I’m not sure if you got the chance to catch either the 6 o’clock or 10 o’clock BBC News bulletins, but in his speech made yesterday Cameron made a claim that under Labour “We have had rising violent crime” – the BBC reporter pointed out that this was actually false and questioned Cameron on it, yet he failed to concede he was wrong. The BBC followed this by this graph which was shown on the screen:
Source: British Crime Survey 2008/09
As was clearly explained by the BBC, the trend in violent crime has been down over the past 15 years, pointing out its almost down by 50% since its 1995 peak – I think it would be hard for even the most strident Conservative supporter to not think Cameron came across anything other than very foolish from this episode. So instead of fuelling the fear of crime which The Daily Mail and The Daily Express do so well, Cameron as a person of great responsibility should shy away from making such fictitious claims – especially when they are so easily refuted.
More of my thoughts on this subject here: David Cameron was wrong on ‘broken Britain’, and he’s wrong on the ’social recession’.
Update:
Mark Easton has now blogged on the original film clip I based this post on, he goes into greater detail than I do and cites an official CCHQ email claiming “violent crime up nearly 70% Labour” despite this being a total misrepresentation. Its clear Cameron and the Conservatives should know better than to fiddle official figures to make them suit their rhetoric, especially when fear of crime is already a massive issue.
Thanks to @tscholesfogg on twitter for the link.
Tags: BBC, British Crime Survey, Broken Britain, Crime, David Cameron, Tories, Violent Crime
January 23, 2010 at 16:34 |
It depends what we’re talking about.
I’m among those that view the BCS figures are more useful than the Home Office’s “recorded crime” figures (especially as the latter are subject to bias and perverse incentives on the part of recorders), but the BCS is far from perfect. Notably, it fails to capture figures for offences against under 16s, and has an inbuilt sampling bias against repeat victimisation, and there are also issues with recording of certain types of offences (e.g. domestic violence) and victims (e.g. illegals, non-english speakers). Steps are being taken to deal with this (starting specific data gathering among 10-15 year olds in 2009, for example).
But the way this claim has been covered is disappointing – the same media outlets that are now trumpeting the BCS figures in order to criticise Cameron routinely fail to explain the distinction between BCS and Home Office numbers, or report one data set in isolation (in order to fit narratives about rising or falling crime).
Reading Cameron’s speech reveals a much broader focus – he reached all the way back to Bulger, and invoked a number of intervening cases, arguing that there is a need to ask “What went wrong?” when such tragedies happen.
Given the reports today that the parents of the two brothers in the Doncaster case face prosecution themselves, it’s difficult to argue with Cameron’s central argument that this case was a failure of responsibility – specifically parental responsibility.
January 23, 2010 at 18:09 |
Many of the bias’s you talk about have been there since it started recording figures, so although you raise important issues whereby the figures may not be wholly representative – we must remember that, for example domestic violence isn’t new and it could even be argued that we as a society are more open about it now then in the past.
You also suggest that the media should “report one data set in isolation” – surely you must see that this notion is ridiculous, it makes far more sense to look at the trend in crime figures as opposed to a snap shot year on year. Furthermore, if we do indeed take a snap shot to try and support Cameron’s ‘narrative about rising crime’ – both the BCS figures and police recorded crime statistics would still contradict said narrative – so I fail to see what point you were trying to make?
On the issue of the Doncaster case, for every Venables/Thompson or Mary Bell there are many, many more cases whereby the local authorities do step in effectively to prevent such an horrific crime from occurring. Its unfortunate that occasionally a case slips through, we only hear about crimes of children killing children because they are so rare.
Also, as pointed out by Quietzapple, the parents of the Doncaster boys were married so the empathise Cameron is putting on marriage to solve such crimes clearly falls apart. The point of the blog was to point out that Cameron was made to look foolish, and rightly so!
January 23, 2010 at 19:03 |
Your comment on Twitter was that I’d missed the point of your post, but I’d have to make the same criticism of your response to my comment.
As regards flaws in BCS’ methodology, simply saying that the flaws are constant isn’t enough. Two hypotheses I’d advance: shifts in types of crimes, rather than reductions in crime per say, will not be captured (as an example, consider men committing acts of domestic violence today, who ten or 15 years ago were engaging in violence outside the home); and changes in the population of offendors or victims will be masked (a downward shift in the age at which people are offending or being victimised would be masked if this moves below the age of 16.
You’ve misread my comment on reporting. I said “But the way this claim has been covered is disappointing – the same media outlets that are now trumpeting the BCS figures in order to criticise Cameron routinely…report one data set in isolation (in order to fit narratives about rising or falling crime).” Apologies if I failed to make the sentiment clear.
I’m struggling to understand why people who argue that the Doncaster case (or my example of the Bulger case, or your example of Mary Bell) is a rare event fail to see that such events represent an extreme on a continuum of family environments/parenting. These cases are rare, they are extreme, but they are not exceptional in the true sense.
As for the emphasis on marriage, I’m not convinced that marriage is a major factor, and I don’t back recognition of it in the tax system (although principally because I don’t think the state should give *any* specific recognition of marriage – or civil partnership). That aspect was unmentioned in your original piece (although Cameron certainly made play of it in the speech he gave).
January 23, 2010 at 17:30 |
Conservatives twisted and manipulated the crime statistics to such a ludicrous extent that Michael Dracul Howard has wildly claimed to have been an effective Home Secretary and More!
Notable that the Doncaster parents were married.
And neither his fellow Bullingdon & former Media Baron Bumblebore nor his Maths Expert Carol Vorderman gained a sufficient class in their degree to receive state sup[port in becoming a teacher.
Poor Chameleon! His maw hungers for his feet it seems!
March 9, 2010 at 10:27 |
These things always come back to bite you. Your twisting and slavish left wing interpretation of known facts on crime and social inclusion et al will always come back to haunt you.Violent crime has rocketed by 44 per cent under Labour, official Parliamentary research revealed last night.
The House of Commons Library report is the definitive independent verdict on the 13-year record of the Government.
It states that violent-crime has risen 44% over the 13-years Labour rule, but government ministers insist it is DOWN – King Canute comes to mind.
January 20, 2011 at 18:24 |
[...] Cooper, B, (2010), David Cameron made to look very foolish over his claim violent crime is rising, [online], Liberal Twitter Hound website, available at http://bencooper86.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/bbc-news-made-david-cameron-look-very-foolish-over-his-c… [...]
December 23, 2011 at 19:07 |
Data Transformation
Very interesting details you have observed , appreciate it for posting Data Transformation