long as he took his medication - but who checked??? Answer: Nobody!! The streets of London are filled with drug-crazed and/or severely mentally ill people, sleeping in doorways, on the tubes, in cardbaord boxes on the embankment, etc.

Nice of you say so Meerkat, there's many a politican I'd like to tie to the main mast and flay their backs with a cat o' nine tails, rub sea salt into their wounds and leave them there all day in the hot sun.
On the political front I've got a whole set of exciting policies I'd like to pursue, given the chance!

You know very little about me so don't make assumption, as for your life history spare us please.

As for mental health beds the UK has a lot more than most countries, and the UK Mental Health Services are considered among the best. The American System is among the worst when it comes to mental health.

You are aware that in the US there are less than 60,000 Mental Health beds, even Britain with one fifth of the population has over 30,000 NHS Mental Health Beds and several thousand more private mental health beds.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-05-01-mental-illness_x.htm

http://www.crazyinamerica.com/html/crazyinamericaTEXT.html

http://society.guardian.co.uk/socialcare/story/0,,1930222,00.html

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76554.php

[Jaeger]

The Homeless Problem London and NY City.




Link - http://www.manhattan-institute.org/email/crd_newsletter11-06.html

But it's not just in development that London is doing so well. Its gift for innovation can be seen in its approach to an issue that confronts almost every large, complex city: street homelessness.

London recognized early that rough sleeping is destructive not only for those who do it—but for the neighborhoods that endure it. As a result, London today has about 1,500 street people (http://www.broadwaylondon.org/broadwayvoice/policy_detail.asp?id=45) (what Londoners call "rough sleepers") or less than half of New York's, even though at 7,465,100 people, London is only a little smaller.

American advocates, including New York homeless services commissioner Robert Hess (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dhs/html/home/home.shtml), attribute London's success to the adoption of the right strategy, which was funded nationally and generously.

Specifically, London shifted funding from expensive, vast emergency shelters to small, local "safe havens" that have fewer than 150 beds. "London has reduced the number of people sleeping on the streets by two-thirds over the last five years, so they're a little ahead of us," says Commissioner Hess, adding that New York will have also reduced street homelessness by two-thirds by the time Mayor Bloomberg leaves office.

"They offered a new kind of sheltering model that lends itself to a great level of success for people who, but for that safe haven, would be living on the streets." (New York will be opening its first safe haven with the Bowery Residents Committee on Dec. 7.) Or, as White House homeless czar Philip Mangano argues, "With these big seemingly intractable social problems, you have to be able to produce visible results. Prime Minister Blair understood this. London first got success with the rough sleepers—the group deemed to be most unchangeable—and now they're having success with homeless families."

[Fabrizio]

Whew.... Jaeger finally comes around to what we've all been telling him.

From the article he posted above:

"New York does have one generally unnoted advantage. It may be a safer city. Violent crime in London is serious, and seems to be worsening, particularly on the Underground, where violent crime rose 14% last year, according to the British Transport Police. London maintains its crime data in a less sophisticated and comprehensible way than New York, making comparisons difficult."

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/email/crd_newsletter11-06.html

[Meerkat]

Fabrizio, one question, why all the attacks on London? Do you hate us too?

[Fabrizio]

I've only posted what has been written elsewhere. Don't shoot the messenger! In none of my posts do I attack London, except for saying that I personally feel safer in NYC.

---

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/main.jhtml?xml=/travel/2007/09/30/et-rome-130.xml

[Meerkat]

^
Do you accept everything you read?? The media are known for their scaremongering and most statistics are so manipulated they aren't worth the paper they are written on.

I can accept you feel safer in NY but please stop the references to rotten teeth etc.

As for Birdseye, note the photos he has posted on his pirate day have the US flag in the corner, it would appear he doesn't even live in London.

[Fabrizio]

So? And I have a British flag lining the bottom of a bird cage... but I don't live in England.


---

[Meerkat]

^very amusing Fabrizio.

Yes i love Rome too, having been three times, and the vast majority of Italians were welcoming and friendly. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule.

If you can't discuss a subject without resorting to cheap insults its very sad really.

[Fabrizio]

Meekrat, but I love London.

However this IS the Wired New York forum... not the smartest place to trash New York City. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of Hell's Kitchen.

( Hint: Note that the folks here write about both the good and bad of their town and display no feelings of cultural superiority.. and all with a good dose of humour.)


---

[Meerkat]

I have at no point anywhere on this forum in any way trashed NY - I love it, hence being on here (plus the very good skyscraper section). I have stated that i dislike the city comparisons, and that NY and London should not be compared - this was as much directed at Jaeger as any one else.

My reply to your post was merely because i felt that some of your comments are a bit 'below the belt' - if a member made derogatory comments about Italy i'm sure you would respond, and quite rightly.

I don't feel superior at all, London has plenty of bad points, not least the transport system (i was late at work today thanks to a defective train).

[Jaeger]

Whew.... Jaeger finally comes around to what we've all been telling him.

From the article he posted above:

"New York does have one generally unnoted advantage. It may be a safer city. Violent crime in London is serious, and seems to be worsening, particularly on the Underground, where violent crime rose 14% last year, according to the British Transport Police. London maintains its crime data in a less sophisticated and comprehensible way than New York, making comparisons difficult."

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/email/crd_newsletter11-06.html

British Transport Police Figures show violent crime falling, and even though London does include lots of trivial offences in it's crime figures, the Metropolitan Police have a very good crime stats site.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/5843.aspx

http://www.london.gov.uk/londoner/07mar/p6b.jsp?nav=safe

http://www.london.gov.uk/londoner/07mar/safe-london.jsp

[Capn_Birdseye]

Back to the "truth about crime figures in London" - I'm omitting NYC because I'm sure our friends over there are in a better position to comment than us limeys.

So, what's happening here. Police are shelving investigations into up to half of all crimes, (yes, you read that correctly, 50%), including theft, vandalism and fraud, unless evidence pointing to the culprits is readily available! I suppose they expect the yobs to leave their names & addresses at the scenes of crime.

Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act, (much curtailed by this repressive Labour government - freedom & Labour is an oxymoron), show that the Police are using a new system to "screen out" hundreds of thousands of minor crimes as not worth investigating.

It means that many of the most common offences are routinely filed "not for action" by phone operators after the initial call reporting the crime.

Yet only a few days ago Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, pledged at the Labour party conference in Bournemouth that there would be "zero tolerance" of neighbourhood crime. Well, who'd believe a Labour politician?

However, the figures reveal how guidelines aimed at helping Police hit government targets for solving crimes mean many criminals responsible for petty offences are not pursued.

The Metropolitan Police are "screening out" about 53% of all crimes!
The figures show that 90% of all vehicle crime and 60% of all burglaries are screened out.

Norman Dennis, director of community studies at Civitas, a polict think tank, said: "this is the opposite of zero tolerance and is a hopless Police strategy. It sends out the message to criminals and the public that when it comes to some offences, particularly those affecting the old and vunerable, the Police aren't going to do anything."

Barry Loveday, a reader in criminal justice at Portsmouth University said, "it's minor crimes and vandalism that explain most fear of crime and fear of victimisation among residents. If Police are ignoring that sort of thing they are not helping the new thrust towards community policing."

[Jaeger]

Back to the "truth about crime figures in London" - I'm omitting NYC because I'm sure our friends over there are in a better position to comment than us limeys.

So, what's happening here. Police are shelving investigations into up to half of all crimes, (yes, you read that correctly, 50%), including theft, vandalism and fraud, unless evidence pointing to the culprits is readily available! I suppose they expect the yobs to leave their names & addresses at the scenes of crime.

Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act, (much curtailed by this repressive Labour government - freedom & Labour is an oxymoron), show that the Police are using a new system to "screen out" hundreds of thousands of minor crimes as not worth investigating.

It means that many of the most common offences are routinely filed "not for action" by phone operators after the initial call reporting the crime.

Yet only a few days ago Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, pledged at the Labour party conference in Bournemouth that there would be "zero tolerance" of neighbourhood crime. Well, who'd believe a Labour politician?

However, the figures reveal how guidelines aimed at helping Police hit government targets for solving crimes mean many criminals responsible for petty offences are not pursued.

The Metropolitan Police are "screening out" about 53% of all crimes!
The figures show that 90% of all vehicle crime and 60% of all burglaries are screened out.

Norman Dennis, director of community studies at Civitas, a polict think tank, said: "this is the opposite of zero tolerance and is a hopless Police strategy. It sends out the message to criminals and the public that when it comes to some offences, particularly those affecting the old and vunerable, the Police aren't going to do anything."

Barry Loveday, a reader in criminal justice at Portsmouth University said, "it's minor crimes and vandalism that explain most fear of crime and fear of victimisation among residents. If Police are ignoring that sort of thing they are not helping the new thrust towards community policing."

American police don't even record many misdemenors, and they certainly don't appear on the UCR.

The police may screen calls, indeed it would be a waste of police resources to investigate every trivial matter. Where the criminals have left the scene of a burglary, the police no longer attend, they send a uniformed forensic officer, who can dust the premises for prints or look for DNA, record the crime details and offer advice about securing property. This is a good idea, as it both frees up police resources and allows for more forensic analysis of burglary areas.

Btw Zero-Tolerance is rubbish, the main reason NY City has falling crime is due to the city being very small geographicaly (half the size of London) and many of the areas that were traditionaly high crime have gone through a process of gentrification. More Parts of areaslike Harlem and Brooklyn have become desireable property hotspots especially given the small area NY City Covers and how pressed for space the city is, and as a result rents have also risen, pricing many undesirables out.

[Jaeger]

British Police Recording the Trivial -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1795988.ece




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/img/global/tol-logo.gif

September 13, 2007

Police chief says officers chasing targets distort
picture of crime

Sean O’Neill

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2441818.ece

The picture of violent crime in Britain is being distorted by nervous police officers recording minor incidents such as playground squabbles as serious incidents, a report on the state of policing says.

Sir Ronnie Flanagan, HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, said yesterday that there was an urgent need for national leadership on cutting bureaucracy and for police officers on the frontline to begin to exercise judgment and discretion.





Contrast all this with the following about the NYPD:




...officers possess enormous discretion in whether and how to report crime. Where officers do choose not to document certain crimes.

A Harlem sergeant describes a typical incident of non-reporting: “Last weekend,” he says, “a known neighborhood knucklehead hit a kid. In retaliation, the kid’s whole family shows up at the perp’s apartment. The victim’s sisters kick in the apartment door. But the knucklehead’s mother beat the shit out of the sisters, leaving them lying on the floor with blood coming from their mouths.

“The victim’s family was looking for a fight: I could charge them with trespass. The perp’s mother is eligible for assault three for beating up the opposing family. But all of them were street shit, garbage. They will get justice in their own way. I told them: ‘We can all go to jail, or we can call it a wash.’ Otherwise, you’d have six bodies in prison for BS behavior. The district attorney would have been pissed. And none of them would ever show up in court.” So the officer sent the families packing, leaving the assaults off his ledger.

By my reckoning that's at least four crimes, but there could be more depending on how many sisters "had blood coming out of their mouths". What's more, I don't think our own crime auditor, Joan, would be too impressed with the sergeant's explanation that, "...all of them were street shit, garbage."

[Ninjahedge]

Are there any NYers even reading this thread anymore? Or is this just the London Lovers/Haters society.

Seriously guys. Fab does not seem to hate London, but the more you trumpet it, the more you force him into a corner to find articles and post a position in opposition to your own.

Have any of the London Lovers admitted any shortcomings of their town? Or has it been 100% defense? I think I saw Mer acquiesce on a few points, but Jaeg, all I see from you is showuing how London has ledss crime than Detroit, better dental hygene than Burma and better weather than Seattle. ;)

I am not asking any of you to jump to the other "side" and support your "opponent" in this "discussion", but still.... " " (I needed one more set of quotation marks).


You can continue on your crime-comparison, but try to avoid generalizations and direct comparisons of everything between London and other cities, or England and other nations. It will only lead to arguments.

[Capn_Birdseye]

To our American friends: Can you see your Police being told this!

This is what British Police have been reduced to! It's an utter disgrace all in the "interests" of that overly politically-correct concept of "health & safety" - whatever happened to "common sense" and the concept of helping those in need?

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484962&in_page_id=1770

[Jaeger]

Are there any NYers even reading this thread anymore? Or is this just the London Lovers/Haters society.

Seriously guys. Fab does not seem to hate London, but the more you trumpet it, the more you force him into a corner to find articles and post a position in opposition to your own.

Have any of the London Lovers admitted any shortcomings of their town? Or has it been 100% defense? I think I saw Mer acquiesce on a few points, but Jaeg, all I see from you is showuing how London has ledss crime than Detroit, better dental hygene than Burma and better weather than Seattle. ;)

I am not asking any of you to jump to the other "side" and support your "opponent" in this "discussion", but still.... " " (I needed one more set of quotation marks).


You can continue on your crime-comparison, but try to avoid generalizations and direct comparisons of everything between London and other cities, or England and other nations. It will only lead to arguments.

No Burma has better Dental Hygiene than the US, where 108 million don't have dental care, London has less annual rain fall than New York or Seattle, and London has one of the lowest levels of serious crime in the world, better than NY City which nearly has as many murders as the whole of England and Wales.

[krulltime]

Btw Zero-Tolerance is rubbish, the main reason NY City has falling crime is due to the city being very small geographicaly (half the size of London)

Say what!!! I never knew that NYC was half the size of London???

[Capn_Birdseye]

I never knew that NYC was half the size of London???
Measured in what way?

[Meerkat]

Are there any NYers even reading this thread anymore? Or is this just the London Lovers/Haters society.

Seriously guys. Fab does not seem to hate London, but the more you trumpet it, the more you force him into a corner to find articles and post a position in opposition to your own.

Have any of the London Lovers admitted any shortcomings of their town? Or has it been 100% defense? I think I saw Mer acquiesce on a few points, but Jaeg, all I see from you is showuing how London has ledss crime than Detroit, better dental hygene than Burma and better weather than Seattle. ;)

I am not asking any of you to jump to the other "side" and support your "opponent" in this "discussion", but still.... " " (I needed one more set of quotation marks).


You can continue on your crime-comparison, but try to avoid generalizations and direct comparisons of everything between London and other cities, or England and other nations. It will only lead to arguments.

Hear hear!!! The voice of reason at last.

let this thread die a death.

London and NY are both great cities, lets leave it at that.

By the way London and NY have about the same population, around 8 million, NY is not half the size at all.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Hear hear!!! The voice of reason at last.

let this thread die a death.

London and NY are both great cities, lets leave it at that.
Agree.

[Jaeger]

Hear hear!!! The voice of reason at last.

let this thread die a death.

London and NY are both great cities, lets leave it at that.

By the way London and NY have about the same population, around 8 million, NY is not half the size at all.

Georgraphicaly New York City is half the size, go look it up, I wasn't talking about population.

New York City - Land - 303.3 Square Miles (785.6 km²)

Greater London - Land - 609 Square Miles (1,577.3 km²)

These are also the ares patrolled by each cities police.

[Fabrizio]

Half the size, but twice as nice.

[ZippyTheChimp]

At least.

[ramvid01]

Btw Zero-Tolerance is rubbish, the main reason NY City has falling crime is due to the city being very small geographicaly (half the size of London) and many of the areas that were traditionaly high crime have gone through a process of gentrification. More Parts of areaslike Harlem and Brooklyn have become desireable property hotspots especially given the small area NY City Covers and how pressed for space the city is, and as a result rents have also risen, pricing many undesirables out.

If this was true then there would never have been a rise in crime. NYC has not expanded significantly since the late 1800's. Further the gentrification and being small have nothing to do with lowering of crime. Higher employment rates would be a better gauge to show why crime lowered. You seem to hold some very weird concepts of what caused crime to drop.

[krulltime]

Georgraphicaly New York City is half the size, go look it up, I wasn't talking about population.

New York City - Land - 303.3 Square Miles (785.6 km²)

Greater London - Land - 609 Square Miles (1,577.3 km²)

These are also the ares patrolled by each cities police.

What do you mean by Greater london? Is it like the city of London plus the metro? I don't get it.

[lofter1]

Greater London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London)

Greater London is the top-level administrative subdivision covering London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London), England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England). The administrative area was created in 1965 and covers the City of London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London) and 32 London boroughs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_borough). Its area also forms the London region (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England) of England and the London European Parliament constituency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_%28European_Parliament_constituency%29). The Greater London region has by far the highest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_nations_by_GDP_per_capita) GDP/capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP_per_capita) in the entire United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom).

It covers 1579 km² (609 square miles) and had a 2006 mid-year estimated population of 7,512,400.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London#_note-Greater_London_population) It is bounded by the Home Counties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Counties) of Essex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex) and Hertfordshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertfordshire) in the East of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_of_England) region and Buckinghamshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckinghamshire), Berkshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire), Surrey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrey) and Kent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent) in South East England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_England). The highest point is Westerham Heights, in the North Downs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Downs) and on the boundary with Kent, at 245 metres (804 ft).

***

Greater London Urban Area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London_Urban_Area)

The Greater London Urban Area is the conurbation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conurbation) or continuous urban area based around London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London), in south east England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England) with an estimated population of 8,505,000,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London_Urban_Area#_note-0) The urban area measured 1,623.3 km² (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Km%C2%B2) as of the 2001 Census.

The Greater London Urban Area includes most, but not all of Greater London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London) (for example excluding Biggin Hill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biggin_Hill), which is surrounded by countryside), while taking in many surrounding areas such as Hemel Hempstead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemel_Hempstead), Woking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woking) and Dartford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartford) that aren't generally considered parts of London itself and lie outside London's borders. It is a wholly urban area, so it is not as large as the metropolitan area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_commuter_belt). The urban area does not include places such as Slough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slough), Luton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luton) and Potters Bar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potters_Bar), that have gaps of countryside in between the towns themselves and the main urban area of London. The Metropolitan area has a population of 12-14 million, depending on which borders are used. The figure used by Government agencies as the area to which people commute in to London from for work is also slightly different and is known as the Travel to Work Area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_to_Work_Area).

The growth of the urban area's physical extent has largely been curtailed since the development of the Metropolitan Green Belt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Belt) in 1938 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938), which limited development within a ring of countryside around London. As London's economy has grown and house prices have risen this has led to the growth of the London commuter belt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_commuter_belt) - the London urban area, plus a ring of towns that are physically separate from the urban area but still functionally operate largely as suburbs, with large proportions of their populations dependent on the urban area for employment.

Most of the population growth of the Greater London Urban Area is the result of brownfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownfield) development and increasing population density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density).

[krulltime]

^ If Greater London Urban Area is so big, shouldn't it have way more population the New York City? I mean it has a little bit more, but not alot. It should be as big as the New York metro. They sure need more immigration.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Half the size, but twice as nice.
and three times as civilised.

[nick-taylor]

What do you mean by Greater london? Is it like the city of London plus the metro? I don't get it.Greater London is not be confused with say Greater New York or Greater Toronto, because they refer to completely different areas.

Firstly, Greater London is used to describe the area that most would observe as 'London', ie the 1579km² area that includes Greenwich, Heathrow, Central London, Croydon, and various other areas that are the equivalents to the boroughs of New York. At the heart of 'London' is the City of London, the original Roman city Londinium (aka the Square Mile) that is essentially its 'own' city, this again should not be confused with an area such as the City of New York, because the Square Mile is exactly that - an area of 2.6km², the area covered by the original Roman settlement.

The urban area again is odd, the definition for this is so conservative that as the wikipedia article alludes to excludes Biggin Hill - a part of London - because of the green belt and the definition based upon 'connections' and not density as other countries define. Depending on the methodology used, this varies from 8-10mn.

The last part is that the area referred to as the metro again ranges in the millions. Official figures cite the figure at between 12-14mn. The issue here though again is that the methodology is different from that used in other countries, for instance if the INSEE methodology was used or London, the metro for London is 17mn. The INSEE method is however still pretty conservative compared to the US, Canadian and Australian methodologies that can end up spanning vast areas of little population. The most realistic figure for a comparable London metro area to that of New York is around 18mn, and this was conducted by the GLA (the authority behind London).





If Greater London Urban Area is so big, shouldn't it have way more population the New York City? I mean it has a little bit more, but not alot. It should be as big as the New York metro. They sure need more immigration.Several factors are the reason behind this:
- The area referred to includes bodies of water, so the density figure is going to be far lower than what it really is when compared to a land-only NYC comparison.
- London is a city of villages, that were consumed by in-fill. Clerkenwell, Greenwich, Hampstead Heath, these and hundreds of other areas were once rural locations that are now at the heart of a large city, villages and their surroundings tend to not be too high-density.
- In addition to the above point, London is also very fragmented by open spaces. Squares, local parks, tree lined roads, and back gardens are far more common than in New York due to the more 'village' nature of the city.
- The biggest point however is that the Green Belt effectively stops any development on open fields ensuring that there are barriers between London and the commuter settlements that surround it, something that isn't apparent in New York where sprawl, while not as bad as other US cities is endemic.


The big difference between London and New York is how much density changes as you get further out. Beyond London, the changes don't tend to be so drastic because of the more village-orientated structure of London and the surrounding commuter settlements, but it is for New York where skyscrapers give way to low density exurbs, best illustrated by the difference between the commuter rail networks.

[Jaeger]

and three times as civilised.

Why don't you just leave this country if you think it's so bad, instead of whinging on like the prick you obviously are.

I am starting to actually think that you are not even a Londoner.

Btw the Greater London Area of 609 Square Miles is the area covered by the Metropolitan Police, and gentrification of NY has had a major impact on crime.

[Jaeger]

London is also one of the most green and pleasant cities you
can visit.

Primrose Hill

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/66/226764576_91a054dacf_b.jpg

Richmond Park - London

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1292/830923216_7313155412_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1014/830059005_35c7540d89_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/106/302631839_04b1d3f547_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/56/142229892_5d4ccde804_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/92/267622030_5995ed182d_b.jpg

[Jaeger]

Hampstead - London

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/23/26806788_8d4df343cc_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/108/301789830_55d9b4c112_b.jpg

Holland Park - London

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/200/491878645_5201d0f681_b.jpg

Clapham Common - London

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1379/943100117_e714983c5d_b.jpg

Victoria Park - East End of London

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/68/231392096_491511a4c6_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/65/186210393_8536797dbd_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/46/186209304_54159fff43_b.jpg

[Jaeger]

Hampton Court Gardens - South West London

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/HamptonCourtFromLongWater.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/57/174625414_64c30288d3_o.jpg


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/59/174623228_cb2e84dc7b_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1308/1278825287_3992761972_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/54/134863257_03012a1d82_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/60/167710039_b0b86ddf99_o.jpg

[ZippyTheChimp]

Why don't you just leave this country if you think it's so bad, instead of whinging on like the prick you obviously are.That's not permitted on this forum.

[ZippyTheChimp]

There's been some questioning of Capn's location and citizenship. Since he actually possesses a sense of humor, I also doubted he was a Londoner.

In the words of a famous sailor:

http://www.hollywoodstandups.com/images/popeye.jpg

I yam what I yam.

[Jaeger]

London Architecture, Tradition and Haisory is Unique

It's little wonder that more Overseas Billionaires choose to make London their home
than any other city on earth.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/148/337653436_4632f7c4bf_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/105/304957847_4137f5c1c3_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/210/514665529_f085b07572_b.jpg

[ZippyTheChimp]

Jaeger ignored a warning, and self destructed with a few unfortunate posts.

Probably the pressure of all those cameras.

[Capn_Birdseye]

There's been some questioning of Capn's location and citizenship. Since he actually possesses a sense of humor, I also doubted he was a Londoner.

I would like to confirm for all those doubting Thomas's out there that I am British and a Londoner, berthed in London, although I do occasionally hear the call of the sea .... but that's another story.
I like the US and its people, I find them open, interesting, welcoming and enthusiastic about life, as opposed to the whingeing and greyness of many Brits.

[Ninjahedge]

^ If Greater London Urban Area is so big, shouldn't it have way more population the New York City? I mean it has a little bit more, but not alot. It should be as big as the New York metro. They sure need more immigration.

Nope.

NYC is pretty crowded as is. Why does every city have to be the biggest?

[infoshare]

I like the US and its people, I find them open, interesting, welcoming and enthusiastic about life, as opposed to the whingeing and greyness of many Brits.

Whingeing & greyness; well we have pleanty of that here too, you just don’t see it. Unfortunately – like London Crime stats – those petty crimes often go unreported. :D



P.S. Thanks for the complement: we like you too.

[Fabrizio]

I don't understand what all of those photos of Boston have to do with anything.

[nick-taylor]

I would like to confirm for all those doubting Thomas's out there that I am British and a Londoner, berthed in London, although I do occasionally hear the call of the sea .... but that's another story.
I like the US and its people, I find them open, interesting, welcoming and enthusiastic about life, as opposed to the whingeing and greyness of many Brits.The irony!

....should ring a few bells....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Arnhem-Trolleybus-4-wheel-steering.jpg/800px-Arnhem-Trolleybus-4-wheel-steering.jpg



;)

[lofter1]

All that open space: An up-side to the aristocracy :confused:

[Ninjahedge]

Can't be England.

It's sunny! ;)

[Capn_Birdseye]

I don't understand what all of those photos of Boston have to do with anything.
:)

Back to crime stats & policing, I just hope that the US doesn't go down the same path as the UK with "cut-out cops" being used
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=485201&in_page_id=1770

and Mickey Mouse cops who after 3 weeks training and being put into a smart new police-like uniform:
- have no powers of arrest
- are not allowed to respond to any serious crime on their own
- are not allowed to confront anyone violent
- are not allowed to issue a fine to a yob who threatens violence
- canot confiscate alcohol from a drunk
- are not allowed to enter water to carry out a rescue
- are not allowed to go up heights
- etc
What is the point of these Police Community Support Officers (PCSO)? Wouldn't it be more sensible to spend the money on recruiting proper professional cops. Figures show that in the UK , on average, each PCSO solves a crime every six years, (yes, you read that correctly!), whilst each police officer detects an average of 11 crimes a year, (even that seems very low!).

[Meerkat]

:)

Back to crime stats & policing, I just hope that the US doesn't go down the same path as the UK with "cut-out cops" being used
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=485201&in_page_id=1770

and Mickey Mouse cops who after 3 weeks training and being put into a smart new police-like uniform:
- have no powers of arrest
- are not allowed to respond to any serious crime on their own
- are not allowed to confront anyone violent
- are not allowed to issue a fine to a yob who threatens violence
- canot confiscate alcohol from a drunk
- are not allowed to enter water to carry out a rescue
- are not allowed to go up heights
- etc
What is the point of these Police Community Support Officers (PCSO)? Wouldn't it be more sensible to spend the money on recruiting proper professional cops. Figures show that in the UK , on average, each PCSO solves a crime every six years, (yes, you read that correctly!), whilst each police officer detects an average of 11 crimes a year, (even that seems very low!).

They don't cost as much as normal police, and the government can manipulate the figures by saying there are more police on the beat than ever before.

So given that NY has lower crime and feels safer, where are we going wrong in London?

[nick-taylor]

All that open space: An up-side to the aristocracy :confused:Bizarrely not quite sure why he focused on the parks of London, when the biggest 'green' area is the Green Belt surrounding London.



Not quite sure why our amphibian friend is referring to the Daily Mail, they only cover two stories:
- Princess Diana
- Madeline McCann
Anything else is filler between conspiracy theories of Diana being assassinated. Then again, you can tell a lot about someone by the material they read, in this case: gutter media.

Now if you had more intellectual tastes for debate rather than referencing to an anti-black/anti-gay/pro-Catholicism (think George Bush types) paper, you probably would have referenced the article in this weeks Economist in regards to PSCO's.

The simple fact is that they are excellent for police presence on the street, ie 'on the beat' because unlike normal police officers they would not be called off to attend to an incident. That means the neighbourhood re-assurance is done, while the police are left to manage incidents; a more efficient distribution of resources that I bet will become the template for police forces around the world. If they became more like police officers, you'd see less street presence and neighbourhood re-assurance which would defeat one of your main points that you espoused earlier. Game, set, match!

[Meerkat]

I yam what I yam.

I thought Gloria Gaynor sang that??

[Meerkat]

Greater London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London)

Greater London is the top-level administrative subdivision covering London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London), England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England). The administrative area was created in 1965 and covers the City of London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London) and 32 London boroughs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_borough). Its area also forms the London region (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England) of England and the London European Parliament constituency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_%28European_Parliament_constituency%29). The Greater London region has by far the highest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_nations_by_GDP_per_capita) GDP/capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP_per_capita) in the entire United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom).

It covers 1579 km² (609 square miles) and had a 2006 mid-year estimated population of 7,512,400.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London#_note-Greater_London_population) It is bounded by the Home Counties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Counties) of Essex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex) and Hertfordshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertfordshire) in the East of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_of_England) region and Buckinghamshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckinghamshire), Berkshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire), Surrey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrey) and Kent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent) in South East England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_England). The highest point is Westerham Heights, in the North Downs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Downs) and on the boundary with Kent, at 245 metres (804 ft).

***

Greater London Urban Area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London_Urban_Area)

The Greater London Urban Area is the conurbation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conurbation) or continuous urban area based around London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London), in south east England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England) with an estimated population of 8,505,000,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London_Urban_Area#_note-0) The urban area measured 1,623.3 km² (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Km%C2%B2) as of the 2001 Census.

The Greater London Urban Area includes most, but not all of Greater London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London) (for example excluding Biggin Hill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biggin_Hill), which is surrounded by countryside), while taking in many surrounding areas such as Hemel Hempstead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemel_Hempstead), Woking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woking) and Dartford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartford) that aren't generally considered parts of London itself and lie outside London's borders. It is a wholly urban area, so it is not as large as the metropolitan area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_commuter_belt). The urban area does not include places such as Slough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slough), Luton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luton) and Potters Bar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potters_Bar), that have gaps of countryside in between the towns themselves and the main urban area of London. The Metropolitan area has a population of 12-14 million, depending on which borders are used. The figure used by Government agencies as the area to which people commute in to London from for work is also slightly different and is known as the Travel to Work Area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_to_Work_Area).

The growth of the urban area's physical extent has largely been curtailed since the development of the Metropolitan Green Belt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Belt) in 1938 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938), which limited development within a ring of countryside around London. As London's economy has grown and house prices have risen this has led to the growth of the London commuter belt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_commuter_belt) - the London urban area, plus a ring of towns that are physically separate from the urban area but still functionally operate largely as suburbs, with large proportions of their populations dependent on the urban area for employment.

Most of the population growth of the Greater London Urban Area is the result of brownfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownfield) development and increasing population density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density).


Very interseting post, thanks Lofer - how about a comparative post for New York? It saves time navigating around Wikipedia.

[Capn_Birdseye]

The simple fact is that they are excellent for police presence on the street, ie 'on the beat' because unlike normal police officers they would not be called off to attend to an incident. That means the neighbourhood re-assurance is done
Oh I see, their mere presence is cause for truimphant celebration despite the fact they about as useful as a pork chop in a kosher restuarant!
You are right, "they would not be called off to attend to an incident" - WHY?

Because:
- have no powers of arrest
- are not allowed to respond to any serious crime on their own
- are not allowed to confront anyone violent
- are not allowed to issue a fine to a yob who threatens violence
- canot confiscate alcohol from a drunk
- are not allowed to enter water to carry out a rescue
- are not allowed to go up heights
- and have to be in bed by 9pm for mummy to read them a story (no, thats me talking)

As for their effectiveness, the figures shout volumes - on average each PCSO solves one crime every 6 years!!! Now thats what I call value for money! Thats what I call efficiency!
My old one-eyed dog could probably do better.


A template for the police forces around world"I hope not!! Surely there is no other nation as stupid as us?

[nick-taylor]

Oh I see, their mere presence is cause for truimphant celebration despite the fact they about as useful as a pork chop in a kosher restuarant!
You are right, "they would not be called off to attend to an incident" - WHY?

Because:
- have no powers of arrest
- are not allowed to respond to any serious crime on their own
- are not allowed to confront anyone violent
- are not allowed to issue a fine to a yob who threatens violence
- canot confiscate alcohol from a drunk
- are not allowed to enter water to carry out a rescue
- are not allowed to go up heights
- and have to be in bed by 9pm for mummy to read them a story (no, thats me talking)

As for their effectiveness, the figures shout volumes - on average each PCSO solves one crime every 6 years!!! Now thats what I call value for money! Thats what I call efficiency!
My old one-eyed dog could probably do better.

I hope not!! Surely there is no other nation as stupid as us?Indeed, triumphant celebration! The points you illustrate are exactly why they are so useful! They can't be called away to an incident, like would happen with normal police officers, meaning they can concentrate on being the conduit between the community and police, ie the eyes and ears. They are also more geared to being people-speakers, rather than the heavies laden with various instruments of restraint.

This also benefits the normal police officers who can then concentrate their knowledge, and training on incidents and combating crime instead of patrolling leafy lanes that would be a massive misuse of resources.

You might also be interested to know that police officers and firemen are not supposed to enter bodies of water where their life and others may be put in danger. There are special water-borne units that deal with such incidents who are not only properly trained, but have the correct equipment to safely help people.

I'd expect such police structures to develop around the world in the coming years, Britain seems to be an innovator in these fields! :D

[lofter1]

Why does one ^^^ feel the need to repeat in a post the entirety of what was posted right above :confused: :mad:

[Meerkat]

Why does one ^^^ feel the need to repeat in a post the entirety of what was posted right above :confused: :mad:

When you consider that our ex prime minister was apparently a reptile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke you can expect any sort of bizarre behaviour from us Brits.

[lofter1]

As you have just proven ^^^ :cool:

[Capn_Birdseye]

They can't be called away to an incident, like would happen with normal police officers
Why not go one better (& cheaper) and have cardboard cutout police officers! Evening all .... :)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=485201&in_page_id=1770)


I'd expect such police structures to develop around the world in the coming years, Britain seems to be an innovator in these fields! :DYes I agree, Britain seems to be the world leader in coming up with stupid crass useless ideas for conning the public with policing on the cheap!
whether or not other countries are foolish enough to follow is another question - surely sanity rules somewhere!

The Metropolitian Police force is both incompotent and in some cases corrupt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/285569.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4478188.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/03/dl0301.xml

http://www.sydenham.org.uk/news_daniel_morgan_mpa.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,2763,966666,00.html

[Meerkat]

^^^^^
But captain, we're not as corrupt as you assume (see my post above), being placed 12th least corrupt nation on the planet. But agreed, the police need to get their act together. Maybe if they weren't trapped under piles of (government directed) papaerwork they may be able to do the job they are paid for.

[Fabrizio]

Anyway, I really hope some day London can get it's act together.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Our wonderfully efficient Met Police ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=485744&in_page_id=1770

Our wonderfully brave and effective Police Community Support Officers 9PCSO's) ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=486048&in_page_id=1770

[ablarc]

Sophomoric thread all around.






(Enjoyed the pictures, though.)

[Meerkat]

Our wonderfully efficient Met Police ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=485744&in_page_id=1770

Our wonderfully brave and effective Police Community Support Officers 9PCSO's) ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=486048&in_page_id=1770


Captain, please don't say you are a daily mail reader!!??

Really, i'm shocked, anything but that rag.....

And Fabrizi, i quite agree, but London will only be able to get its act together when we have finally thrown the concept of political correctness, red tape and bureacracy (which seems to dominate almost every aspect of life here at the moment) onto the rubbish tip. Then maybe the police will be able to tackle crime, and other public sector workers such as myself will be able to carry out their work efficiently.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Captain, please don't say you are a daily mail reader!!??
The Daily Mail is one of three newspapers that I read every day, after all you've got to get a balanced view of what's happening!


And Fabrizi, i quite agree, but London will only be able to get its act together when we have finally thrown the concept of political correctness, red tape and bureacracy (which seems to dominate almost every aspect of life here at the moment) onto the rubbish tip. Then maybe the police will be able to tackle crime, and other public sector workers such as myself will be able to carry out their work efficiently.
Our Labour government has ensured that political correctness is too deeply entrenched for it to be dislodged now. Its become our imprisoner rather than our liberator - perhaps that was the real intention? As for throwing it on the rubbish tip - do you have a licence for that? You can't just go round throwing things on rubbish tips nowadays, its all about recycling, saving the planet, and all the rest of that nonsense.

[nick-taylor]

Daily Mail balanced? To put that into perspective for our American friends, think of Fox News, and then add blatant racism, sexism and homophobia.

[Fabrizio]

blatant racism, sexism and homophobia... hey nothing new there...

Great Britain's top daily newspapers are (in order):

News of the World, The Sun, The Daily Mail

In the US? : USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times

Quite a difference.


---

[Capn_Birdseye]

Daily Mail balanced? To put that into perspective for our American friends, think of Fox News, and then add blatant racism, sexism and homophobia.
What really gets up the nose of people like nicky boy is that unlike the Guardian, that sad left-wing liberal rag that supports everything that is wrong with Britain today, i.e., uncontrolled immigration, cardboard cut-out police, the destruction of grammar schools purely out of class envy, economic growth built on the largest mountain of personal debt this country has ever known, political correctness that gags genuine debate, the Big Brother surveillance state, "stealth" taxes, the adoption of spin & sleaze as normal tools of government by this incompotent Labour administration, etc etc ........
the Daily Mail is the Sword of Truth that defends middle England and Middle class England against those who wish to destroy them, the last bastion of decency, thrift, and honest hardwork & enterprise in the country. Thank God there is at least one decent newspaper, the Daily Mail, that we can rely on.

And then there is the BBC that once-great independent broadcasting organisation that has been repeatedly attacked by the same mamby-pamby left wingers who have reduced it to nothing more than a mouth-piece for this Labour government and all its wrong-doing.
Fox News is to Bush as the BBC is to Gordon Brown & the Labour government.

[Meerkat]

What really gets up the nose of people like nicky boy is that unlike the Guardian, that sad left-wing liberal rag that supports everything that is wrong with Britain today, i.e., uncontrolled immigration, cardboard cut-out police, the destruction of grammar schools purely out of class envy, economic growth built on the largest mountain of personal debt this country has ever known, political correctness that gags genuine debate, the Big Brother surveillance state, "stealth" taxes, the adoption of spin & sleaze as normal tools of government by this incompotent Labour administration, etc etc ........
the Daily Mail is the Sword of Truth that defends middle England and Middle class England against those who wish to destroy them, the last bastion of decency, thrift, and honest hardwork & enterprise in the country. Thank God there is at least one decent newspaper, the Daily Mail, that we can rely on.

And then there is the BBC that once-great independent broadcasting organisation that has been repeatedly attacked by the same mamby-pamby left wingers who have reduced it to nothing more than a mouth-piece for this Labour government and all its wrong-doing.
Fox News is to Bush as the BBC is to Gordon Brown & the Labour government.

Not being a big fan of the daily mail myself, but here is a man who speaks some sense, unlike the fools who run the country. Have you ever thought of getting into politics captain? - you'll get my vote.

Fabrizio most people in the UK prefer to read local newspapers rather than national http://www.newspapersoc.org.uk/default.aspx?page=897. Personally i read either the London evening standard or the Times. I'm not sure where the blatant racism, sexism and homophobia comes from :confused: - do you mean the press? Being gay myself i can't say i've experienced much homophobia in this country.

[nick-taylor]

blatant racism, sexism and homophobia... hey nothing new there...

Great Britain's top daily newspapers are (in order):

News of the World, The Sun, The Daily Mail

In the US? : USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times

Quite a difference.

---Not really, newspaper readership in Britain is far more diverse and accessible to people of all walks of life, and far less elitist than say in the US or Italy.

The Sun and News of the World for instance has a circulation of over 3mn, that is larger than USA Today, despite the UK having a population 1/5th the size. Does this mean much to me? Not really as I read the FT and The Economist, and occasionally the Independent.

My issue is when people use trash as a source of evidence to prove a point.





What really gets up the nose of people like nicky boy is that unlike the Guardian, that sad left-wing liberal rag that supports everything that is wrong with Britain today, i.e., uncontrolled immigration, cardboard cut-out police, the destruction of grammar schools purely out of class envy, economic growth built on the largest mountain of personal debt this country has ever known, political correctness that gags genuine debate, the Big Brother surveillance state, "stealth" taxes, the adoption of spin & sleaze as normal tools of government by this incompotent Labour administration, etc etc ........
the Daily Mail is the Sword of Truth that defends middle England and Middle class England against those who wish to destroy them, the last bastion of decency, thrift, and honest hardwork & enterprise in the country. Thank God there is at least one decent newspaper, the Daily Mail, that we can rely on.

And then there is the BBC that once-great independent broadcasting organisation that has been repeatedly attacked by the same mamby-pamby left wingers who have reduced it to nothing more than a mouth-piece for this Labour government and all its wrong-doing.
Fox News is to Bush as the BBC is to Gordon Brown & the Labour government.I think you'll find that "incompotent" is spelt incompetent. Oh the irony! :D

The BBC = Fox News? What an absolutely preposterous comment with no basis in reality.

A reminder: when fishing, you're meant to cast your line into the water, not your common sense!

[Capn_Birdseye]

This is the sort of twisted mentality this Labour government has when it comes to "law & order" in Britain.

Let me start by saying I have nothing against gays, they're people like anyone else, in fact they've always been welcome on board any ship of mine although, I'm not gay myself.

Anyway, to the point. Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary has told MP's that gay harassment law will be included as an amendment to the Criminal Justice & Immigration Bill currently going before Parliament. He also raised the prospect of extending the law to cover "transgendered" people and the disabled.

The Police will be allowed to pursue those who create an "atmosphere or climate" in which hatred, bullying or violence can be fostered. It is quite possible that telling jokes that refer in some way to gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered, or disabled, will be mean possibly being hauled before the courts!

Stirring up hatred against homosexuals is to become a serious crime punishable with a 7-year prison term.
The average prison term for rape is around 5-years.

BBC bias is legendary, it is the mouthpiece of this incompetent repressive "tax & spend" Labour government - see link for acres of examples!
http://www.labour-watch.com/bbcbias.htm

[Capn_Birdseye]

Not being a big fan of the daily mail myself, but here is a man who speaks some sense, unlike the fools who run the country. Have you ever thought of getting into politics captain? - you'll get my vote.
Thanks Meerkat, you can be my Campaign Manager! We want fresh ideas backed by truth & honesty - something our current crop of politicians know nothing about!

It's time I retired to my cabin with a large rum snifter (or three) to write a political manifesto! I feel so many good ideas wafting through my head ..... where's my quill and parchment ...?

[lofter1]

Looking forward to the manifesto, Cap'n.

Perhaps something along the lines of the tried & true "A Parrot in Every Pot" :confused: ...

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

From the Guardian http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/marian_fitzgerald/2007/10/the_numbers_game.html


Read the link to see all of the comments, one of the best things about the Comment is Free section of the Guardian newspaper

The numbers game

Marian FitzGerald

October 24, 2007 4:00 PM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/marian_fitzgerald/2007/10/the_numbers_game.html
Polly Toynbee is right to rail (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2197172,00.html) against "context-free" crime stories; yet her article itself ignores the context which determines the level and type of crime experienced by the public. Trends in both violent crime and property crime are closely linked to long-run economic and social trends. And these are not reflected in year-on-year changes of the odd percentage point - whether in the British Crime Survey (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs1.html) (BCS) or the figures recorded by the police.
Serious economic modelling - including work in the Home Office in the early 90s - shows a close link between violence and affluence in all developed societies. The most obvious manifestation is the crowd-related violence associated with binge drinking (http://www.guardian.co.uk/britain/article/0,,2197218,00.html) and the night time economy, which has come to preoccupy ministers over recent years. At the same time, the steady rise over decades in serious violent crime, which increasingly involves the use of weapons, cannot be explained purely in terms of affluence but of more profound changes in society.
Meanwhile, patterns of property crime have also been changing, largely as a result of technological change. Burglaries were already on the decline when New Labour came to power as householders became more security conscious, not least because of the impact on their insurance premiums. Motor vehicle crime was similarly on the wane once it became impossible to hotwire cars. So there were easy pickings here for a government promising to get crime down. However, developments in technology were also now creating many new opportunities for parting people from their money, in particular through credit card fraud and other forms of identity theft. And these offences were rarely reported to the police but to a range of other agencies instead.
For decades too, it has been increasingly difficult for survey companies to gain access to households in high crime areas where violence tends to be most prevalent; and there are particular difficulties in tracking down young men in these areas - as the mystery (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,802077,00.html) of the 1 million young men missing from the 2001 census highlighted. This may not matter for surveys about soap powder; but it does for crime surveys, especially since the majority of victims of violence are young men. So the BCS has always offered a more comforting picture on this score to ministers and this may be one reason they have come to insist the BCS is a more reliable measure of crime than the police statistics.
The police figures in turn have always been limited, mainly because victims of crime may not report to the police but, subject to these limitations, the trends they showed were fairly reliable. Since 1997, though, two main changes to the Home Office "counting rules" have so disrupted their continuity that, as one senior officer put it to me: "Trying to work out anything from the recorded crime figures now is a bit like reading tea-leaves." The most recent change was designed to make the police figures more comparable with the BCS and required officers, for example, to record any allegation of an offence, irrespective of whether one had been committed. It produced a 9% "rise" in recorded crime in the two years to 2003-4.
Ironically, because the limitations of the BCS have remained relatively stable it has now belatedly begun to reflect the rise in violence. The police by contrast, assisted by bureaucratic dispensations to eliminate "false reporting", have been getting the inflationary effect of the changes under control. This has conveniently produced falls in recorded crime over the last three years, with the exception of offences - such as discovering people with small amounts of cannabis - which provide forces with "quick wins" in their push to meet targets for detection.
In sum, the Tories are hypocritically dishonest in trying to score political points out of the crime figures; for the underlying trends were similarly apparent - and similarly ignored - while they were in government. Meanwhile, the present government's recent comprehensive spending review (pdf) (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/F/D/pbr_csr07_annexd7_172.pdf) suggests it has at last recognised that serious violence is a problem and may even stop spinning the public the line that they are safer than they've been in decades. All three parties, though, need to think carefully about pretending that simply pulling the levers of the criminal justice system in the short term will make much difference to these long-run trends.

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

From the BBC show PANORAMA

You can watch the full documentary online here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_7000000/newsid_7000400?redirect=7000434.stm&news=1&nbram=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1

Wasting police time

In tonight's Panorama the police officer whose online diary described the reality of modern-day policing, will reveal his identity and tell why he's quitting the force for a new life as a policeman in Canada. For fear of getting sacked, Stuart Davidson wrote his blog anonymously under the name of PC David Copperfield, and not even his closest colleagues knew that he was responsible.
The Policeman's Blog recorded the daily life of a police officer with all the frustrations it entails.
He told Panorama: "I thought nobody else can be doing things that are so insane. But it transpires that there are thousands and thousands of other police officers out there doing exactly the same kinds of thing."
Panorama has spoken to other officers around the country who say they are finding it increasingly difficult to do their job effectively and claim they are being undermined by paperwork and pressure to meet government targets.


Many of their concerns were reflected in the Chief Inspectorate of Policing's interim review into policing in England and Wales, that was published last week. In it, he describes the "staggering" burden of paperwork officers face, and says they spend too much time investigating minor crime. Officers interviewed for the programme say they believed one of the foundations of policing - that of preventing crime - is being undermined.
Easy targets
Johnno Hills, a former officer who left the Sussex Police force after voicing his concerns said: "We are never there on the streets to provide reassurance, to provide a deterrent and to prevent people from becoming a victim of crime."
Amongst the problems officers describe are:


Paperwork and bureaucracy - it can take hours to process an arrest

Too little time to pro-actively patrol

Targets that skew how they do their job There is a temptation for officers to concentrate on easy targets.



Police officers are like anyone else, they'll go for the easy option - the path of least resistance

Police forces have a number of performance indicators - amongst them those that show how well they are dealing with crime. The number of detected crimes is measured force by force. Trivial crimes are counted alongside the more serious ones - and officers say there is a temptation to concentrate on easy targets.
As Davidson explained: "We get exactly the same points for cautioning a girl for pulling another girl's hair as we would for domestic burglary. In terms of statistics they're exactly the same".
Another officer told Panorama: "It is the human nature element that the management don't seem to factor into any of the decisions they make. Police officers are like anyone else, they'll go for the easy option - the path of least resistance."
Leaving the force
It's an experience that's echoed in responses to a questionnaire that was distributed for Panorama by the Police Federation to 2,000 beat officers across the country.
Of the 700 officers that completed the questionnaire more than 500 said they had made arrests, issued cautions or fixed penalty notices purely in order to meet targets.
This is not necessarily representative, and there are more than 140,000 officers in England and Wales.
Police forces in Australia, New Zealand and Canada are capitalising - making up their force numbers by recruiting experienced British officers.
There are no official figures available, but Panorama features a recruitment drive by the Western Australia Police force which is aiming to recruit around 500 officers on this trip alone.
Stuart is soon to take up his place with the Edmonton Police force in Alberta, Canada. And he's not the only one. Nine former British officers originally planned to join the training course featured in the programme. However, since filming, this number has gone down to seven - one officer has left for another job, while another will join the next course.
Panorama: Wasting Police Time can be seen on BBC One at 2030 BST on Monday 17 September 2007

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/programmes/panorama/6948201.stm

[Capn_Birdseye]

Tell us something we didn't already know GT.
The rot set in when our Police Force was renamed our Police Service. The one word change is symbolic of all that is wrong with our policing, its become an arm of social services with the emphasis on treating the poor criminal as a victim of his/her deprived socio-economic background. To many of us this is a load of b***ox, a myth perpetrated by left-wing lilly-livered socialists that for so long have set the agenda in our once proud decent country. In my humble opinion they should all be hung up by their ankles and make to recant for the sorry mess they've got us into!
The real victims - those who suffer at the hands of criminals hardly get a look in, they're quietly forgotten.

[ablarc]

From the Evening Standard:

Met to hold 'summit' with gunmen

November 16, 2007

Senior Met officers are to hold extraordinary meetings with members of London's most violent gangs.

The US-style "ceasefire" summits are an attempt to curb the city's gun culture which claimed its 23rd teenage victim in 11 months, a 17-year-old boy, two days ago.

In the unprecedented move, gang members will be summoned to meet police, leaders of the local community and other officials.

They will be told to stop the violence and tit-for-tat killings or face a zero-tolerance crackdown in a radical plan codenamed Operation Alliance being launched by Scotland Yard.

A total of 171 gun gangs with members as young as 13 have been identified by the Met. Seven armed groups from five south London boroughs - Lambeth, Southwark, Lewisham, Greenwich and Croydon - are being tackled in the first phase of the war on gangs.

Individual gang members will be offered exit strategies. Other initiatives include civilian mediators on 24/7 call to act as go-betweens in disputes.

Police are also planning civil injunctions to prevent gang members from associating, while parents of gang members will be offered "good behaviour" contracts.

The tactics have proved successful in tackling gangs in the United States. In particular, officers in London plan a version of Operation Ceasefire launched in Boston in the Eighties to curb gang warfare which led to the deaths of 73 young people in one year.

Commander Shaun Sawyer, head of the Yard's Violent Crime Directorate, said: "A crucial part is the involvement of the community who are saying, 'We do not want you to rip this place apart any more'. We are realistic. We know we cannot go back to the 1950s.

"But we can lower the bar of violence, reduce the levels of violence and stop the random attacks which are leading to the deaths of young people.

"If they do not listen and there is another murder then we tell them we will make their neighbourhood a very difficult place to live."

Violent offences involving young people aged from 10 to 19 have fallen by 18 per cent this year but police are seriously concerned about the rise in the number of teenagers being murdered, the majority in gang conflicts.

Superintendent David Chinchen, who is in charge of Operation Alliance, said: "In London we are nowhere near, and I do not think we will ever be near, the gang situation they have in Los Angeles or other big US cities.

"There is nothing like the firepower here that the US gangs have and we are not seeing gangs take over entire plots of the city as they do. We are talking about small groups of individuals who are involved in violent crime."

Mr Chinchen said: "If they are doing anything that we feel is a criminal offence then we will target them for that. We are also using tactics that might not be normally be available to the police such as local authority powers."

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

The gang situation in England is far worse and this move by the Met is clear evidence of that.

In the US, the police generally do battle gangs with heavy weapons, subpoenas and warrants and heavy sentences imposed by the courts according to legislative guidelines. The US cities arent tough against gangs? - well ever heard of Tookie?

Just look at the FBIs work in the drug war. It probably has a bigger budget than the the Royal Marines and every Guards division in the UK. In fact, I would guess the LAPD probably has a bigger budget than the British Army.

[Meerkat]

Senior Met officers are to hold extraordinary meetings with members of London's most violent gangs.
In the unprecedented move, gang members will be summoned to meet police, leaders of the local community and other officials.


Initially when i read this article i was skeptical, but the more i think about it, the more i'm convinced it's a good idea. Put pressure on the gang members from within their own community and offer them incentives to behave. If it works in the US it can work here.

[Fabrizio]

From today's NYTIMES:


City Homicides Still Dropping, to Under 500

By AL BAKER
Published: November 23, 2007

New York City is on track to have fewer than 500 homicides this year, by far the lowest number in a 12-month period since reliable Police Department statistics became available in 1963.

But within the city’s official crime statistics is a figure that may be even more striking: so far, with roughly half the killings analyzed, only 35 were found to be committed by strangers, a microscopic statistic in a city of more than 8.2 million.

If that trend holds up, fewer than 100 homicide victims in New York City this year will have been strangers to their assailants. The vast majority died in disputes with friends or acquaintances, with rival drug gang members or — to a far lesser degree — with romantic partners, spouses, parents and others.

The low number of killings by strangers belies the common imagery that New Yorkers are vulnerable to arbitrary attacks on the streets, or die in robberies that turn fatal.

In the eyes of some criminologists, the police will be hard pressed to drive the killing rate much lower, since most killings occur now within the four walls of an apartment or the confines of close relationships.

“What are you going to do, send cops to every house?” said Peter K. Manning, the Brooks professor of criminal justice at Northeastern University in Boston.

“We know that historically, homicide is the least suppressible crime by police action,” he added. “It is, generally speaking, a private crime, resulting from people who know one another and have relationships that end up in death struggles at home or in semipublic places.”

Police officials did not dispute the validity of that assessment.

The homicide figure continues a remarkable slide since 1990, when New York recorded its greatest number of killings in a single year, 2,245, and when untold scores of the victims were killed in violence between strangers.

Homicides began falling in the early 1990s, when Raymond W. Kelly first served as police commissioner, and plummeted further under subsequent commissioners. Mr. Kelly returned to serve under Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg in 2002, the first year there were fewer than 600 homicides. There were 587 that year, down from 649 in the previous year.

Nearly two decades ago, the city’s crack-cocaine epidemic led to headlines about gang wars, semiautomatic gunfire in schoolyards and a police blotter that showed more than six homicides a day, on average.

This year, with 428 killings logged through Sunday — 412 actual killings plus 16 crime victims who have died this year from injuries sustained long ago — the average number of killings is a bit more than one a day.

The numbers on file from before 1963 are not considered reliable for comparison because until then, many homicides were not recorded until an arrest was made and the case was closed, but ever since, they have been recorded as they occurred. There were 390 homicides recorded in 1960, fewer than this year, but any comparison would be faulty.

The killings that have seized the headlines this year appear to have personal motives at their core: An assistant has been charged with killing her boss, Linda Stein, inside Ms. Stein’s Fifth Avenue penthouse after a vicious argument; a Queens orthodontist, Daniel Malakov, was gunned down, and a relative of his estranged wife, whom he was fighting in divorce and child custody proceedings, has been charged.

In contrast to the 35 cases this year in which officials have found that victim and assailant were strangers, there were 121 in the whole of last year, officials said. The motives in the remainder of the killings this year are still being analyzed.

The dropping homicide rate raises a question of whether other types of crime are on the rise. But police statistics, which are subject to an internal auditing system in use since the early 1990s, show dips in six of the seven major crime categories, according to the department’s latest reports.

As of Sunday, overall crime was down 6.47 percent, compared to the same period last year. In addition to the homicide rate, the number of rapes, robberies, burglaries, grand larcenies and car thefts are all on the decline.

Felony assaults have increased slightly, to 15,372 from 15,344, a 0.1 percent increase, according to the police statistics. Shootings, which the department has tracked for 14 years, as well as the number wounded in those shootings, are both down.

After years when crime fell across the nation, many cities in the country are now experiencing a surge in homicides, said Thomas A. Reppetto, a police historian who monitors the city crime numbers and helped write “NYPD: A City and Its Police.”

“You would expect New York to follow the national trend, but instead, murders continue to go down considerably,” Mr. Reppetto said.

“Not only has the N.Y.P.D. reduced murder, by nearly 80 percent, but it has changed the pattern of homicides,” he added. “In the early 1990s, many innocent citizens were killed by bullets from battling drug gangs. Today, thanks to the police drive against the gangs, that type of homicide is far less common.”

It is extremely common around the nation to find in killings involving acquaintances that those involved are not family members but criminals or drug gang members, said David M. Kennedy, the director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan.

In the 412 killings this year, the number of people with previous arrests for narcotics was striking: 196 victims and 149 assailants. And 77 percent of the assailants had a previous arrest history, while 70 percent of the victims did, the statistics showed.

Killers and those killed are overwhelmingly male and most in both categories are between 18 and 40, according to the police analysis. In terms of race and ethnicity, whites make up 7 percent of victims and assailants, while 66 percent of the victims and 61 percent of the assailants are black and 26 percent of the victims and 31 percent of the assailants are Hispanic.

When told about the low homicide numbers, Dr. Manning uttered a single word: “Wow.”

Mr. Kennedy said, “What this shows is that the N.Y.P.D. — and whatever else is going on in New York — has managed to squeeze the problem of active offenders against active offenders down to a remarkably, historically low level.”

--------

"with roughly half the killings analyzed, only 35 were found to be committed by strangers, a microscopic statistic in a city of more than 8.2 million."

I wonder how that compares to London.

[pianoman11686]

I read that article yesterday and was going to post it here, but you beat me to it. :)

Incredible - almost unbelievable - news.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Congratulations New York. It's a pity that London cannot do the same in terms of protecting its citizens from the yobs and scum that roam its streets committing acts of rape, robbery, and violence with little chance of being apprehended. If by chance they are caught all they get a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again!
Isn't it time the Met Police reclaimed the streets for decent law-abiding citizens? Mind you, there is very little chance of that happening under the tainted leadership of Commissioner Sir Ian Blair!

[Meerkat]

^ a bit over the top captain, things aren't quite that bad. But you are right, a slap on the wrist seems all they ever get, and then they can sue the police for for breach of their 'human rights'.

Decent people really should reclaim the streets!

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

Congratulations New York. It's a pity that London cannot do the same in terms of protecting its citizens from the yobs and scum that roam its streets committing acts of rape, robbery, and violence with little chance of being apprehended. If by chance they are caught all they get a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again!

I would agree with you, but I fear being dubbed by the intellectual pygmies from the UK here as anti British..

[ZippyTheChimp]

Congratulations New York. It's a pity that London cannot do the same in terms of protecting its citizens from the yobs and scum that roam its streets committing acts of rape, robbery, and violence with little chance of being apprehended.I'm not sure what you base this comparison on, since the murder rate in London is much lower than in NYC.

The other side of the coin:


From the Evening Standard:

Superintendent David Chinchen, who is in charge of Operation Alliance, said: "In London we are nowhere near, and I do not think we will ever be near, the gang situation they have in Los Angeles or other big US cities.It would be a big mistake for London officials to minimize the seriousness of the situation by taking comfort in these comparisons.

Trends are more important.

The same mistake was made in the US during the 1980s, when most of the country smugly regarded escalating crime as symptomatic of its largest cities. At the time, a criminologist commented on that view by warning that places like NY and LA are "canaries in the mineshaft."

[Capn_Birdseye]

It would be a big mistake for London officials to minimize the seriousness of the situation by taking comfort in these comparisons.

Trends are more important.

The same mistake was made in the US during the 1980s, when most of the country smugly regarded escalating crime as symptomatic of its largest cities. At the time, a criminologist commented on that view by warning that places like NY and LA are "canaries in the mineshaft."

You're so right Zippy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chs68tdWwbQ

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/12/ngang112.xml

[nick-taylor]

"with roughly half the killings analyzed, only 35 were found to be committed by strangers, a microscopic statistic in a city of more than 8.2 million."

I wonder how that compares to London.The rolling 12 month homicide toll for London is 168.

The homicide figure for New York quoted in your article is for 11 months and is already at 428. From this we can estimate that 470 will be the likely 12 month figure for New York this year, 3x higher than in London where the population difference is around 0.8mn.

The '35' figure in your above quote is for half of killings analysed so far this year, so double that figure and extrapolate for December and the New York figure for people killed by strangers is probably going to be around 76, which would be close to half of all murders in London.

The vast majority of people in London are killed by someone they know, eg gang members taking out rival gang members, etc... so the figure for complete random killing is probably in the 10-20 area. Suffice to say the figure is probably far lower than New York.

[Fabrizio]

Killings commited by strangers: I produced hard statistics from official sources for the situation so far this year... not "we can estimate".... not "probably".... not "E=mc²".

[Ninjahedge]

Fab, lighten up.

He is extrapolating, not deriving. E=mc2 was a derivation based on physical properties.

Saying that you have traveled 3 miles in one hour and asking for an estimate on how much further do you think you will go in the next 15 minutes is not the same as integrating mass and energy by way of physical speed! ;)

You may disagree with his numbers, but they were not extrapolating a decade frmo a few months, and if there is no "christmas rush" on Murders, I do not see where he is too far off making these statements.


Just be careful, if the numbers DO come out and agree with his estimates, what happens then? ;)

[Fabrizio]

Dear, I have a feeling you'd tell Tinkerbell to lighten up.

[Ninjahedge]

Meh.

I am just telling you to relax a bit on coming down on him. You are allowed to disagree, but I didn't see any merit in your slamming of his rather strait-forward extrapolations.

I did not want your case to be hurt by any vehement derision of anothers position hen that derision, specifically, has no merit.




As for TB, who says I haven't?

[ZippyTheChimp]

Stop being a cop.

[Ninjahedge]

I wasn't being a cop. I was trying to get him off of a poor tangent.

Extrapolations are often used in law enforcement, politics, and buisness to estimate things. To do a linear extrapolation of crime figure numbers, with acknowledgement of the possible additional or detracting factors is quite salient.

Fab's comparison of a linear extrapolation of current statistics to "E=mc^2" was a poor attempt at a straw-man refutal of the position posted.

I do not agree with a lot of what Nick Taylor says, but I have to say there is nothing wrong with his comparison. At least, not in the way that Fab suggested here.

Cop? nah. I just do not like it when people start using irrelevant conjectures to support or derogate anothers position.





>sigh<


whatever.....:cool:

[Fabrizio]

"Fab's comparison of a linear extrapolation of current statistics to "E=mc^2" was a poor attempt at a straw-man refutal of the position posted."

uh right... ok... so listen, I was wondering, and you would probably know: was Tinkerbell a pixie or a fairy?

[Ninjahedge]

I saw her on Christopher street a lot.... :D

[TonyChampayne]

Jaegar has it right concerning the downgrading of crimes in NYC...I should know since I created the 'crime storm' of 1986 - 1992 through easy access to guns.

This is unflattering, of course, I just got caught up in making very extremly bad decisions and my past concerning these events would shock the consciousness out of anyone that becomes aware of it; because, I altered many lives.

Most people are not aware that the increase of guns in the NYC areas during the late 80's, early 90's were due to me; and the decrease was because of the Federal case I caught in 1991.

The evidence is clear, the homocide rate dropped almost 60%...the evidence became clear too that I was used to create an artifical crime wave so that tough laws would be added to the law books to handle juveniles as adults and later on to help fund terror groups with cash and bodies for various forms of para millitary groups within the community waiting for the call to strike; crack and snitching ended that idea(?), I have been told.

Now, do the above indiscretion(s) stop me from having the right to tell anybody anything? Can a criminal go back into a community and speak to kids about the dangers of a certain lifestyle? Should I be prohibited forever from challenging others to do their best and not make bad decisions that they will be faced with?

I have learned from my mistakes and ask, " is redemption possible? Am I a hypocrite? " Does a persons past make them less able to challenge others to do better then they did? " I hope not!"

[Fabrizio]

Pray the rosary and an answer will come to you.

----

(I leave this forum for like 2 weeks and it gets ...strange)

[lofter1]

Google search (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Tony+champayne%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7RNWE) shows only one other instance of another post anywhere from TonyChampayne ...

hiphopmusic.com (http://www.hiphopmusic.com/2007/10/nicky_barnes_speaks_on_camron.html)

Reply Posted by: Tony Champayne at November 29, 2007



The 'American Gangster' movie was cool although it was laced with lies...Nicky wasn't Superfly but a cool dude who wasn't to be messed with I was out of Noel crew whom he had his tongue cut out because he spoke his mind he was from 116th Street and Manhattan ave but also knew Frank Lucas through my uncle 'Bumpy' and 'JJ' my dad was New York Raggs as he was called and hung with Zack Robinson and Pete McDoggle who owned Smalls Paradise back then...Frank was just country and his biggest thing was paying for everyones drinks or food as long as he was in a bar or resturant.
A man has to do what a man has to do, because you have to live with yourself a choice to do one thing over another is or should be based on the future...meaning if you can stand by it through the years with no regrets...like 'sex' a person should not do something that went become 75 years old they are shamed of. Check me out at Chesshand.blogspot.com (http://chesshand.blogspot.com/) and let me know what think especially if you are from back in the day.

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

From the Guardian today.

The state of cover up and policing in London.


Heres an extract of the full article and reader comments which can be found here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/22/menezes.terrorism)

"The block of flats De Menezes left on 22 July was under surveillance. The security services were watching for a man called Hussain Osman (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6634923.stm). When De Menezes emerged, a surveillance officer was relieving himself and did not identify him as the suspect. When he boarded the number 2 bus at Tulse Hill, there was no certainty that he was the man they wanted. Equally, there was no guarantee that he was not their man. They followed him to Brixton underground station. It was closed.


They followed him on to another bus and onwards to Stockwell underground station. So far three occasions, at least, on any of which a suicide bomber might have detonated his explosives; three occasions, too, on which he might have been intercepted. At Stockwell, they followed him on to the northbound Victoria line train at which point recently arrived specialist firearms officers took command, entered the carriage, were pointed to De Manezes and shot him dead.

Imagine the terror he must have felt as they bore down on him. Imagine too what the security services must have felt when they realised that the body on the floor of the carriage was not Osman.


Even then, an admission that a horrendous blunder had been made might have mitigated the damage that was done to our sense of ourselves and the democracy in which we live. But no. The smear campaign began. De Menezes was wearing a bulky jacket that could have concealed a suicide belt; a lie – he was wearing a denim jacket. He jumped the ticket barrier at Stockwell; a lie – he walked calmly through the concourse. His work visa had expired; a lie – the foreign secretary of the time could find no evidence to corroborate this.


(http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/22/menezes.ukcrime)
The state (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/22/menezes.ukcrime) circled the wagons. No dignity was to be accorded the innocent victim and a blunder of dreadful proportions became a crime for which no one has been held answerable. Democracy, the cornerstone of which is the right to life, has been diminished and we are all of us the lesser for it.

I did not know De Menezes but I use the number 2 bus on which his final journey began. It's difficult to travel that route without thinking of the events of that July day. It would be easier for the communal psyche if such happenings were left to the footnotes of history but that would be to do a disservice to him and to ourselves."

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

There are two stories from the Times in the last week which are eye opening.

One reader commented today

"When the financial district in London's square mile decide to relocate, London will become a shell of a city. As Detroit is today. Was once wealthy, now a giant ghetto full of guns, drugs, gangs and decay. Already many of the poorest immigrants to UK choose to avoid London as it is too rough."

Here's the SE London incident that prompted him:

"An innocent teenager was shot dead in front of his brother when he was hit in the back as armed men on mopeds fired at two other pedestrians."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4480395.ece

And then theres this:

Woman thrown on live railway line in station no smoking row

"A female commuter was thrown on to railway tracks this morning after telling two young men to stop smoking on a station platform."

From the August 6 Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4469907.ece

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

Barry George, who servde time for the murder of BBC Anchor Jill Dando, was exonerated this week also.

Big week for crime news in London.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4443847.ece

An "overwhelmed" Barry George was today a free man after being found not guilty of murdering the TV presenter Jill Dando in a sensational verdict at the Old Bailey.


Mr George spent eight years in jail after being convicted of killing the former BBC Crimewatch star – one of the UK's most high-profile miscarriages of justice.

[Derek2k3]

NY Sun
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/ny-fares-well-vs-london-in-a-new-study/83495/

N.Y. Fares Well Vs. London in a New Study
By JULIE SATOW, Staff Reporter of the Sun | August 8, 2008


A new report has found that Londoners are six times more likely to be robbed or assaulted than New Yorkers, that their cost of living is nearly 40% higher, and that their largest university, the University of London, has just 125,000 students, compared with the City University of New York's 450,000 students.

The 116-page study, a collaboration of New York University's Schack Institute of Real Estate, the Urban Land Institute, and London South Bank University, is a follow-up to a seven-volume report published in 2000.

In the new study, 14 factors were examined, and of the six categories in which one city was found to lead, New York dominated. In fact, London was found to lead in just two categories: its programs to prevent climate change and its efforts to project a better city image.

New York, meanwhile, came in first for having a lower cost of living, more affordable housing, a stronger program to tackle urban poverty, and larger arts, fashion, and food scenes.

"This is not a review of competition between London and New York City," the author of the report, Greg Clark, a senior fellow at the Urban Land Institute, wrote in the preface. "It is an assessment of how the two cities can use their competitive instincts to be successful in the 21st century when many other cities will seek to emulate the success London and New York had in the last 100 years."

It may not be a competition, but the two cities are compared with striking results: In the financial services sector, for example, it has been the case for the last several years that London is perceived to have surpassed New York. This is in large part because businesses are drawn to London's minimal regulatory environment — it has a single regulator, the Financial Services Authority, compared with 10 regulators overseeing the American financial markets.

Now, though, after a run on the London-based Northern Rock bank and its subsequent borrowing of billions of dollars from the Bank of England to stay afloat, some companies are questioning the more lax British regulatory system.

"They were considered to have this great regulatory system with the Financial Services Authority, but it is clear now it just didn't work with Northern Rock," an associate professor at New York University, Rosemary Scanlon, a former New York State deputy comptroller, said.

In addition, while London sees far more initial public offerings — its share of IPOs jumped 30 percentage points, to 63%, between 2001 and 2006, while New York saw IPOs drop 41 percentage points, to 16%, during the same period — New York has a far larger market. The New York Stock Exchange and the Nasdaq together accounted for nearly half of global stock trading last year, with the value of shares traded in New York at $33.6 trillion, compared to $7.6 trillion in London.

"So much of the financial business conducted in London is from New York firms — Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs," Ms. Scanlon said.

New York is also a more affordable city, the report finds. Citing a 2007 survey from Mercer Human Resource Consulting, London became the second most expensive city in the world behind Moscow last year, climbing from fifth place. New York dropped five places, to rank 15th.

While a major reason New York is more affordable is the relative decline in the value of the dollar against the British pound, London also has much stricter building codes, limiting the size of new construction, and more top-end immigration, both of which push housing prices higher.

New York is also a more global city, as defined by its hosting more firms that have offices in at least 15 cities around the globe, according to the Globalisation and World Cities Group. While London is the most popular location for European headquarters of international businesses, "New York has the edge in terms of total numbers of global firms," the study found.

New York also comes out on top in terms of crime. It is among the safest cities in America, with violent crime dropping 75% over the past 12 years, and the murder rate last year at its lowest level since 1963. London, meanwhile, has seen violent crime on the Underground rise 14% between 2004 and 2005, according to the British Transport Police, and its street crimes skyrocket more than 40% between 2001 and 2002.

Even the discrepancy in gun violence between the two cities is narrowing: "Although differences in arms laws have long resulted in greater gun crime in New York, the gap between the cities is lessening as New York improves its statistics whilst gun crime in London is on the increase," the report said.

One reason may be the stronger police presence in New York — there is one New York police officer for every seven crimes, compared to one officer for every 41 crimes in London, according to the Police Federation.

There are areas where London is more successful. While the two cities have similar populations, London has only about 1,500 homeless, less than half the number in New York.

In addition, London has a far smaller carbon footprint — 41.9 million tons to 72 million tons for New York — and a better reputation. According to the Anholt City Brand Index, which studies the brands of 30 cities, London ranked first and New York seventh. "Most respondents felt they knew more about London than any other city by a wide margin. London was the second most visited city, the top for ease of finding a job, for doing business in, for obtaining a valuable education qualification, and for ease of finding a community to fit in," the report said.

A similar study by another firm also looked at cities' marketing efforts, and placed New York at the top, with London ranking eighth. "This discrepancy undoubtedly reflects the subjective and qualitative nature of 'measuring' image and identity," Mr. Clark wrote.

While New York did do better in certain categories, overall, the two cities have striking similarity, the researchers behind the report said.

"I expected their to be more distinct and dramatic differences, but they really are neck and neck," the president of Urban Land Institute Europe, Middle East, Africa, and India, William Kistler, said. "The bigger concern is that these two cities not rest on their laurels: What happens to the two cities in the next five years will be really crucial."

RELATED: Report: London and New York in the 21st Century (http://www.nysun.com/files/lny-june-19-08.pdf) | The Sun's Earlier Coverage of the New York-London Rivalry. (http://www.nysun.com/new-york/the-suns-earlier-coverage-of-the-new-york-london/83473/)

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

Oh poppycock - the writer of that must have had an English girlfriend who cheated on him or som-fink.

We did this all before on the "London The Truth and Would You Live There" before that thread was shut down because of the inane jealousy and ostrich like behavior of some of the limes. Methinks Innit.

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

Jamie Oliver launches attack on British culture

Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver has launched an extraordinary attack on the British - portraying them as uncivilised materialists obsessed with a "culture of alcohol".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/2613199/Jamie-Oliver-launches-attack-on-British-culture.html

I tend to agree with Jamie (but generally dislike his look at me bash a basil leaf style of cooking.)

Greetings from Hong Kong, where you can see the English doing exactly this every night at Lan Kwai Fong and Wan Chai...

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

But 14 year old white guys?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b6e_1220698584

50 teenage deaths by stabbing leads to new campaign

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eb1_1216137162

Use of knives by teens in UK leads to doctors wanting to ban long kitchen knives...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d90_1215408202 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eb1_1216137162)

Thats just weird.

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

http://www.newcriminologist.com/news.asp?nid=2077

I guess banning knives will not make any difference.

In May a 16 year old teen was stabbed to death - with glass from a broken shop window.

[zupermaus]

seriously, what a broken record.

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

Zupermaus, broken record this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/16/london) from yesterday's Guardian Unlimited

An extract:

"Even perfectly peaceable kids will refuse to cross a street to make use of a facility or provision if it means entering a different postcode area in case they are targeted, particularly if they are boys. Such boundaries, though, are not respected by the shudders of fright and disquiet that spread across the borough and beyond and into the psychology of London as a whole."

Read the article, written by a longstanding resident of London.

Read the comments, written by longstanding residents of England and London.

Then make a useful contribution to the topic, or just butt out.

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

Reader contribution to the Guardian newspaper from this article today (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/18/horror.tonyblair):

"I wonder where you live Libby.

I lived in Kensal Green on the border with Harlesden for 6 years.

This 'nightmare' actually does exist. Constant random acts of violence and vandalism, 10 year olds stealing scooters, parents and their children fighting in mindless clannish thuggism. Within 3 blocks either way from my house, I have been made aware of at least 5 murders. The local pub was a no go area for strangers (this changed when it was bought by an upmarket chain).

Gangs of kids on bikes congregating on corners. Teens vandalising playgrounds, driving their scooters onto playing fields & parks

Would you let your child out in such an environment? Let alone walk without care yourself?

I thank the Lord every day I emigrated to the Canadian West Coast. Not perfect by any means - not at all - but incomparable to the hostility, violence and intimidation of the part of London I used to live in."


English society...
Crime...
Another Englishman weeping with relief after migrating to the New World...
Tenenbaum scratches chin and faintly remembers commenting on this at an earlier time...

Nuff said.

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

An article on the recently released English film Eden Lake:

Article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/18/horror.tonyblair?showallcomments=true

Interesting comment from a reader here:

Some very interesting comments, also some totally inane and clueless ones. For those of you unable to understand 'anti-social' behaviour, think back to Thatcher's (in)famous words, I paraphrase, there is no society, only individuals and families. For the best part of the last thirty years, successive governments have been dismantling society; sometimes by stealth, other times in what can only be described as civil war - or what would you call the battle for Orgreve, indeed, the manner in which the entire miner's strike was handled: politically, tactically and in the bulk of the media. The effective crushing of the unions, the violence and contempt shown by the police in miners' strike and at Wapping, essentially destroyed the very notioin of solidarity; something that was still very much in evidence when I was growing up on a council estate in south London.

Over the last thirty years WE have (re)constructed a society that is not only completely moronic in its worship of the media creations otherwise known as 'celebrities', it is empty, devoid of values in any real sense of the word. The SUV - Selfishbastards Useless Vehicle - 'bling'; loadsadosh; I'm awright, **** you 'culture' that has emerged with its inherent dog-eat-dog mentality, logically fosters a more violent society.

For years, successive governments, but New Labour in particular, have been treating the general public, particularly the losers in the neo-liberal casino, with utter contempt: blaming the victims, chanelling ever more public money into private purses and, as was mentioned above in an excellent post, displaying a wanto and blatant disregard not only for the law, but also for any normal moral or ethical standards.

We have an anti-social society, we have an extremely anti-social government, we have anti-social laws, anti-social policing methods and, above all, an inherently anti-social political economic system...We should not be in the slightest bit surprised that it produces anti-social people. Rather, we should be surprised that it doesn't produce more of them.

By the way, society is not made by the media, or the government, or the rich or the working class... it's made - created and recreated - by each and every one of us every day in every one of our actions. And whilst it is definitely true to argue that institutions such as the media and the government have more influence than the average individual, we are all society.

End of rant!

Please watch this: http://www.teachers.tv/video/26837

BTW, for those upset by the use of the word class, how about Lumpen Proletariat and Petit Bourgeousie?

Another contributor

"The best thing we can do is remove the perverse incentive to not work (free dole for ever), and push the freed up resources into the best possible schooling and training opportunities for the fresh generation of 'benefit class' kids."

Whats worse than 'violent youth'?

'Hungry violent youth'

If the free dole is removed the resources freed up had better be spent on protecting the 'working classes'

that or build a big wall and hope you're on the 'right' side of it

Another contributor:

Recently my teenage son was lucky enough to be kicked unconscious by two older teenagers for failing to give them enough respec' while playing football with his mates.

When the great day came and one of the older teenagers appeared in court for sentencing, it was touching to see the solidarity of his maw and her brood of disparate yoof (none of the fathers could be there as they were otherwise unemployed).

When I saw their smug grins at the proud sight of the son/brother 'coming of age' I wanted to leap up and scream out in rage: "You effing bitch Thatcher! You effing c-word Reagan! This is all your doing!"

And Buttons is right about the Community Centres too. If my son had been playing football in a Community Centre then his mates wouldn't have been able to run away, and they would have got a good kicking too.

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

US: Police restrain civilians

UK: Civilians have a rollicking good time kicking police heads in

What kind of crazy society allows that to happen?

The female sergeant and male Pc, who have not been named, had approached the group of men and women who were arguing in the street.

The five minute long assault began after they tried to arrest one of the men.

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/breaking-news/2008/09/27/gang-launches-sustained-attack-on-two-police-officers-64375-21915216/

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

From the November 12 2008 NY Times.
Heady Days Gone, City of London Struggles



"The City, London’s financial center, was both the engine and the symbol of London’s long boom. But as Britain confronts the highest rate of unemployment in over a decade, the City is suffering not just from the loss of jobs but of prestige, too."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/business/worldbusiness/13city.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[stache]

This article has nothing to do with crime.

[kz1000ps]

Gregory Tenenbaum, you're very strange. And obsessive. What point are you trying to make with all these England-isn't-paradise posts? Is someone around here proclaiming England is paradise?

The one thing I do get about you is Jaclyn Smith. No need for an explanation there..

[Alonzo-ny]

Its pointless trying to reason.

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

Gregory Tenenbaum, you're very strange. And obsessive. What point are you trying to make with all these England-isn't-paradise posts? Is someone around here proclaiming England is paradise?


Many do. Read the preceding posts. Someone was predicting that when the financial crisis hit, London would become something like Detroit. It has a couple of big industries, like tourism associated with the city and the royals, and "the City" (finance and banking).

Many Londoners I meet have a love hate relationship with their city. But the post is about the city being reduced to a shell in times of crisis, and consequently the possibility that crime rates could rise.

What are your views on the safety of the two cities (stranger on stranger crime). Contribute and ye shall be heard like the Towne Crier!

Nuff said.

[stache]

I can safely say that London will NEVER be like Detroit.