On 01/28/2013 01:24 AM, salyavin808 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@... wrote: >> Fall in UK crime rate baffles experts >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/24/fall-uk-crime-rate-baffles-experts >> >> Jai Maharishi! >> > > Good old Peter, I knew him well, I'm sure he's sent out many > a press release claiming full responsibility for this apparent > miracle. Unfortunately there is a rather more mundane explanation > for the crime "drop". > > The police, due to budget restraints and targets they have to > achieve, have started downgrading as many crimes as possible. > For instance, if someone tries to burgle your house but doesn't > get in due to efficient double glazing etc the police may downgrade > it to criminal damage which doesn't get recorded as a marker in > crime statistics, so it looks like the burglary rate has gone down when > really it hasn't at all. > > Street crime like mobile phone robberies are much higher but they > don't get included in the overall statistics unless you are actually > hurt as it gets downgraded to antisocial behaviour. > > Any bicycle crime isn't recorded at all unless you actually die > as it does't warrant points towards the total that police stations have to > achieve. Car crime really is down though. No woo woo needed, > it's just that they are so hard to steal these days with all their > built in immobilisers. > > Perhaps there's the fact there are less coppers out on the beat > which means less crimes get investigated to start with. Everyone > will claim it's a result of their own crime busting initiatives though. I'd > love to read all the press releases from religious > prayer groups or scientologists claiming it's down to them but > unfortunately they are as likely to get published as the TM ones. > The shame of it is crime only ever goes up in a recession and our government > seems most keen to keep us in one. > > If you are interested in UK political cock ups: The target based system was > supposed to simply record crime and how it was being tackled generally but it > forced the emergency services to > concentrate on the things they get judged on. Like ambulance > drivers have to get to a call within say, 8 minutes. If they don't it's > considered a failure and goes against them in the statistics. > They may take 9 minutes and save someone's life but that won't > count. So health trusts introduced the "first responder" concept > whereby a car with a paramedic drives around town constantly > and if an emergency call comes in they get there in time to > make the target but they may not be able to cope with the emergency, > so they assess the situation and call in support which can take as long as it > wants as it doesn't get recorded because someone, however > ill equiped, is already on the scene. People I know in the emergency > services are totally pissed off with the whole stupid set up. It's > the law of unintended consequences again.
US unemployment statistics are similarly skewed. The real unemployment rate in the US is way much higher than reported but if there was a real count both government and industry would look very bad.
