Tory crime statistics row deepens
Following revelations on my blog last week, shadow home secretary Chris Grayling has defended the Conservative Party's use of figures suggesting "significant" rises in violent crime - even though the official source statistics warn they should not be used in that way.
In fact, the party has now used the data in a release sent to every constituency in England and Wales - statistics which one police force has described as "extremely misleading" and which appear to have been labelled "inaccurate" by some senior Conservatives.
Mr Grayling argues he has done nothing wrong and has accused the government of using statistics in exactly the same way to suit their purposes.
Official statisticians say it is not possible to compare violent crime stats before and after April 2002 because of a big change in the way such incidents were recorded.
Before 2002 the decision as to whether an incident was a violent crime had been taken by police. After 2002, officers were obliged to record all incidents as violent crimes if the alleged victim said that is what it was. The aim was to stop police fiddling the figures and to get a better picture of violence. The obvious consequence was to send the raw numbers shooting up.
A warning printed on recorded crime stats after April 2002 says that "figures before and after that date are not directly comparable".
Now former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith has written to me to say he agrees that such comparisons are profoundly misleading.
Mr Duncan Smith founded the policy think-tank "Centre for Social Justice" (CSJ) which includes on its board party heavyweights William Hague, Oliver Letwin and David Willetts.
He writes:
"(T)he CSJ has long understood the inaccuracy of directly comparing present crime levels with those published before the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) was introduced - which as you note changed recording methods significantly and has rendered direct numerical comparisons with pre 2002/03 levels inaccurate."
Despite such anxieties, Conservative HQ has done exactly that and produced a list of "direct numerical comparisons" which have been punted to every candidate in England and Wales. The full release goes on for pages, but this extract gives you an idea of how they compare 2008/09 figures with stats from 1999/00.
Some Tory constituencies have started using the dodgy data - with predictable results.
In Milton Keynes, local MP Mark Lancaster's office put out a statement last week claiming that there were 6,015 "violent attacks" in the town last year, reflecting a 236% increase over the past decade.
The figures were given to Mr Lancaster by Conservative Central Office:
Milton Keynes sounds like Dodge City. That's a "violent attack" every 90 minutes.
However, according to the Milton Keynes Citizen newspaper, the town's police says that the statistics are "extremely misleading".
Local commander Nikki Ross told the local paper that the figure includes "everything from public order offences, to harassment, to allowing a dog to be out of control in a public place".
"The actual number of people who were victims of serious violence was 81," she said.
The point here is that the phrase "violent attacks" does not equate directly with the crime category "violence against the person". For instance, if someone swears at you in the street and you complain to the police about it, that incident goes down as an act of "violence against the person".
There was a similar reaction from police in Colchester. The Daily Gazette in Essex asked whether "shock north Essex crime figures add up". The story reports how:
"research, released by the Conservative Party, compares the number of recorded violent crimes against the person for 1999-2000 with 2008-09. They reveal the figure has risen dramatically, from 789 a decade ago, to 2,578 last year, an increase of 227 per cent."
However, the report goes on, "the research has been disputed by the police, as they compare periods in which crime data was recorded differently".
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) explained to me how it was they who pushed through the 2002 change in recording violence "to better reflect demands made of the police". Acpo knew that "the move would result in more crime being recorded, regardless of underlying trends".
That is why the warning on not making comparisons is so important.
"This caveat is stressed within official crime statistics to ensure that the public have the chance to reach balanced and informed conclusions on matters which are important to individuals and communities."
The architect of the Conservative strategy on crime is the shadow home secretary Chris Grayling, so I asked him about the use of comparative data. Did he think it was reasonable to employ them in this way?
"What else do we use?" Mr Grayling asked me, arguing that the figures were still being used by the Home Office and, therefore, it was legitimate for him to make comparisons across a decade.
He sent me three examples where, he argues, the government itself has compared violence statistics from before and after 2002.
Robberies peaked in 2001/02 at 121,359. The figure for 2007/08 is 30% lower than this peak.
Example 2: The Home Office crime statistics document for 2006/7 includes the line [1.78MB PDF]: "The number of most serious violence against the person offences increased by 21 per cent between 1998/99 to 2006/07, a much smaller rise than that of 111 per cent in other VAP (violence against the person) over the same period".
However, Mr Grayling did not send me the preceding paragraph which includes the warning: "Recorded VAP has more than doubled in the eight years between 1998/99 and 2006/07.
"Nearly one third of this increase occurred between 2001/02 and 2002/03, and much of this can be attributed to increases in recording of violent crime following the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in April 2002."
Example 3: A Home Office crime fact sheet suggests that recorded robbery in 2006/7 was "16% below the 2001/02 peak in robbery" [841KB PDF] although, again, Mr Grayling did not refer to the preceding paragraph which warns that "(t)rends in police figures are affected by changes in recording practices, coverage, public reporting and police activity".
At first sight, it would appear that the Home Office have made comparisons across the change in recording systems when it has suited them to do so - albeit with warnings posted elsewhere in their documents.
They would also argue that figures for the most serious violence are far less affected by the recording change than minor incidents.
There is another argument that Mr Grayling makes. He echoes the view of Mr Duncan Smith who, in his email to me, points out that people in the most deprived neighbourhoods are more reluctant to report violence to pollsters or police.
"Due to a lack of confidence in our largely dysfunctional justice system, there is a lower probability of people reporting crime in very deprived areas, and that within these areas people are also less likely to respond to victimisation surveys - yet we know from research that these communities are most impacted by crime and its contribution to social breakdown."
However, this problem is not new and is, therefore, not going to have a significant effect on the trend data. The only way it can be used to argue that violent crime is rising when BCS data suggests it is falling is if one believes that violence is increasing massively in poor areas but victims in those areas are revealing it less.
That there is more crime out there than either the British Crime Survey or police records identify is to state the obvious.
There are roughly 4.6 million crimes recorded by police in England and Wales each year. The British Crime Survey identifies about 10 million crimes. The Home Office recently suggested the annual number of offences was closer to 60 million crimes. And research for Downing Street in 2000 estimated the number of individual crimes at around 130 million a year.
Lots of violence goes unreported or unidentified - domestic violence and child abuse are common-place but won't necessarily show up in police records or survey data. The question, though, is whether violence is getting better or worse. Many people feel it is getting worse, but the statistical evidence suggests it is getting better.
There are, perhaps, three reasons to regret that the Conservatives are publishing the violent crime comparisons in this way:
• The comparisons are inaccurate
• The misleading figures will unnecessarily alarm people
• It makes it more difficult to identify solutions
Crime figures are notoriously misused by politicians of all flavours. Readers may recall my revelations on the shocking use of knife-crime figures by the government in a so-called "fact sheet" in December 2008 (numbers misrepresented to try and convince people that Home Office action on knives had been effective) despite the National Statistician pleading with ministers not to release the inaccurate data.
The selective use and spinning of crime statistics by politicians over decades helps explain why many people have lost complete faith in the data. Trust will not be restored by an election campaign in which official numbers are routinely abused.
Update 0900, 3 February 2010: Chris Grayling was on the Today programme defending his party's use of violent crime figures.
I'm 
© 2012~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~48~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Dodgy figures used by politicians to bolster their case ? - I'm sorry but I'm now at the stage when I expect nothing else from them.
We seem now to accept any old tat this lot put out, it's all soundbites rather than reasoned discussion on solving an issue for the betterment of us all.
If that sounds hopelessly optimistic then I'm happy to accept that
I expect more from our politicians - and am disappointed when things like this are done
Grayling is distorting the figures to try and suggest that violent attacks have gone up and alarming people - why?
So he can suggest that Labour have failed when in fact it's probably no worse than it was
Pathetic - this keeps up and its 'none of the above' in May
Complain about this comment
In every area of the country there are close strategic partnerships between local authorities and the police. This means they get together locally look at and agree priorities, think about how they can make synergies in resources. Most of the local authorities are run by the tories - if Chris Grayling and the Tories want to criticise the success or failure of the police they need to evidence where and when they have argued with the local policing priorities, otherwise when they criticise policing success they are actually criticising themselves.
Complain about this comment
I dislike the Tories abuse of statistics intensely but I do believe that the massaging of crime figures by Government through changes in police reporting processes and priorities is an abuse that reflects the sorry state the UK is in.
There isn't really much point in comparing anything that comes from "official" sources because so much "fiddling" is and has been going on. Reflect upon the budget cuts that would have been imposed had senior civil servants not "managed" ministerial demands.
I am afraid that the UK population is being sold lie after lie by official sources and that will continue whoever gets into power come June.
Violent crime is up? Who on earth could argue with that if nobody really knows any better? Best ignore the statistics Mark, they are just products of expedience.
Complain about this comment
There is much bleating on this page and others about the BBC being biased. What they the bleaters fail to recognise is that for years now journalists have put the government under intense scrutiny. As an election draws near the BBC quite rightly in my view are now reviewing what the tories are saying. What is so amazing is how quickly the tories policies unwind, with the tiniest amount of pressure. What with David Camerons flip flopping on how to manage the budget crisis, and him and George Osbourne saying different things. All this article does is show what a hopeless performer Chris Grayling is - and we are expected to see him as a prospective Home secretary.
There is every chance of further unravelling as scrutiny increases, on say for example have the tories made a deal with Murdoch to cut up the BBC, and of course the great elephant that will crush Cameron his record on claiming expenses which has not been seriously looked at by commentators yet.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Excellent work, Mark. I assume you will ensure that all your colleagues involved in political reporting for the BBC will be alerted to the "extremely misleading" way in which the Tories are comparing violent crime statistics ?
In particular, I would suggest you ensure Andrew Neil, who is fond of quoting crime statistics in 'The Daily Politics', knows what is going on. He should be aware of the warning printed on recorded crime stats after April 2002 which says that "figures before and after that date are not directly comparable".
Politicians are notorious for their selective use of statistics. But falsely claiming huge increases in violent attacks needlessly creates greater fear of crime in the community. Shameful.
Complain about this comment
Typical Tories
Complain about this comment
Mr Grayling appears to accept that such comparisons are misleading but justified because Labour did it first. I often hear that politicians are as bad as each other - I hadn't realised this was official Tory policy.
Complain about this comment
Who takes any notice over what politicians say about crime and crime figures anyway ? Apart from news reporters, of course. The fact is that self-serving political platitudes and dodgy numbers are irrelevant - it's the real experiences of real people on the ground and their everyday perceptions that matter. And in those circumstances, crime appears to be out of control no matter what any feather-bedded politician says. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
Just had a read of Mark Easton's previous blog, on which many people comment to say that they can't trust statistics and ultimately they feel more at risk from crime. This is ultimately the by-product of exactly what this blog is exposing. I think that two observations here are crucial:
1 - No statistics are ever perfect but it is wrong for people to suggest that they can't trust the raw data. This data is compiled consistently and objectively. When the method of compilation changes, as happened in this case, this is when statistics cannot be compared. What does need greater scrutiny is the spin that politicians put on statistics, as Mark Easton is explaining here.
2 - People need to recognise that there is a direct link between people's perception and fear of crime and the manipulation of these statistics. The political party in opposition will always try and make things out to be worse than they are. That is how they get people to change their vote. The reverse generally applies to the party in power. People's fear of crime is completely disproportionate these days and another significant contributing factor to this is the media's reporting of crime. The statistics (that is the raw statistics, not the politically reported statistics) demonstrate that our children are safer from serious harm on the streets now than they ever have been (this is excluding the risk from traffic related incidents). Who can honestly say that their feeling of safety for their children reflects this.
Sadly, fear sells papers and fear wins votes. The scaremongering of the politicians and the media has led to the creation of a society that seems to live in a perpetual state of fear and complaint. The tories are peddling this now, Labour will likely do the same when they are in opposition. Its a bit depressing.
I would like to see some kind of consensus within parliament whereby any politician using statistics in this way is obliged to run their comments via the producers of those statistics for approval. This would not be a perfect solution (think tanks come up with many surveys and their various political leanings are well known) but it would at least offer a marginally greater degree of transparency.
Lets not kid ourselves that everything is worse now than it used to be. Its a lie that every generation has told themselves for years and it simply isn't true. Some things get worse but, by and large, most things improve. Then brand new challenges present themselves (e.g. the risk of some internet usage to children) and create new problems. Over the years this will also get better.
Life aint all that bad.
Complain about this comment
There are three kinds of lie: Lies, Damned Lies and statistics.
Needs updating, Four kinds of lie: Lies, Damned Lies, statistics and Politicians Statistics.
Whoever takes the blindest bit of notice of government or opposition figures is deluding themselves, they just make me laugh, I credit Estate Agents with more honesty.
Complain about this comment
Quite apart from the quite awful style of this blog post (it is way too long to be effective) I am once again brought to anger that the BBC feels it necessary to put Mark Easton (possibly the most anti Tory BBC journalist alive) in charge of such a sensitive subject.
This blog, and all it's misleading contents, is featured on the BBC homepage. Isn't the Beeb supposed to be impartial in it's reporting? Why are we seeing a daily landslide if vitriol directed at the Tories?
I could go on and on and on about the medium I pay £147 a year to keeping in the lap of luxury, such as the continual absense of any supporting commentary of Tory proposals and a disgraceful lack of Conservative spokesmen on the radio. But that's for another day
Complain about this comment
Factualy they are right in MK in 1999 there were 1790 attacks and in 2008 there were 2758 attacks.
Its not dodge stats, there is no analysis it just states a fact.
But if you using the national crime survey there is a 50% fall in violent crime. Does that mean that in 1999 there were 5516 attacks of which 3726 were unreported or mis-allocated?
Also the Police state that saying an attack very 90minutes is misleading! If thats the case why are there 2758 atacks that the home office classes as violent!
Complain about this comment
I think people used to report crime, but rarely do now because they know nothing will be done.
The one time I did report a theft, a couple of years ago -- as I saw who had done it and could identify them -- I was told a police officer would ring back and give me a crime number; it didn't happen and I didn't pursue it because they've got bigger things to deal with
One important change, in my perception of London in the past 20 years, is aggressive behaviour by teenagers. Dirty looks and mutterings, feet stretched out to trip up the unwary, are a lot more unpleasant than a minor theft, and there's the background hint of possible violence. But who would report this, and how? I can see how old people would become afraid to leave the house.
Another is sexual harassment - again low-level, not actual assault. It seems to be because there are more men around, probably on their own, from cultures in which this is acceptable (not officially but in reality). It's so uncomfortable even to write those words, and know I'll be called racist, that I'm not surprised women don't report it.
Complain about this comment
How thick is Grayling? "These are the official statistics provided by the government" doesn't mean that you can then use those statistics to make arguments that they do not imply.
Complain about this comment
"
Violent crime is up? Who on earth could argue with that if nobody really knows any better? Best ignore the statistics Mark, they are just products of expedience."
I don't think that's how it works: "Violent crime is up by 243.11%"!!! "Prove it." "Prove that it isn't..."
Complain about this comment
As a former prison officer, I have been at the sharp end in witnessing the spin and deception in the presentation of crime statistics. The fact is that I don't buy in to the groupthink of 'crime is coming down' because it was evident to me that so much crime simply isn't being recorded or is being statistically magicked away. The reason why people just don't trust statistics is because their own experience and observations are so at odds with the untruths being peddled by this government.
Frankly your banner to this story on the main BBC website is a disgrace and could have come straight from the Labour Party's PR machine. And before you ask, no I don't belong to any other political party.
Complain about this comment
Thank you for this important work.
My impression is that in order to be able to measure the work that is being done by public services it is essential to have reliable statistics.
It is clear that what has happened in this case is that the statistical systems are still evolving to give us good information about things that we need to know - this is why we have moved over the last parliament from one set of figures to another, measuring different things in different ways.
At a time when trust in politicians is low it is particularly important that statistics are used responsibly. This use of statistical figures which carry an explicit warning that they should not be used comparably is deeply disturbing.
We know that the conservatives have a fixed position. They have adopted the slogan of "Broken Britain" and they are looking for anything which they feel may prove their case.
I think we should be particularly concerned for Conservative party candidates, many of whom will be decent people, trying to be act in a clean and decent way. If they are being fed misleading information in this way then they are tainted. It is not fair to them and it is not fair to the public who want politicans they can trust.
We know that the Conservative party have a great deal of money to spend on PR. It is probably time they also spent some money on employing statisticians who can give them good advice on figures that they can use safely and honestly to back their arguements.
Complain about this comment
Can't say I'm surprised that Chris Grayling is peddling misleading figures to win votes - he is part of the ultra-neocon wing of the Conservatives.
As for the BBC being biaised. Well, of course they are! The BBC is run by human beings who respond in the same way emotionally as other human beings to information they receive. What are these anti-BBC zealots proposing? Robots to run the BBC (they'd probably find it really biaised then)?
Actually it's probably a bit more straightforward than that... they're happy when the Tories get good press all the time and very unhappy when they don't. Very childish.
Complain about this comment
Over the last 10 years i have learnt beyond doubt to never trust statistics.
If anyone is in any doubt as to the levels of violent crime, spend one day in your nearest A&E.
Complain about this comment
Publish the stats for 2001 and compare back to them?
Or is that too logical a think to do?
This government has changed how unemployment, inflation, train punctuality and a lot of other things are measured and reported?
Why because the new measurment improves how they look.
Is this not as big a fraud ast you accuse Grayling of?
Complain about this comment
hmmmm, spot the public sector institution that has been warned of cuts if the Tories get in...
I'm a great supporter of the BBC but it's continuous digs at the conservatives especially by Nick Robinson are becoming a joke. I know one thing. I never want to see a Labour goverment run this country again.
Complain about this comment
Mark, I see you're still lost in this whole nonsensical statistical rhetoric that I've castigated you for so many times in the past.
Crime statistics are meaningless - be they from the government, from opposition, from "independent" sources, or from senior police chiefs.
All you can be sure of is that every single one of these will manipulate the statistical process to fit their own personal requirements. Senior police chiefs demand it because they have government targets to adhere to.
Want to show a reduction in "violent" crime? Spend 12 months arresting people for the crime one stage above what you think has been committed (this is widely practiced in all police forces) - it doesn't matter if the charge is later lowered to something more suitable, because the statistic is collated from the arrest figures.
Then 12 months later, change your area of focus to something else like "drug-related crime" and leave "violent" crime alone. Suddenly, the arrests for "violent" crime all appear less serious because people are charged correctly at arrest, not afterwards. But instead - ooooh, look here! There's been a major increase in "drug-related crime", we'd best get ourselves a committee to discuss how to tackle this problem, let's set a target to get it reduced!
12 months later, focus shifts again, "drug-related crime" statistics fall, government bleats about how their committee has worked and their methods were justified, we will fight this scourge of society, look how well we're doing...etc etc ad nauseum.
If senior police chiefs massage the stats to appease the government pen-pushers, who then massage them to appease their politicians who then use them to form policy - how can you not see that this is all just absolute nonsense at every level?
If you want an accurate picture as to the shifts in trends of crime, causes of crime, levels of crime and so on, there's only one method to use.
Speak to police officers. Not senior management, real police officers, who spend every day out there witnessing crime as it happens, or its' immediate aftermath.
They are the only people who can have any concept of truth when it comes to the levels of crime. Everything else is just hot air and I wish you would finally get your head around this instead of just spouting figures and becoming part of the overall problem.
If you want to do some real journalism, spend one week with a First Response police unit going out to every call they make and then report back what you see. You'll learn more in that one week that you could in a decade sat in an office looking at graphs and figures.
Complain about this comment
The BBC never fail to amaze me, this blog being no exception. I have never seen such a bias towards the Labour party ever. Don't forget guys, there is little or no chance of Labour forming the next government, so no fears there. If, as most peple expect, the Tories will form the next government, perhaps they have threatened a cut in funding.
I can't believe the BBC doesn't realise the probable outcome of the forthcoming election so, it's either the latter of the above two options or, you have leaders who are so lanour biased, it's embarrasing, the blatant way you are anti Tory and pro labour is shameful.
Shame on you BBC
Complain about this comment
It's fascinating to see such veracity for uncovering questionable statistics when it's from the Tories but I don't remember seeing an equal zeal when dissecting the mis-information coming from the United Nations quango on climate change.
Complain about this comment
"This government has changed how unemployment, inflation, train punctuality and a lot of other things are measured and reported?
Why because the new measurment improves how they look.
Is this not as big a fraud ast you accuse Grayling of? "
How does it make the government look better by classing more crimes as violent than under the old system?
The fact is that Grayling has taken one statistic, "A" and compared it to another statistic "B"- each recording different things. The fact that both of these categories have the name "violence against the person" doesn't make the data comparable, because what is classed as "violence against the person" has changed to encompass more reported crime than previously.
Complain about this comment
And this whole "Spend a day with a copper/in A&E and find out for yourselves!" is bonkers in the highest degree- you can't extrapolate from personal experience and apply it to a whole nation. This is so basic that I hope I don't have to explain why.
Complain about this comment
Balanced Thought wrote #4
"In every area of the country there are close strategic partnerships between local authorities and the police."
Indeed there are and I go, not to the strategic one but to the one for my local area in the city where I live where police and local business and residents and the enforcement people from the City Council like licensing, street management, environmental services are present . My first point is that arguing about the statistics is not the point. The issue is what to do about it crime and (mostly) disorder in the locality.
My area has a high incidence of C&D because it has a large retail area and entertainment areas. There are a lot of people there during the a typical week. It therefore contributes disproportionately to the recorded crime statistics for the city. Notwithstanding this we who actually live here see quite a bit of ASB but little crime.
Some crime is the result of individuals or groups repeating offending. A single or a groupin an area like this can send the figures for car crime right up until they are caught... Burglary has similar characteristics. But other crime is more more a matter of chance, as indeed is the distinction been serious injury and "violence against the person" If you are shoved and fall over and hit you head on the wall it may be a minor assault or manslaughter (I have cases in mind).
A better picture of what maybe happening is given by a police sweep type operation directed at 'robbery' over six weeks in one of the 'entertainment areas and nearby streets'
"in response to spike in robbery offences in 'deleted. 15 x Arrests (including 2 Robbery - 2 Burglary - 3 SVC - 1 Vehicle offence - 94 Stop searches - 28 x S27 (Direction to Leave).
8 x lantern checks (a mobile finger printing device which can recognise persons identity) 1 individual gave false details and was arrested after being found to be wanted on warrant."
What is happening here is crime prevention by removing people who have a high potential for crime in what is incidentally a sensitive area. But it is expensive and of course not permanent. And police resources have to be deployed for stopping rival football fans beating each other up (only some of these are paid for by the clubs). But of course it also uses controversial police powers, which libertarians.. (most of my neighbours read the Guardian) might object to if used regularly on a large scale.
However there is no easy way of dealing with chance and opportunist C&D. Residents believe increased visibility of enforcement (not only the police)would help, and (elsewhere in the minutes oof the meeting from which i quoted)) a change of culture in relation to alcohol (which is backed up by action) but would you accept breathalysers at the door?
Involvement in C&D provides specifics for local areas ( I recall one which mapped for Oxford's crime stats for localities in Oxford somewhere but this blog has no tags) and then looking at the what is really happening on the ground and what prevention measures work and how they can be resourced (who should pay!).
So C&D is different in different in different area... typically local authority wards. Different sorts of crimes are committed by regulars or opportunists. Depending on the effect similar events event may be be classified differently. Opportunist or chance events are difficult to control even with strong powers and it costs money.
It would be nice if we all behaved ourselves!
The stats being discussed here tell you nothing about all this.
All that some politicians actions demonstrate is that they literally don't know what it's about, and even fewer (along with their supporters) actually live with the issues.
Complain about this comment
It is not so much that newly collated figures show growth in violent crime, it is more that prevuious figures were significantly under represented.
As a Hospital Doctor, I see things on a daily basis which I take for granted; in the same manner, a Police Officer sees or hears reports of matters which to them are mundane and unworthy of special action.
The point however, is that both of us consider our jobs as a daily routine; to the public however, our daily routine is a massive deal (to them).
Clearly it should absolutely be the public who decide what they will or will not put up with in terms of antisocial and criminal behaviour and not a state employee who sees crimes as a routine part of their job. I suggest therefore that previous figures have been under-reported and that todays methods of counting are far more accurate.
Clearly, the level of crime is totally unacceptable and the Blair government were never "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime". Had they have shown a little less contempt for their voters and the majority of the British public and done something about re-establishing law and order in society, then we would not be having this debate now!!
Complain about this comment
I am afraid the Conservative Party have form over this. All police areas have there own computer systems and used to collect data in a very uncontrolled way. Under Mr Howard's sojourn as Home secretary (a long time ago now) someone noticed that Warwickshire had lower than anticipated crime figures and all police forces were encouraged (I remember being told of the Memo arriving at Hampshire Police and I later identified Dorset police had the same instructions)to capture their data in the same way as Warwickshire. Example: several cars vandalized by one person or group at one time = one crime not several. However if individual charges were brought for several cars = several clear ups. All chief Constables were 'strongly encouraged' to adopt the then Warwickshire methods and mostly they did. Result no alteration in crime, improvement in crime figures, no extra expenditure incurred.
When the Labour party came to power they tried to set crime statistics on a more correct footing. Which is why there were at least two sets of revisions to try and rationalize the figure capture and presentation and why caveats are attached to the data. Improvements have been made though because all the systems work differently and I bet the data capture criteria are different between forces so there is still not good reliability.
Hopefully the reprimand that the Home Office, correctly received, about knife crime statistics it misused, will have improved things in government, but clearly Mr Grayling was buried under a stone at that time.
I have never heard such a poor defence by a politician on any subject. He had no legs to stand on but seemed not to recognize it, perhaps he thought he could fly. No one who heard the interview would want him in charge of anything important. Well done Mr Easton in spotting the issue and taking the perpetrator to task.
I have no long term political allegences and did not vote for the current Government.
Complain about this comment
'24. At 11:24am on 03 Feb 2010, Glenn Johnson wrote:
hmmmm, spot the public sector institution that has been warned of cuts if the Tories get in...
I'm a great supporter of the BBC but it's continuous digs at the conservatives especially by Nick Robinson are becoming a joke. I know one thing. I never want to see a Labour goverment run this country again.'
Interesting, but of course totally wide of the mark. I hardly think that Nick (young Conservative at University) Robinson is doing the Labour Party any favours at the expense of the party you support. And I also know one thing, having survived the last Tory government I never one to see one of those destroy our country again.
Complain about this comment
About A&E. A&E often are part of the network of C&D people, and do research into what are the circumstances which bring cases to them for statistics, and policy. So just being there won't inform you about very much but they know quite a lot about what going on in drug and alcohol abuse and where in many localities
By the way if you get hurt call the paramedics first because their response policies are different to the police.
Beat policing is boring ... because its a preventive measure so going out with them will confirm this.
You can always join either as a volunteer (even toffs can!)
Complain about this comment
Given this misuse of statistics (even though by an opposition party) clearly affects public confidence in official statistics, is the UK Statistics Authority able to comment on this, just as they would do so in cases of government misuse of official statistics?
If not, would this be a reasonable extension to their remit? While it might open the way for charges of partiality against the body, would its status as an independent non-ministerial department provide effective protection against the appearance of bias?
Complain about this comment
#17:
I could go on and on and on about the medium I pay £147 a year to keeping in the lap of luxury, such as the continual absense of any supporting commentary of Tory proposals and a disgraceful lack of Conservative spokesmen on the radio.
===========================================================
The Tories have no coherent proposals and their spokesmen are just embarrassing.
Complain about this comment
Strange thing - perception. In a flat across the road was a woman whose boy friend got two life sentences for armed robbery leading to a murder, whose sister got 5 years for handling drugs, who had frequent callers in large expensive cars followed by a stream of pathetic people and she had 3 children in care. I thought I lived in a violent area. Soon after we moved away she went to prison. Spoke to the people who bought our house (they knew about this woman) about a year later. They said what a safe area they had moved into. The overall figures for crime in the area had not changed at all. Anecdotal evidence is interesting, but no more than that. Why? Because people are more likely to speak up if they feel unsafe than if they are safe.
Complain about this comment
Personally I would not trust any figure given by Labour. They have been found to manipulate figures before. We also have a supposed PM who is a proven liar.
Labour have only themselves to blame!
Complain about this comment
Using such misleading figures is morally repugnant. It tells us all we need to know about all sides operating in politics today.
That the police failed to collect both datasets to create and a credible normalised local variance shows real weaknesses in their understanding of statistics and their application.
Never truer than that there are "lies, damn lies and statistics". Sadly, despite politicians being consistently "caught out" they continue to undermine evidence that does not fit their motivations - shame on them.
Complain about this comment
Despite all the allegations of bias, I think this is the sort of journalism our political culture needs more of - forensic and transparent. Also while the article exposes the abuses made by politicians I don't think it follows that as some commenters are saying that all statistics are meaningless. They are just numbers and as is the case with rhetoric, insults, announcements and other forms of political discourse they must be read critically and put in context in order to understand what is really going on.
Complain about this comment
There are lies, damnable lies and statistics. Labour spin the stats to suit themselves, as do the Opposition. However, the evidence on the streets is that they are less safe (for most) than they were 15 years ago. The big difference is technology which has undoubtedly changed the types of crime committed. For instance, cars are much more thief proof than they used to be, so joy-riding is much less of a problem than it used to be - this is reflected in the crime stats, but the Government can take no credit whatsoever from it, since it was technological innovation which helped, not better policing!
Complain about this comment
I think most people have given up on official statistics for how many times have we seen them used and abused to make someone's political point.
This is just another case not to be taken too seriously.
What we do not see are the statistics showing the way that crime is changing.
Internet fraud om a massive scale internet scams people trafficking and other new forms of crime too numerous to mention which are far more lucrative than the old style theft and burglary.
We may be a little safer in our homes but the threat of being robbed on the internet is very much on the increase.
Complain about this comment
apples and oranges...both contain pips
crime statistics both contain violent crime
i prefer to look at the 2009 figures and think ,forget about the comparison with 2002, ....there is still a hell of a lot of crime......both in colchester and the thames valley.
If the people reporting the crime (ie you and me) thought it was violent and assuming they aren't people suffering from delusions then there must be some truth in the record of the 2009 statistics.
There seems to be more violent crime being reported in the news media including social abuse cases ,knife attacks , shootings and gang warfare so .....
why are we arguing about the 2002 stats when we should be focusing on the rise in violent crime ?
Complain about this comment
All these people who don't believe in statistics amuse me. So how do they make decisions - via the headlines? Peek underneath and understand the data or be manipulated as the ignorant are. "Broken Britain" is just a slogan. Is it true? I don't know, many on this board think things have become worse. I may be in the minority but I think they've become better overall. Perceptions are fine, and necessary, but if we won't work with the data we might as well vote for the party that smells better.
Complain about this comment
#42 - Well said, virtualsilverlady.
Every time Mark blogs on crime figures, I remind him that cyber crime goes largely unrecorded. Indeed, the Govt has ordered us to report such crime to our banks and not to the police. The banks, of course, do not wish to draw attention to their security failings. Do you think Mark ever reads these comments?
Back to the main topic. Well done Mark for reporting this - and well done for including a reference to Labour's misuse of crime stats too (unlike your last week's effort). One can sympathise with, but not excuse, Grayling when he watches the Home Office continue to make these misleading comparisons without the media apparently noticing. BTW, you shouldn't quote the police's response to the Tories' claims as if they are automatically telling the unspun truth. They have a big self-interest in shaping how the stats are perceived.
Now, time to move on. How about a blog on clear-up rate statistics for an interesting change?
Complain about this comment
Mark
-firstly to say I have no political affiliation
-well done on picking up on an important issue before the real campaigning begins
-you would do well to summarise the key points which are
i) both the current government and the Opposition have form for selective use of statistics to try support their case and the public well understands and distrusts them as a result - they can spot point scoring - aside from the latest instance you have reported previously on dubious use of figures on knife crime by the Government (showing a fall that started before their action plan began)and also before that by the Opposition I think (sharp instruments data that were not necessarily knives claim by shadow Home Office minister James Brokenshire). You really should repeat the links to all your blogs on these upfront at the top of every blog on this issue, to make your blog readers understand you are reporting on both sides' abuses.
ii) what matters is whether the Conservatives' leaflets bothered being upfront on policies to address the problems they say are there - and if they are explaining how they will be held to account for success or failure in achieving these - if not and it is simply political point scoring then it does Chris Grayling's credibility no good at all.
Additionally it is interesting that crime statistics are very like unemployment figures were in the 1980s - two sources [survey based ILO and claimant count vs BCS and recorded crime], with the survey source intended to address concerns about the admin data, recording or definitional changes to the admin source and selective choice of source of figures causing scepticism and public distrust and creating opportunities for the Opposition to discredit the government. The solution, as with inflation figures, was for the govt to set the tone by indicating a preferred source/measure and sticking to it which still leaves the opposition able to contest its validity and propose alternatives but moves the debate on from what the figures are to what they mean and what to do as a result - which is what political debate should be about. That is not to say unemployment figures are now perfect nor the debate points-scoring free - but it is no longer so largely dominated by criticisms of the figures. The point of how to get public trust in the figures [hard for any govt] is not so much the detail of the definitions, methods or even who produces the figures, but more about how those in public debate use or abuse them, as understood well by the recently published 'Barriers to Trust in Crime Statistics' report.
Complain about this comment
To summarise this blog - what on earth is the BBC up to, doing the Labour Party's dirty work for it?
The BBC has a Charter which is supposed to guarantee impartiality, yet time and again we see its political bias towards Labour and the left on display.
Complain about this comment
What I would like to see is a telephone survey conducted every two months with 1,000 randomly selected households.
You would need to ask two things only:
- Has anyone in the house been a victim of crime or anti-social behaviour in the last two months?
- Was the matter reported to the police?
Now you may say, 1,000? That's not enough! Well in fact it would be enough to get an accurate picture. The important thing in statistics is not the size of the sample but the randomness of the sample. It's absolutely crucial to select random phone numbers in random post codes. And obviously you shouldn't re-use the same sample every time.
The same survey could be conducted in several countries to produce fair international comparisons. I'd love to see the huge difference between the UK and Singapore for example. Go ahead, BBC, earn your wages and get some credit at last.
Problems with the British Crime Survey:
- not a purely random sample, making results inaccurate
- uses a variety of crime categories, creating a fiddle potential
- yearly study, so hides people who've been victim of multiple offences
Complain about this comment
The method of collecting data was changed in 2002. What I have not seen is a statement of how the figures have changed year by year since that change.
Complain about this comment
A second point. Although victims of the most serious violent crime may not report the attack to the police, they may need to seek medical attention. It should therefore be possible to survey the number of cases treated at A and E departments or by G.P.s (in fact, is this not done anyway?).
Complain about this comment
Violent Crime figures include a category called 'commom assault' which can be less than a minor push of a person during an argument. From around 1998 onwards as a result of a change in the Home Office Counting Rules these incidents started to be recorded by the police but before this period they were not recorded unless there were visible injuries. This meant domestic violence incidents were actually recorded and investigated. Can a BBC researcher PLEASE PLEASE RESearch some of these figures from 1997 around common assault (and section 5 public order) . You will find a massive % increase from around 1997/8. In West Midlands common assault went from approximately a couple of thousand to nearly 20000. This was not because the crimes had not been happening , they had just not been recorded. More burden was subsequently placed on the police but we have dealt with it amongst many other priorities. The headline figures need to be taken apart and look for the explanation which I have provided. BBC please check out the figures on common assault and you will find the answer.
Complain about this comment
I have become increasingly sceptical about the whole TTS ("targets" "tables" and "statistics") merry-go-round. Just like MMR I find the whole TTS bandwagon very tedious and never something that seems to get resolved. Crime performance is just one of many TTS time-waster examples. The figures are meaningless and very resource-hungry to produce.
Why don't we just scrap the whole business of TTS and get on with the job...
Complain about this comment
Great as ever work, Mark. This simplistic fraud has been perpetrated serieally since early 2000s, and fort he most part media outlets have been as confused as the public. So thanks for getting a hold on what is basically a simple problem.
As for damaging public trust in official statistics - the damage seems already to have been done and may be a sign or symptom of a wider malaise, distrust, loss of faith or apathy. The intensely regrettable thing for criminologists is that their work - even the good stuff - is devalued. But the real issue here is less the failure to appreciate good science, and more the loss of faith in criminal statistics (and statistics of many other kinds) wholesale.
Complain about this comment
Grayling and the Tory party by their cavalier attitude to statistical data potentially show themselves to be the "unacceptable face" of politics.
This shows that the Tories like New Labour before them will resort to "sleight of hand" and "spin" rather than the high ground of truth and honesty.
When will the political class understand that it is time to end the pathetic games of half truths and obsfuscation. At a time where a sizeable minority of MPs have been caught fiddling their expenses - gross misconduct in private business by the way - they now keep fiddling with statistics. This too is a betrayal of trust.
Complain about this comment
The BBC present an anti Tory stance as their budget will be cut after the election and they want to present Labour in as positive a light as possible.
The police chiefs don't want the tories to get re-elected because of the excellent plans for elected police chiefs, which will finally hold them to account and allow the local populations to hold them to account. And they will then only get their 'gongs' for results not for toadying up to politicians. Watch the crime figures fall then.
Complain about this comment
Mark Easton:
I am supportive of the ability of the outsiders whom are
complaining about the stats row deepens in the Tory world of the
reality of crime stats.
(Dennis Junior)
Complain about this comment
As a judge and former state attorney (German, not UK) I am amazed about these figures. I also am severely concerned that despite the best efforts of law enforcement the staff is left alone with a nonsenesical system, which can only be frustrating for those trying to make it work.
I tried to have my "partner's" email forensically checked after my stalker hacked into my (German) email account. Everybody in all forces took it seriously because we are talking about aviation security related data as my partner is an airline captain. According to his zip code I was asked to call his local cyber-crime department, only that those weren't the right ones, nor were those in Leicestershire or ... after repeating the issue to 5 willing, competent and lovely officers I asked the German prosecutor to extend the allegations into the UK cyber space and have the file transferred from Germany via Europol to England. So much for a dysfunctional system. Anybody wishing to commit a crime would be wise to move into my partner's house. (S)he will never be caught because the police in question will be stuck in debates whose area it actually is.
I assume this is the reason why in London "no parking zones" were outsourced to private clamping companies that not only clamp outside the designated areas but have websites with non operating emails and phone numbers. In my country we call this highwaymen.
YESS We all want to pay less taxes. We all want less state. But we all want to live in a country bound by the rule of law, were the public safety (including road safety) is enforced by a public body operating to the highest standards.
Now if ever I knew where and how to press criminal charges against Citifield Security Systems for coercion, extortion, criminal property damage and fraud in connection with last week's clamping?
Complain about this comment
Crime, Security and rampant unauthorised-immigration; requires a very wise calculation in the light of global human-right-systems.
Any new parliamentary formation in the united kingdom would have to first of all make the careful "human-right-study-amendments".
Past and present home office ministers have always been halted or slowed-down from the "filteration process" of undesirable immigrants by strong human right laws.
Complain about this comment
Police Force been told not to arrest burglars
Sorry Off-Topic, sorry to bother you, but an answer is needed. If you live in the United Kingdom as your Local MP, Prime Minister, tell the Press, etc…:-
Alphabetical List of Members of Parliament
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
I have tried to get an official answer to this question without any answer.
Why have the Cleveland Police Force, (Teesside, UK), been told not to arrest burglars for a first offence.
Is this done to try to fool people into believing crime is less because crime figures are lower?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ASBO’ Anti-Social Behaviour Order and Acceptable Behaviour Orders
Why are Serious crimes, (such as one example GBH, Grievous bodily harm), been classified as requiring and ASBO. Is this again to fool people into believing the Crime Statistics are true.
I do not blame The Police for this but Government Targets which try to fool people into believing statistics are lower than they really are.
ASBO’ Anti-Social Behaviour Order and Acceptable Behaviour Orders Not Counted towards crime statistics is this being done to reduce these crime statistics and make voters think crime is less than it really is?
I do not blame The Police for this but Government Targets which try to fool people into believing statistics are lower than they really are.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS