New Brit Crime Rates

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

beemerb

Moderator
This should be in legal but can't get there.The source will up till tommorow.A lot more is there than I am going to post so please take a look.

Blair hit by sharp rise in
violent crime

BY RICHARD FORD, HOME CORRESPONDENT
THE Government's credibility on law and order is
seriously undermined today with publication of figures
showing a huge rise in violent crime, robberies and
muggings.

Soaring street crime is causing alarm in 10 Downing Street
and the Prime Minister's strategy memo, leaked to The
Times yesterday, demanded initiatives with "immediate
bite" to show that his administration was tough on law and
order. But the latest 3.8 per cent rise in recorded crime
will further damage the reputation of a Government that
came to power pledging to be "tough on crime and tough
on the causes of crime".

The Government will attempt to recover its reputation
today when the Chancellor unveils plans to spend more on
recruiting police officers to patrol the streets. And an
initiative to tackle alcohol-related crime will be unveiled
next month, including pressing local councils to take
powers to control drinking on the streets.

The latest figures show a rise of 192,000 recorded crimes
to a total of 5.3 million offences in the year to the end of
March, an increase fuelled by drunken violence and a
surge in robberies in London, the West Midlands and
Greater Manchester.

Ministers are blaming affluent youngsters who become
aggressive after drinking too much and a rise in the theft of
mobile phones for much of the 16 per cent rise in violent
crime - which was the biggest in ten years and reversed a
10 per cent decline in the previous year.

It is the increase in violent offences - including a 26 per
cent rise in robbery, a 12.6 per cent increase in serious
violence and a 28 per cent increase in muggings - that is
most alarming to the Government. But while violent crime
rose, household burglary fell by 6.5 per cent, car crime by
3 per cent and drug offences by more than 10 per cent.

Jack Straw disclosed the extent to which alcohol is
contributing to urban disorder when he said that it was a
contributory factor in 40 per cent of violent crime, 78 per
cent of assaults and 88 per cent of criminal damage.

Charles Clarke, the Police Minister, said: "The problem is
worse than it was. Young people have more money in
their pockets and are spending it that way. Very, very
large numbers of young people go on the 2am club and
pub routes on Saturday and Sundays and disorder is a
consequence."

Ministers have been warned that cutting violent crime may
be much more difficult than the successes achieved in
tackling domestic burglary and car crime.

Ann Widdecombe, Shadow Home Secretary, condemned
the figures and said that Labour was failing on law and
order. She said: "The figures show that crime is spiralling
out of control with an appalling 190,000 more victims last
year than in the previous 12 months. Things are getting
worse, not better, under Tony Blair."

Today's figures put the total number of violent offences at
703,000, including 581,000 offences against the person.
A third of those were less serious common assault, which,
along with harassment and assault on a constable, saw the
biggest increases. Common assault, which has been
recorded as violence against the person, since 1998,
includes domestic violence, and part of the increase could
be attributed to more women reporting their violent
partners.

Part of the rise in the number of robberies is attributed to
the mobile phone thefts where gangs target owners, who
are in turn more likely to report the crime for insurance
purposes. In the Metropolitan Police area an extra 4,000
robberies were a result of mobile phones being stolen.

Home Office statisticians said that the increase in
recorded robberies was a reflection of what was
happening on the streets, but were more cautious about
the rise in offences of violence against a person. Officials
said that the figures may still be reflecting changes to
counting rules.

Senior police officers suggested that the increases in some
crimes should be viewed against falls over the previous
five years. One said: "We believe it is important to keep
the rise in crime, in those categories where it has occured,
in perspective. It was inevitable there would be a reverse
in some areas."

The Association of British Insurers said that it was aware
of reports about the theft of mobile phones, but the
industry as a whole had not raised it as an issue. http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/Times/frontpage.html?999

------------------
Age and deceit will overcome youth and speed.
I'm old and deceitful.
 
Aw, shucky darn.

Good thing y'all took all those nasty guns away from the people. I'm sure the local critters appreciate Labour looking out for the felons tender hides.

I see the new Boogey Man is that nasty Jack Rum.

Here we go again.

LawDog
 
I guess I'll keep saying this until it sinks in.

Just what is the link between the withdrawal of British target shooting pistols and the increase in their crime rate ?

There were hardly any pistols in Britain BEFORE the ban, and what few existed were locked away in gun safes and were not either available or ever actually used in a self defense incident, I mean for 50 years maybe. Comparatively speaking however, there are a lot of shotguns and THEY haven't been withdrawn, but no doubt if they were someone would be saying that it caused an increase in birth defects or some such.

Come on guys, that old loon Col. crazy pants Cooper may preach this kind of horse doodoo about the UK, but just use a little common sense. Their situation is not our situation and attempting to draw half assed comparisons is doomed to failure.

Mike H
 
Mike H, you crazy-pants loon, you,

The link you ask about between the prohibition (withdrawal? That doesn't spin with me) of pistols and the rise in crime is factually demonstrated by this data and supported and explained by the recent publications of John Lott. In conjunction, of course, with the British government's prohibition against any citizen resistance to violent criminals.

Take away law-abiding citizens' best means of defending against violent attack and they become easy prey for criminals, therefore crime increases as the risks of doing crimes decreases. When will this sink in?

Unless you have a better explanation? Jack Straw says John Barleycorn is the cause in the rise in crime, but hasn't this demon been around forever? So how does a steady supply suddenly cause a crime rate increase?

And wasn't the gun prohibition supposed to reduce crime? Is that reduction reflected anywhere in the most recent reliable statistics about British crime rates?

Thanks anyway,

Ledbetter

[This message has been edited by Ledbetter (edited July 18, 2000).]
 
Ledbetter....you just saved me the trouble. Good post.

God save us from the anglophiles; again.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
Listen I'll try the simple approach.

Pre 1994 (date of the ban) there was a level of handgun ownership in the UK of maybe 1 in 10,000, in real terms you are more likely to meet a lottery winner in the UK than an ex owner of a handgun. What few guns there were had to be locked in a gun vault separate from any ammunition and were for target use only.

There are NO, repeat NO recorded uses of a legally held handgun being used to deter or prevent the commission of a crime in Britain since before WWII. Crime levels in the UK have been rising with increasing speed since the mid 80's, there hasn't suddenly been a rise since 1994.

So please educate me and tell me how this fearsome handful of unloaded handguns kept the criminals at bay for all those years before 1994 without anyone knowing it ??

Just think, if the British would distribute 5000 unloaded Ruger .22's randomly amongst the population and tell people to lock the guns in a safe, they would reduce crime levels overnight. By implication, that is what you are saying because that would be a return to pre-1994. The UK is NOT AMERICA, where levels of handgun ownership and the ability to keep a loaded firearm to hand ARE a genuine deterrent to crime, as is being amply demonstrated at present.

Surely you see the point ?

Mike H
 
Damn bloody Brits.

At the request of a moderator, I have removed the "bird" smiley. The sentiment remains, however.

[This message has been edited by Dennis Olson (edited July 19, 2000).]
 
LawDog I couldnt have said it better myself.

Problem is though...noone in power over here will acknowledge this and try to avoid those mistakes. They are hellbent on taking away our rights. And when crime goes up who will they point the finger at?

------------------
Try to take away my gun...and you will see my 2nd Amendment Right in ACTION!!! -Me
 
Mike H.

You poor dumb bastard...

Take the TEETH out of the PEOPLE, and no-one will be afraid of their BITE...

Go back to LOSERLAND and be a victim, cause if you ever call a cop, HE`LL HAVE TEETH!!!

------------------
SHOOT,COMMUNICATE AND MOVE OUT !
 
see also www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment071800c.htm

Fear in Britain
They have no guns — so they have a lot of crime.

Dr. Paul Gallant practices optometry in Wesley Hills, NY. Dr. Joanne Eisen practices dentistry in Old Bethpage, NY. Both are Research Associates at the Independence Institute http://www.independenceinstitute.org, where Dave Kopel http://www.davekopel.com is Research Director.

The furor over the Philadelphia police encounter with a would-be carjacker and cop-killer isn't the only public-relations nightmare facing the city's police department. Two thousand reported sex crimes went "uninvestigated" by Philadelphia police between 1995 and 1997 because of "pressure to keep the department's crime numbers low," reported ABC News http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/philly_rape000711.html on July 11. Earlier this year, the department admitted "misreporting" thousands of sexual assaults during the past decade "to make the city appear safer than it was."

Actually, Philadelphia is not the only city to underreport crime in recent years. The 1994 Clinton/Schumer crime bill has resulted in lots of federal dollars for local police departments — and also lots of pressure to get crime statistics down so that the federal government can announce the success of its policy of federalizing crime control.
But when it comes to fudging crime statistics, even the finest Philadelphia number-rearranger can't compare to our British cousins.

During the nineteenth century, and most of the twentieth, Britain enjoyed a well-deserved reputation as an unusually safe and crime-free nation, compared to the United States or continental Europe. No longer.
To the great consternation of British authorities concerned about tourism revenue, a June CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain "one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world." Declared Dan Rather: "This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness...[But now] the U.K. has a crime problem....worse than ours."

A headline http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=003127375916658&rtmo=VPZV4k5x&atmo=99999999&pg=/et/96/4/1/ncrim31.html in the London Daily Telegraph back on April 1, 1996, said it all: "Crime Figures a Sham, Say Police." The story noted that "pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics," and "the recorded crime level bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."
For example, where a series of homes was burgled, they were regularly recorded as one crime. If a burglar hit 15 or 20 flats, only one crime was added to the statistics.
A brand-new report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary charges Britain's 43 police departments with systemic under-classification of crime—for example, by recording burglary as "vandalism." The report lays much of the blame on the police's desire to avoid the extra paperwork associated with more serious crimes.
Britain's justice officials have also kept crime totals down by being careful about what to count. American homicide data are based on arrests, but British data are based on final dispositions. Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all.

Another "common practice," according to one retired Scotland Yard senior officer, is "falsifying clear-up rates by gaining false confessions from criminals already in prison." (Britain has far fewer protections against abusive police interrogations than does the United States.) As a result, thousands of crimes in Great Britain http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=003127375916658&rtmo=VPZV4k5x&atmo=99999999&pg=/et/96/4/1/ncrim31.html have been "solved" by bribing or coercing prisoners to confess to crimes they never committed.

Explaining away the disparity between crime reported by victims and the official figures became so difficult that, in April 1998, the British Home Office was forced to change its method of reporting crime http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=002109708036617&rtmo=Lb7LdG3d&atmo=.../nfig11.htm, and a somewhat more accurate picture began to emerge.

This past January, official street-crime rates in London were more than double http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=003127375916658&rtmo=fqMfNw0s&atmo=99999999&pg=/et/00/2/29/ncrim29.html the official rate from the year before.

So what's a British politician to do when elections coincide with an out-of control crime wave? Calling for "reasonable" gun laws is no longer an option. Handguns have been confiscated, and long guns are very tightly restricted. So anti-gun demagoguery, while still popular, can't carry the whole load.

Conversely, the government would not find it acceptable to allow its subjects to possess any type of gun (even a licensed, registered .22 rifle) for home protection. Defensive gun ownership is entirely illegal, and considered an insult to the government, since it implies that the government cannot keep the peace. Thus, in one recent notorious case, an elderly man who had been repeatedly burglarized, and had received no meaningful assistance from the police, shot a pair of career burglars who had broken into the man's home. The man was sentenced to life in prison.

The British authorities warn the public incessantly about the dangers of following the American path on gun policy. But the Daily Telegraph (June 29, 2000) points out that "the main reason for a much lower burglary rate in America is householders' propensity to shoot intruders. They do so without fear of being dragged before courts and jailed for life."

So what's the government going to do to make voters safer? One solution came from the Home Office in April 1999 in the form of "Anti-Social Behaviour Orders" — special court orders intended to deal with people who cannot be proven to have committed a crime, but whom the police want to restrict anyway. Behaviour Orders http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk_politics/newsid_809000/809208.stm can, among other things, prohibit a person from visiting a particular street or premises, set a curfew, or lead to a person's eviction from his home.

Violation of a Behaviour Order can carry a prison sentence of up to five years.
Prime Minister Tony Blair is now proposing that the government be allowed to confine people proactively, based on fears of their potential dangerousness.

American anti-gun lobbyists have long argued that if America followed Britain's lead in severely restricting firearms possession and self-defense, then American crime rates would eventually match Britain's. The lobbyists have also argued that if guns were restricted in America, civil liberties in the U.S. would have the same degree of protection that they have in Britain. The lobbyists are absolutely right.

****************************

I'm astounded; It turns out that they ARE undercounting murders! So even the "fact" that their murder rate is supposed to be lower than ours might well be a crock!


------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!

[This message has been edited by Brett Bellmore (edited July 19, 2000).]
 
Since none of our cheeseburger-eating opinions seem to count for much with the anglophiles among us, I am posting this link to the home page of an English constable who discusses at length the disarmament of his countrymen and its effects. It is well worth the visit, no matter where your opinion lies.

The address:
http://www.sarand.demon.co.uk/pages/andy.htm

Some quotes:

In compliance with the Firearms Amendment Act of 1997 my Firearms were handed in on September 30th 1997. I now eagerly await my compensation due to me in accordance with this Act. I have claimed an amount in excess of £5000 for my previously lawfully owned confiscated property. To date I have received just under £2000 in compensation and await the rest. It is now well over twelve months since the hand in and yet we are no farther forward in seeing full restitution.

I am in no doubt that this law will not make the slightest difference to the amount of armed crime in this country and that no lives will be saved as a result of it's implementation. It will never prevent another massacre as was seen at Dunblane. Substitute petrol or explosives for handguns and another disaster is in the making. The type of people that would prey on the innocent victims of Dunblane and Tasmania are the product of our present society, banning the possession of an inanimate object is simply treating the symptoms without curing the illness. These people are still out there and if they look hard enough handguns can still be obtained. None the less I am a Police Officer and as such I have taken an oath to enforce and obey the laws of this land, without fear or favour. I am sworn to uphold the laws of this land and will continue to do so for as long as I draw breath, whether I agree with them or not.

Regards,

Ledbetter
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
None the less I am a Police Officer and as such I have taken an oath to enforce and obey the laws of this land, without fear or favour. I am sworn to uphold the laws of this land and will continue to do so for as long as I draw breath, whether I agree with them or not.[/quote]

And that attitude is the absolute cause of all tyranny period. If there is one thing that it can be all linked back to that is it. Why can't this idiot think for himself, screw the bullsh*t law, he knows it's wrong but will still go out and enforce this crap. that isn't directed at LEO's in general but to people who exhibit the aforementioned attitude.
 
Scud: Fundamental difference between British and American LEOs; (Or at least it's SUPPOSED to be a difference!) The former swear to uphold the law, the latter swear to uphold the Constitution. A British officer refusing to enforce the most outrageous law would be violating his oath, though I agree that he still should resign or go on strike or something. An American officer enforcing an unconstitutional law would be violating HIS oath.

It's a basic difference between the two systems; Their police are supposed to be robots, ours are supposed to exercise their own judgement.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
I believe that the link between the increase of crime and firearms is the general and forceful government position that any resistance to crime i.e. violent resistance makes the victim of the robbery or assault the criminal. If someone tries to rob me and I hit them with a bat the police will see me as the criminal. Since 1994 the government has been teaching its subjects to roll over and give the crooks what they want. O.K. the sheep listened and what do you get a rise in crime accelerated by the fact that the criminals know that people have been told to give it up.


___________________________________________
The Government will attempt to recover its reputation
today when the Chancellor unveils plans to spend more on
recruiting police officers to patrol the streets. And an
initiative to tackle alcohol-related crime will be unveiled
next month, including pressing local councils to take
powers to control drinking on the streets.
_____________________________________________

What I see is truly sad is that the above snippet shows what the government wants is to limit freedoms even more. Now they blame it one beer or whatever else they want to limit. They will keep on taking freedom from them until they have 75 percent of the population watching 25 percent 24/7/365.

Coming to the United States as fast as you please.
 
A British officer refusing to enforce the most outrageous law would be violating his oath ...
__________________________________________

Can anyone on those blardy islands spell Nürnberg?

Bentley

"[There is] a duty in refusing to cooperate in any undertaking that violates the Constitutional rights of the individual."
- Albert Einstein

Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
-- Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal. Adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, 1950 [Report of the International Law Commission Covering its Second Session, 5 June-29 Duly 1950, Document A/1316, pp. 11-14.]
 
GIT_SOME_.45

I really don't appreciate being called a dumb bastard by anyone, and since the Moderators appear to be falling down on the job it looks like it's down to me to tell you to keep your language in check, maybe it should be GIT_SOME_MANNERS.

You all seem to have drifted away from the point of this thread which was to give more life to that old bogey concerning the rise of British crime rates being linked to the banning of their handguns, I'm still waiting for my explanation.

Could it be that now people realize there weren't any handguns to speak of BEFORE the ban, the light has finally illuminated ?

Interesting thought isn't it, common sense finally prevailing over ignorance, here in "TFL-General Discussion" no less, the forum that puts the dog in dogmatism.

Mike H
 
O.K. Mike H, I'll bite.

Britain's falsely low crime rate reporting makes it difficult to sort out the truth. The source of information, the British Government, has proved itself unreliable. Also, raw data of this sort needs scrutiny before causal relationships can be established. This has not been done yet for current data.

However, for past data David Kopel has shown that the only discernible changes related to weapon bans in the U.K. is a shift in the specific weapons used for murder and suicide, and an INCREASE in the hot burglary rate.

Also, you try to present a false dichotomy in your question. One is apparently supposed to infer that either the gun ban can be shown to have caused an increase in crime or the gun ban is right and proper. The fact is that the gun ban was presented as a means of *reducing* crime. This claim has proved as fraudulent as the Government crime statistics. This is the real message in these data.

Established: previous data show that weapon bans increase the rate of dangerous hot burglaries, weapon bans do not prevent crime. Therefore, weapon bans do more harm than good. QED

By the way, a more important question is whether the gradual move of the British Government to punish those who defend themselves against harm by violent criminals is responsible for higher crime rates. This will be a difficult question to answer rigorously though the common sense answer is obvious.

Seek the Light,

Bentley

“… There does exist…, gentlemen, a law which is a law not of the statute-book, but the nature; a law which we possess not by instruction, tradition, or reading, but which we have caught, imbibed, and sucked in at Nature’s own breast; a law which comes to us not by education but by constitution, not by training but by intuition – the law, I mean, that, should our life have fallen into any snare, into the violence and weapons of robbers or foes, every method of winning a way to safety, would be morally justifiable. When arms speak, the laws are silent; they bid none to await their word, since he who chooses to wait must pay an undeserved penalty ere he can exact a deserved one.”
-- Cicero, “Pro T. Annio Milone” (On Behalf of Milo) in The Speeches (N.H. Watts, trans.) 17(1931). The speech was prepared in 52B.C.
 
Mike H;
I think it all boils down to a couple of facts.
1- The general population has been disarmed and told that the goverment will protect them.This hasn't happened.
2-A massive increase in the amount of firearms in the hands of criminals,This is not only handguns and short barreled shotguns but allso full auto weapons.These weapons(full auto)are brought in from the old USSR countries.
There are many news items in the London Times to back all this up.Some I have on file and would be happy to share with you.
The system has totaly broken down in England and is admitted in the papers.So what are the disarmed people to do to survive?They can't fight back even if they are the rare one that has a shotgun permit or they go to jail.That happened not very long ago.Police admitted that they didn't even patrol the area because they didn't have the manpower.
How anyone can defend this system is a puzzel to me.

------------------
Age and deceit will overcome youth and speed.
I'm old and deceitful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top