Double The Size Of You Dating Pool In...
Crosswords1 min ago
Who Can Still Say That Uncontrolled Immigration Isn't Responsible For A Massive Increase In Crime?
121 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The average Joe knows there is too much immigration and that it hold little or no benefit to ordinary people.
The attraction is for cheap labour that benefits only the employers who are wealthy enough to escape its negative effects.
We, the great unwashed, have to suffer increased crime, more strain on the NHS, schools and housing, and the indigenous English suffer the most.
Who cares if the farmer can't get enough fruit pickers?
Politicians know immigration sucks for the working class but boosts the figures on the national accounts.
My previously mainly white area is now being infiltrated by every kind of nationality and I fear for the future.
The attraction is for cheap labour that benefits only the employers who are wealthy enough to escape its negative effects.
We, the great unwashed, have to suffer increased crime, more strain on the NHS, schools and housing, and the indigenous English suffer the most.
Who cares if the farmer can't get enough fruit pickers?
Politicians know immigration sucks for the working class but boosts the figures on the national accounts.
My previously mainly white area is now being infiltrated by every kind of nationality and I fear for the future.
I don't see how anything in your last post is even remotely related to answering the question you've quoted. It's rhetorical anyway, but if you were going to quote a question like that you may as well take the trouble to answer it too, no?
The point still holds. You don't learn about the world unless you study it, and you can't study it without gathering data, and you can't process data without a healthy appreciation of statistics. And if you can't do any of that then any policy points will be based not in truth but in little more than guesswork.
The point still holds. You don't learn about the world unless you study it, and you can't study it without gathering data, and you can't process data without a healthy appreciation of statistics. And if you can't do any of that then any policy points will be based not in truth but in little more than guesswork.
Most folks' experience is inevitably confined to their own personal experience, is it not? If you want a truly national picture then you have to ask a lot of people. Which is what the Crime Survey I've been going on about does.
Never mind the fact that anyone who says "My previously mainly white area is now being infiltrated by every kind of nationality and I fear for the future" [my italics] is at least borderline motivated by prejudices.
Never mind the fact that anyone who says "My previously mainly white area is now being infiltrated by every kind of nationality and I fear for the future" [my italics] is at least borderline motivated by prejudices.
Crimes are committed by people; the more people there are, the more crimes are committed. It doesn't matter if the more people come from the natural indigenous birthrate or a combination of that and the influx of people due to controlled and/or uncontrolled migrants. The MORE people there are the MORE crime there is...Is that so difficult a basic concept to grasp? It's more or less the same as saying that increasing the number of drivers will result in more road accidents.
That's true, Naomi, but the Crime Survey I cited isn't based on police recording of crimes, but based on asking people what crimes they have experienced. So it's at the very least not vulnerable to that aspect of crime reporting, ie police missing crimes.
So the under-reporting of crimes by or to police is not a significant issue in the data I've mentioned.
So the under-reporting of crimes by or to police is not a significant issue in the data I've mentioned.
The BBC have a lot to answer for.
Recently in Sweden, the Rape capital,of Europe, Muslim gangs threw a bomb into a police station.
Hush hush! Keep it quiet ! Don't alarm the masses!
This stuff is coming to us, and has started with the Albanians.
Why can't Plod get the baddies not only to prove ownership of the fancy cars, but justify how they were paid for, then boot them out!
Recently in Sweden, the Rape capital,of Europe, Muslim gangs threw a bomb into a police station.
Hush hush! Keep it quiet ! Don't alarm the masses!
This stuff is coming to us, and has started with the Albanians.
Why can't Plod get the baddies not only to prove ownership of the fancy cars, but justify how they were paid for, then boot them out!
I don't know who sanmac's post is addressed to, but I should just add that, firstly, crime rates are taken usually to be per 100,000 people -- which therefore takes into account population changes automatically; and, secondly, the Crime Survey reports an absolute figure for number of crimes committed, and it's still dropping even with an increased population: it estimates that around 20 million crimes (excluding online offences and fraud) were committed in 1995, compared with about 6.5 million in 2018. Even allowing for underreporting, etc, and allowing for a slight uptick in the last three years or so, it still comes out that there has been a significant drop in overall crime in the last two decades.
https:/
https:/
//What in particular about the ONS's Crime Survey don't you like?//
It is flawed. More so than experience and gut instict.
A Guardian reporter was led around an estate in Finsbury Park by a Somali woman. Under strict anonimity she showed the many hotspots were the elder Somali drug lords handed out their assignments to the younger somali kids to operate the 'county lines. This woman and many like her have sent their sons back to Somalia in order not to be kidnapped recruited ,tortured and killed if they didn't comply with the drugs syndicates demands.The whole family are under threat.
It is crimes like this throughout the UK will not feature in the ONS crime survey because of intimidation and fear of repurcussions. The ONS survey will not represent a true picture. Speak to the local police borough commander and the recieving casualty officer at Kings hospital and they will paint a totally different picture to the diluted ONS survey.Trauma A&E have never experienced so much death and serious mutilations due to street stabbings in decades. That is fact. How many cases of FGM are prosecuted? We know it goes on but familys will not admit they have done it to their kids but the victims turn up in clinics. Anonimity for the most part is granted so as not to deter others going to seek help. There is a lot going on out there but the ONS Survey will never pick it up.
It is flawed. More so than experience and gut instict.
A Guardian reporter was led around an estate in Finsbury Park by a Somali woman. Under strict anonimity she showed the many hotspots were the elder Somali drug lords handed out their assignments to the younger somali kids to operate the 'county lines. This woman and many like her have sent their sons back to Somalia in order not to be kidnapped recruited ,tortured and killed if they didn't comply with the drugs syndicates demands.The whole family are under threat.
It is crimes like this throughout the UK will not feature in the ONS crime survey because of intimidation and fear of repurcussions. The ONS survey will not represent a true picture. Speak to the local police borough commander and the recieving casualty officer at Kings hospital and they will paint a totally different picture to the diluted ONS survey.Trauma A&E have never experienced so much death and serious mutilations due to street stabbings in decades. That is fact. How many cases of FGM are prosecuted? We know it goes on but familys will not admit they have done it to their kids but the victims turn up in clinics. Anonimity for the most part is granted so as not to deter others going to seek help. There is a lot going on out there but the ONS Survey will never pick it up.
It's held to be the most accurate source according to anyone whose job it is to study things like this. And it's certainly more accurate than police recordings, which are, by definition, dependent on people reporting the crime to the police in the first place.
But again you are still missing the point, which is that whatever the flaws in the ONS survey, and I'm sure they exist -- even the ONS acknowledges this, after all -- then they are simply not going to be subject to annual variations. Hence if the true figure of crimes is still underrepresented by the ONS you can still draw useful conclusions from the general trend it shows, ie crime has generally fallen in the last two decades -- what errors are in the 2018 data will also exist in more or less the same way as the 1995 data.
The same reply to retrocop. Nobody, least of all the ONS, is claiming that the Crime Survey catches every single crime there has ever been. But its flaws can be more or less accounted for and you are still left with the general trend.
But again you are still missing the point, which is that whatever the flaws in the ONS survey, and I'm sure they exist -- even the ONS acknowledges this, after all -- then they are simply not going to be subject to annual variations. Hence if the true figure of crimes is still underrepresented by the ONS you can still draw useful conclusions from the general trend it shows, ie crime has generally fallen in the last two decades -- what errors are in the 2018 data will also exist in more or less the same way as the 1995 data.
The same reply to retrocop. Nobody, least of all the ONS, is claiming that the Crime Survey catches every single crime there has ever been. But its flaws can be more or less accounted for and you are still left with the general trend.
//What in particular about the ONS's Crime Survey don't you like?//
Haven't seen it, but understand the devices used to adumbrate rather than enlighten.
You firstly need a definition of crime which separates the serious and the trivial and can understand a gradation betwose extremes. That[i bit which is both common and moral sense is absent.
Let's look at Germany. According to official statistics crime rates in Germany are falling [i]despite[i] (as racists like AfD and VE might put it) the importation of at least one million single young Muslim men in 2014.
For the sake of argument I believe the German stats, OK?. But now I look at specific instances. And I cite Cologne (not the only German city, by the way) New Year's Eve when 1,500 German women shared in the culturally enriching experience of the North African Muslim practice of taharrush gamea whereby crowds of men surround a lone women, grope, rape, or steal from her.
So now we have a novel category of crime which has produced 1.500 victims in one German city. So, for the stats to work in any convincing way, then there have to be at least 1,500 [i]fewer] victims of crime in Cologne since the immigrants arrived than there were before. So for every girl surrounded by twenty Syrian, Afghan, Somali refugees on New Year's Night then there has to be at least one Cologne citizen who had been spared a similar trauma. Do you have any theories about these averted traumas?
Meanwhile:
https:/
Haven't seen it, but understand the devices used to adumbrate rather than enlighten.
You firstly need a definition of crime which separates the serious and the trivial and can understand a gradation betwose extremes. That[i bit which is both common and moral sense is absent.
Let's look at Germany. According to official statistics crime rates in Germany are falling [i]despite[i] (as racists like AfD and VE might put it) the importation of at least one million single young Muslim men in 2014.
For the sake of argument I believe the German stats, OK?. But now I look at specific instances. And I cite Cologne (not the only German city, by the way) New Year's Eve when 1,500 German women shared in the culturally enriching experience of the North African Muslim practice of taharrush gamea whereby crowds of men surround a lone women, grope, rape, or steal from her.
So now we have a novel category of crime which has produced 1.500 victims in one German city. So, for the stats to work in any convincing way, then there have to be at least 1,500 [i]fewer] victims of crime in Cologne since the immigrants arrived than there were before. So for every girl surrounded by twenty Syrian, Afghan, Somali refugees on New Year's Night then there has to be at least one Cologne citizen who had been spared a similar trauma. Do you have any theories about these averted traumas?
Meanwhile:
https:/
I just want to emphasise the figures again: 20 million total crimes in 1995, 6.5 million in 2018. Let's take it as given that last year's figure is an underestimate, even beyond whatever corrections the ONS applied to the raw data to account for reporting errors. How much of an underestimate? Maybe Naomi's "1 in 5 unreported"? So that would be another 25% you can add. So that knocks it up to 8 million, or maybe if we're generous 9 million. Still well short of the 20 million from 1995.
So if you want the claim I am making to be false then the only way to achieve it is to insist somehow that the 20 million figure was a massive overestimate. But at that point it's clearly special pleading: you're claiming that the data is flawed, which is fair enough to a point, but also that it must be flawed in exactly the way needed to destroy an otherwise obvious trend in the data. It's a nonsense.
You don't need perfect data to spot a trend. Data can be subject to errors and still be usable. The trend here exists. Overall crime has fallen significantly in the last 25 years, with the possible exception of the last three years when there's been a slight increase.
So if you want the claim I am making to be false then the only way to achieve it is to insist somehow that the 20 million figure was a massive overestimate. But at that point it's clearly special pleading: you're claiming that the data is flawed, which is fair enough to a point, but also that it must be flawed in exactly the way needed to destroy an otherwise obvious trend in the data. It's a nonsense.
You don't need perfect data to spot a trend. Data can be subject to errors and still be usable. The trend here exists. Overall crime has fallen significantly in the last 25 years, with the possible exception of the last three years when there's been a slight increase.
At the risk of being accused of missing the point you're making, I think you've got the figures wrong. There were 1500 reported crimes that night, representing about 1200 victims, of which about 500 were victims of sexual assaults. As far as I can make out, across all Germany that night "only" 1,200 women were victims of sexual assault in the final accounting. Not that this matters to the victims, but in arguments about statistics and their interpretation I hope you'll excuse the pedantry.
As to the wider point, I'm too tired to reply properly now. It was a horrifying incident whether it was 1500 women in Köln or 1200 nationally. What at least appears to be true is that nothing like it has happened since. Let us hope it stays that way.
As to the wider point, I'm too tired to reply properly now. It was a horrifying incident whether it was 1500 women in Köln or 1200 nationally. What at least appears to be true is that nothing like it has happened since. Let us hope it stays that way.
Latest Posts
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.