Donate SIGN UP

Who Can Still Say That Uncontrolled Immigration Isn't Responsible For A Massive Increase In Crime?

Avatar Image
anotheoldgit | 11:48 Sun 11th Aug 2019 | News
121 Answers
Gravatar

Answers

101 to 120 of 121rss feed

First Previous 3 4 5 6 7 Next Last

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.
Never been good since the Romans turned up.
What have the Romans ever done for us?

ANOTHEOLDGIT, how many road accidents are there each year?
AH at 12:59 Mon, That sounds for all the world like you’re waging a personal vendetta! ;o)
Naomi
I have often found Mr Hughes has very poor memory recall and is incapable on many occasions to remember his own quotes. When he frequently contradicts himself and is advised what he said last year then instant hissy fit appears and some remark will tell you he is flattered that you bother to trawl back to locate his original quote. He then will turn the table against you for doing so.
At best an irrelevance, Retrocop, best greeted with a large pinch of salt. ;o)
andy-hughes/// Naomi - // It’s naïve in the extreme to assume ‘statistics’ are an accurate reflection of true figures. //

I am so going to remember that quote when you next argue about the negative influence of Islam - which I am sure won't be long!///

So, you can't distinguish between real measurable statistics, like say, 15% of the prison population are muslims despite representing less than 5% of the UK population and the kind of 'statistics' Jim uses.
Made up botox used to suit a narrative. (much beloved by global warming fanatics, funnily enough)
He hasn't thought that far, spicerack.
Who would use newspapers, whose job is to sell newspapers rather than to present an accurate, objective reflection of the country, as a reliable source for crime statistics? Now *that's* "made up botox to suit a narrative" if ever there was one.

I'm quite happy to debate the interpretation of the figures I've quoted, but not their validity, which -- especially given that they're compiled by people whose literal day job it is to work with data and understand how to gather, process and interpret it -- seems based on very little of substance.

Oh, and Climate Change stands up pretty well too, so that's another point lost for your argument spicey :)
Naomi - // AH at 12:59 Mon, That sounds for all the world like you’re waging a personal vendetta! ;o) //

I am unsure what makes you think that, but since I don't care anyway, we can get back to the thread now.
Jim, that's the point. They are based on very little of substance.
retrocop - // Naomi
I have often found Mr Hughes has very poor memory recall and is incapable on many occasions to remember his own quotes. When he frequently contradicts himself and is advised what he said last year then instant hissy fit appears and some remark will tell you he is flattered that you bother to trawl back to locate his original quote. He then will turn the table against you for doing so. //

Do you ever worry that your incessant need to remind everyone on every thread you can that you have a personal dislike of me - is turning into something of an obsession?

It really is getting beyond a joke now.

As I have advised before, the two or three people who may be interested will have read your endless pointless nasty digs, and noted your attitude, and the rest of us - me included, really couldn't care less.

So why not stop boring for England and simply address the thread, or not, and leave me out of your nonsense, for the sanity of everyone involved.

You'll probably sleep better as well.
Spicerack - // So, you can't distinguish between real measurable statistics, like say, 15% of the prison population are muslims despite representing less than 5% of the UK population and the kind of 'statistics' Jim uses.
Made up botox used to suit a narrative. (much beloved by global warming fanatics, funnily enough) //

And the 'So' Rule makes its first appearance of the week!!
Ah, Naomi, nice try... the criticism of their validity is based on little of substance, as you well knew my point was.
Jim, no trying required. The figures are based on very little substance.
SPICERACK, "the kind of 'statistics' Jim uses" are provided by the Office for National Statistics. If you do not accept the ONS' data, whose data do you want to use? 
Why not, N? It can't be because they only sample some of the population -- that is literally the definition of a survey, and surveys are well-established data-gathering techniques. Nor can it because the figures come with errors attached -- because, again, that's to be expected, the errors can be controlled for, and in any case even within uncertainties you can still observe trend lines.

Lol I recall the late Mikey throwing statistics down our throat willy nilly at our last true GE. Labour,according to all his beloved opinion polls, were going to romp through and win it .
When his much trusted opinions polls failed him and he was left looking like a prat he lamely protested that there were secret Tory voters out there and did not disclose their intentions. Oh Dear. What a pity.Never mind. So much for reliable Polls.
It's the interpretation of the stats which concerns me. The statement "crime has been falling every year for the last ten years" may very well be true.

In fact I concede as much for the purposes of this thread. What I contest is that you can validly infer from the overall decrease that the country is necessarily safer now than it was a decade ago. It could be safer; it could less safe.

And that would depend on specific dynamics. If the decrease is across all types of crime then we're safer. If, despite the overall fall, some types of dangerous crime are rising then we're more vulnerable.
(I thought of Mikey when the overture from Cavalleria Rusticana came up on tonight's University Challenge.)
Mikey made the mistake, common to many people, of paying too much attention to the central figure and not enough to the errors. Anyone paying more attention to those would -- well, not necessarily have predicted a Tory majority in 2015, but would certainly have been less dogmatic about Labour's chances. Likewise in 2016, it was monumentally stupid for the media to call the US Election as more or less 100-1 on for Clinton to win. A better assessment would have been something like 3-1 in favour; and it's not like tossing two heads in a row is that unusual.

Polls come attached to uncertainties, but within those bounds they can still be useful. When people who believe in the polls -- or those who don't for that matter -- forget about those, then everyone seems shocked when Labour score 29 points rather than 31 (within error), or everyone rubs their hands with glee, when neither reaction is justified.

All this matters. You have to gather data somehow, you have to analyse it somehow, and you have to interpret it more or less sensibly. All of that is weakened when robust statistical analysis is rejected out of hand based on concerns that are easily addressed with even some basic training in statistics, and what you're left with is policy and politics based on no evidence.

On the other hand, v-e's comment about interpretation is far more valid and I'll address it later.

101 to 120 of 121rss feed

First Previous 3 4 5 6 7 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Who Can Still Say That Uncontrolled Immigration Isn't Responsible For A Massive Increase In Crime?

Answer Question >>

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.