How would you stop knife crime?

[Jake]

There are a lot more things which are crimes these days, there is a lot more enforcement (many more policemen), there is much more reporting of crime (who had insurance and needed a number for a crime which would never be solved in those days? How many women would have dared to report spouse abuse, or rape?). By the same token, the local bobby doesn't these days give a kid a clip a round the ear or a gypsy a good kicking after a quiet word from Mrs Supposedly-Trustworthy next door - he books them and the statistic is recorded. You can't directly compare one set of damned lies taken from one context with another set of damned lies taken from another and draw a correlation that readily.

Even if you ignore that (and no doubt people on all sides of the political persuasions have looked into it and found conclusions which they like) if you look at the section on crime here (the only stats I could readily find covering the 1920s): http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/re ... 99-111.pdf

You could conclude that the rate of change in the number of crimes reported was at it's very worst in the period 1920-1965. The latter date chosen as the turning point into the 'wild' 60s, frequently pointed at as the the 'end of morality and the family'). In the period from 1920 to 1965, reported crime increased pretty much 20-fold - definitely more than 10-fold. There is nothing like that after that (albeit we are missing a few years). The only obvious competitor is the period from 1980 to 1992 or so - which is very steep (but nothing like the same proportionate rate of change).

Or, you could blame the whole peak on the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act...

The homicide stats are interesting - there is a steady increase but nothing dramatic. Harold Shipman (later) would have skewed them, madly. No chance his equivalent would have been caught in 1920.

 

[Digit]

Or you could go for selecting parts of statistics, like this

[/quote] The Scientist, 15 December 2005

Research published this week in Nature, provides strong evidence that culling badgers -- which can carry the agent that causes bovine TB -- actually exacerbates the problem by raising the incidence of TB in cattle living nearby. The results help to clarify contradictory results on whether culling badgers can control bovine TB, but the Department for Environmental Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) announced today that they are opening the possibility of large-scale cull to public opinion.

"We found that a single culling policy -- that of widespread and repeated culling of badgers -- yielded both a reduction of 19% in TB incidence in cattle within the culled area and an increase of 29% in TB incidence in cattle in the surrounding area," Christl Donnelly, lead author of the Nature paper, told The Scientist. She is based at the Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, UK.

The authors of this concluded that culling made the situation worse and that only less than 1% of Badgers were infectious, fine, and that culling dispersed Badgers, fine again. So why does the incident of BTB increase when Badgers disperse to surrounding areas if they don't contribute to BTB?
Another defeat for logic? Or selectivity again? I pass.

Roy.

 

[Smudger]

This is a complicated situation, which is different in different places and for kids of different ages. There is no one 'problem'....

snip loads of thoughtful insights

The fascinating, authentic stuff of experience.

Where do you teach?

Wandsworth.

 

[Smudger]

Part of Smudger's argument appears to break down when tested against the the society in this country during the Depression, when unemployment was percentage wise very high, real poverty existed, living conditions considerable worse than current and crime a fraction of today's figures.

Roy.

Please see other posts which explain that finding one small exception to a complex argument does not defeat the entire argument.

And, I believe, that violence (especially domestic violence) was endemic in some areas in the 30s.

 

[Jake]

Wandsworth.

Just being nosey! Is that Wandsworth Cl'arm end or Wandsworth end Putney end?



(I tease - I don't envy - but do admire)

 

[Digit]

one small exception

One? I listed several.

Roy.

 

[Smudger]

Wandsworth.

Just being nosey! Is that Wandsworth Cl'arm end or Wandsworth end Putney end?



(I tease - I don't envy - but do admire)

Putney end - Roehampton, mostly...
But the majority of our kids come from central Wandsworth, Battersea and Clapham (junction area).

 

[Smudger]

one small exception

One? I listed several.

Roy.

Actually you didn't. The one exception you raised was that anti social behaviour and violence is not linked to social deprivation. You gave a glossary of deprivation, not several exceptions. You did not offer any evidence for this assertion, other than a second assertion.

 

[Digit]

when unemployment was percentage wise very high, real poverty existed, living conditions considerable worse than current and crime a fraction of today's figures.

So you are stating that social depravation is linked to crime, is that correct?

Roy.

 

[Smudger]

Yes. Hardly a revelation, I would have thought.

 

[Digit]

So what prevented the crime figures of the depression from being higher than they were, what factor over rode the social depravation?

Roy.

 

[RogerS]

There's only one way to reverse the current problem. License breeding. Too many dimwitted scumbags are encouraged by our dopey system to pop out as many creatures as possible to bump up their benefits and have a house/home. Invariably the father is either not around, unware the child is his, or unable to have a role in the childs life due to our dopey laws.

There should be an intelligence/moral/financial test to see if a couple meet the criteria for breeding. This would in a single generation ensure that our gene pool and thus society is only of the right kind.

Controversial it might be, radical it definitely is, but its the way we are going to have to go about things soon when the population of this planet gets too large to sustain.

I know it's definitely non-PC but I do find myself agreeing with BB on this. Seem to be surrounded by more and more moronic people but then again daresay I'll be branded a moron by some for supporting BB.

Reminds me of a little poem

"There goes a happy moron
He doesn't give a damn
I wish I was a moron
My God, perhaps I am"

 

[Anonymous]

There should be an intelligence/moral/financial test to see if a couple meet the criteria for breeding.

I'd suggest that you would fail on at least two counts BB

I cant believe that comments like this have passed with so few reactions. What's the view like from the moral high ground?

 

[brianhabby]

when i was a lad (which wasnt that long ago) most of my contempories carried pen knives or lock back knives - but we used them for cutting things , rather than for cutting each other.

Same experience here - I still always carry a knife

I've also carried a pocket knife for 60 years and have yet to stab anyone!

Three categories of seriousness are presented in the guideline and for each a suggested starting point and sentencing range are set:

· For the least serious form of the offence (where the weapon was carried but not used to threaten or cause fear) the starting point is a high level community order and the range for sentencing is from a high level fine up to 12 weeks imprisonment.

So PowerTool, big soft moose, & Digit, given the comments in the last quote above, how can you justify carrying a knife? I don't ask as a criticism as I also carry a pocket knife but a colleague at work has stopped doing so because of the worry of being 'found out' and I must admit it's something I've been thinking about lately.

regards

Brian

 

[Steve Maskery]

I cant believe that comments like this have passed with so few reactions.

Perhaps folk are still digesting it and haven't yet come up with an intelligent response that wouldn't raise the already bread-baking temperature.

FWIW it seems to me that it's impossible to measure financial suitability. I once had a well-paid job, now I'm destitute. If I'd had kids when I was affluent what would you do to me now?

Secondly who defines morality? It's easy to agree on murder and rape, I dare say, but after that? We can see in Zimbabwe today how morals have changed. A significant percentage of the population think it's OK to take by force land which for several generations has been owned by white farmers. They can justify their actions as redressing a great wrong, whilst many others regard it as very immoral, plain criminal theft.

As for intelligence, well I think I'll keep my thoughts to myself

To move sideways slightly...

Has anyone read the book Freakonomics by Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt? It's not so much a book as such, more a collection of essays. Some of the themes are repeated, but it's still a good read, whether or not you agree with the arguments proposed.

One area discussed is Guiliani's tenure of office as Mayor of New York. He had a Zero Tolerance approach to petty crime (although personally I don't think that any crime is petty, certainly not to the victims). Crime dropped significantly, saving the public purse lots of money and Guiliani was a hero.

One small snag.

Other places which also adopted the zero-tol approach did not experience the same positive outcomes and even more damning, places which did NOT adopt such a policy DID see the same fall in crime. ALso some states saw the same effects but translated in time by a year or two!

Their argument was all to do with Wade vs Roe, the act that legalized abortion. Abortions have always taken place, even when they were illegal, but done clandestinely in backstreets for those who could afford it. So if 16-year-old Tiffany gets pregnant, banker daddy can get it sorted at a price. It's not the same story for the poor.

With Wade vs Roe the number of abortions rose significantly and poor people could get the same as the rich.

The fall in crime was 20 years after Wade vs Roe.

Some states legalized abortion before WvR and they were the ones where crime dropped earlier.

The conclusion they draw was that many of the criminals of the 90's (young, poor and any other categories you may wish to include) simply were not born.

It's a good read, even if you think they are talking nonsense.

Cheers
Steve

 

[Digit]

What's the view like from the moral high ground?

Where is it?
Different societies have held different views on what is moral.
Thugee, religious prostitution, wife burning after the death of the husband, burning at the stake, all in defense of the moral hight ground.

Roy.

 

[Anonymous]

What's the view like from the moral high ground?

Where is it?
Different societies have held different views on what is moral.
Thugee, religious prostitution, wife burning after the death of the husband, burning at the stake, all in defense of the moral hight ground.

Roy.

In the same place where it always is Roy, a place where people believe that their systems for judgment are superior to others and correct, almost beyond question, whether it be burning widows or judging other peoples right to have children.

rgds

 

[Jake]

What's the view like from the moral high ground?

Where is it?
Different societies have held different views on what is moral.
Thugee, religious prostitution, wife burning after the death of the husband, burning at the stake, all in defense of the moral hight ground.

Roy.

I hope you weren't, by those examples, trying to suggest that thugee, religious prostitution, wife burning after the death of the husband, and burning at the stake are somehow wrong?

 

[Digit]

Absolutely Saint.
Very much so Jake, from the viewpoint of the victims I should think. :lol:

Roy.

 

[Jake]

Each to their own I guess - who are we to judge?