1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

An Article about homicides in Britain

Discussion in 'Legal' started by MicroBalrog, Jun 20, 2003.

  1. MicroBalrog

    MicroBalrog member

    Dateline: 3rd December 1996 - Author: Johnny

    According to figures used by the UK Government Research Development and Statistics Directorate in its submission to the Cullen Inquiry, Scotland has twice the homicide rate of England and Wales (16.3 vs. 6.7 in Table A.2 of Annex G to the Home Office submission to the Cullen Inquiry).

    At first this seems astonishing, and surely should lead to questions in Parliament and an investigation as to why one area of the UK should have such a different rate than the other. After all, we sent the Army to Northern Ireland. Don't worry though if you live in Scotland, you can relax - the homicide figures are "adjusted". Like most other UK Government statistics, they are at best a ball-park figure on a good day and with a following wind. Here's why...

    After the suspension of the death penalty for murder in 1965, the homicide rate in the UK continued to rise, and rise quite sharply. Serendipitously enough, it was soon after that when the Home Office decided to start adjusting the homicide figures for England and Wales... Previously, the headline statistics for homicide were those compiled from police submissions according to their initial inquiries. When the Coroner's court sits, some deaths previously tagged homicide will be recorded as something else, such as suicide or manslaughter, according to further evidence or the result of court actions against persons. After the adjustment regime was instituted, the homicide figures were revised according to these judgments - i.e. downwards. This had not happened prior to 1965, and so the homicide figures prior to 1965 will be artificially inflated compared to those post-1965 (and the method of recording had previously been altered in 1959, rendering 1959-65 figures non-comparable with pre-1959).

    Scotland of course has a completely different legal system to England and Wales and a totally different system of recording crime (and definition of homicide), so its figures simply cannot be compared with those of England and Wales. Likewise, it's ridiculous to compare the England and Wales figures with those of the USA, since the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics inflate homicide figures by recording any death that isn't clearly natural causes, suicide or "act of god" as a homicide (including of course, justifiable homicide).

    The classic comparison is that of USA and Japan, where Japan's homicide rate is tiny in comparison to the USA. However, if you combine the deaths due to suicide with the deaths due to homicide the mortality figures for the USA and Japan become the same owing to Japan's extremely high suicide rate. This demonstrates a statistical artifact caused by differential categorisation in superficially identical data-sampling methodologies (and it's such a common basic flaw in disparate data-sets that errors of analysis caused by this are invariably deliberate rather than incompetence). In Japan, what in America would be called a "murder-suicide" is listed as "suicide." The commonest scenario is that of when a despairing husband/father takes his own life and also kills his wife and children (presumably having concluded since life is too terrible for him it must also be such for his loved ones). The Japanese would record all the deaths as "suicide" whilst the Americans would record one "suicide" plus x number of "murder" victims. It's a sad fact that if you become a victim of homicide you are most likely to be murdered (or suicided depending where you live) by a relative or close friend.

    Indeed, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Governments certainly know about propaganda. Particularly the British Government. Hitler was so enthused about British propaganda techniques he apportioned a large part of "Mein Kampf" to eulogising them. They're still doing him proud today.


    John Pate is THE MAN!
  2. agricola

    agricola New Member

    roflmao - even for the usual claptrap this is rather easy to challenge.

    actually a comparison is quite easy to make, since the Home Office statistics for homcides contain all the relevant data:


    obvious suicides are recorded as suicides (and never make it into the statistics), homicides that later turn out to not be are recorded separately, as table 4.1 shows. Homicides include manslaughter and infanticide as well as murders.
  3. Orthonym

    Orthonym New Member

    Lies, damned lies, statistics, and anti-gun statistics. As Mr. Clemens said about something else, "This is un-American. It is un-English. It is completely irregular. It is, in fact, FRENCH!"
  4. agricola

    agricola New Member

    its hardly anti-gun statistics, unless you count this desperate attempt to discredit the difference between the murder rate of the US and England and Wales as "pro-gun" and its abject failure to withstand even cursory inspection as "anti-gun"
  5. Orthonym

    Orthonym New Member

    Sorry, Agricola,

    I think I hit myself on the knee with that little rubber hammer.:eek:
  6. rrader

    rrader member


    You have missed the point here completely.

    Do the statistics quoted in the article happen to indicate anything about a massive increase in violent crime and in gun crime in the UK over the past 5 years? Do they hint at any correlation between that massive increase and the actions of the low and retrograde legal system in the UK in denying law abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves against armed thugs?
  7. agricola

    agricola New Member


    youre playing catchup here. in summary (read the TFL threads on the UK for the detail):

    * there is no link between the 1997 Ban and a rise in violent crime - since the early 1950s there has been no issue of firearms licences for self defence. for that theory (i wont call it "your theory" because you are parrotting it) to work you would have to have had firearms held for self defence before that and a removal of these arms after the ban. that was not the case, clearly.

    * the rise in firearms crime is also paralleled by a similar rise at the start of the 1990's in the same type of offences. the reason for that rise is not clear (one suspects its linked to an economic downturn though it could equally be linked to the start of disputes over control of new drug markets) but it is not parallelled by any ban.

    * the "rise" in gun crime is more likely attributed to a change in the counting rules carried out by the home office between 1997 and 1998. this is shown by comparisons between the most affected categories pre- and post-ban.

    * separate rises in "street crime" date from 2000-1 and 2001-2 and not from 1997 or 1997-8. these rises were attributed to a massive and tempoary shift in Police from suburban patrolling (especially in London) to anti-terrorist duties. these are ongoing, albeit at a much reduced level, and the numbers of street crimes reported has fallen, in some cases on an individual borough by 43-50%.
  8. seeker_two

    seeker_two New Member

    rrader: You really are playing catch-up here...

    agricola & his "statistics" have been thoroughly discredited on this forum before. And, like the MMM's, he still sticks to them.

    Just wanted you to know...
  9. MicroBalrog

    MicroBalrog member

    Two words for you, agricola: Colin Greenwood.:D
  10. agricola

    agricola New Member

    the same Colin Greenwood that said the bans have had no effect on gun crime?

    seeker: where have those statistics been discredited? aside from "well, the home office lies (or so i have been told) therefore they MUST be wrong"

    from Greenwood:

    "The British Government seeks to make the most of the confusion caused by its change of statistical recording methods claiming that the ban on handguns may have had some small effect. Some commentators have claimed. that the use of handguns in crime has increased by some staggering amount from the moment that handguns were banned. Neither claim is true. The ban on handguns has been a total irrelevance and underlying crime trends have continued unchanged now that only outlaws have guns."

  11. Ledbetter

    Ledbetter New Member

    Missing the point

    "Now that only outlaws have guns."

    You see, that's a bad thing. Really. There's no legitimate social purpose behind that public policy. All it does is make the subjects dependent on an ever-less-capable government to protect them.

    Might as well add that only outlaws employ lethal self-defense. Jailed anyone for defending his home yet Ag? Looking forward to it?

  12. rrader

    rrader member


    Yes I have seen, LOL.

    It's kind of sad and really beyond the point of being worth responding to.

    Anyone with an internet connection can access the UK Home Office's website and examine the crime statistics and trace the appalling increase in violent crime of all types over the past 6+ years.

    And these are the Labor Governments OWN statistics.

    The UK started to slide the minute Maggie walked the plank.
  13. agricola

    agricola New Member


    lets see them then. your contention is that post 1997 the crime rate for violent crime has span out of control - which is not supported by the facts, which is why you havent provided them. or do you think Colin Greenwood is wrong?

    here is the website you need to access criminal statistics:

  14. rrader

    rrader member


    I had the HO's URL already as I indicated in my previous post. I hesitate to respond to your post, as you won't admit the truth and most people here therefore automatically discount what you have to say, but in any event here's one example from the HO's webpage:

    Table 6.05 Robbery Offences

    Year..... Number
    1991..... 45,323
    1992..... 52,894
    1993..... 57,845
    1994..... 60,007
    1995..... 68,074
    1996..... 74,035
    1997..... 63,072
    1998..... 62,652
    1999..... 66,172
    2000..... 66,835
    2001..... 95,154
    2002..... 121,375

    There were of course reporting changes made in '98-'99 and '99-2000 which had the effect of inflating the numbers by somewhere between 1-3% as explained elsewhere in the HO's webpage.

    The percentage change from 2001-2002 is +28%

    To Americans, who thankfully have become used to sharply falling levels of crime in recent years, a 28% increase in a serious crime such as robbery over the course of one year is appalling.

    The HO's website shows similar increases in other catagories of serious crime, including a tripling of the number of offenses committed with handguns since 1991.

    Gun confiscation in the UK after Dunblane (Sp?) contributed to these increases in my opinion. And even if not, the rendering of the law abiding citizens of the UK defenseless in the face of these skyrocketing levels of crime is a violation of basic human rights.

    Any legal system which would render it's citizens defenseless under these circumstances is a low and retrograde system of laws worthy only of contempt.

    Other aspects of the UK are admirable of course, it's not all bad.
  15. Thumper

    Thumper New Member

    But rrader, it's because of the cellphones, din'cha know?
  16. rrader

    rrader member


    Cell Phones... L:D M:D A:D O:D!
  17. agricola

    agricola New Member


    nice try - but there were no handguns held for self-defence before 1997, and those that were legally held and could have been used would more likely have affected the burglary statistics rather than robbery. for your theory to work, the stats would have to skyrocket from 1997, which they dont; therefore there must be an alternative cause (or causes) for the rise. Put simply, your theory is wrong.

    thumper's ignorance of the problem tries to disguise an important fact. almost 50% of robberies and theft-snatch offences now involve the sole theft of a mobile phone - the situation is getting better now, but the security of handsets was appalling and they were easily sold on or retained by the perps with little chance of recovery.

    mass ownership of mobile phones has provided a surge in crime of that kind, but i guess that is beyond some peoples comprehension.
  18. Sergeant Bob

    Sergeant Bob New Member

    Why don't they just ban cellphones!! Crime problems solved!!;)
  19. Mk VII

    Mk VII New Member

    American contributors to these often bad-tempered discussions are anxious to prove that 'Gun control hasn't worked, therefore it should be abandoned'. The response of most politicians and police here would normally be 'Gun control hasn't worked, therefore what we need is more of it'. The strategy of British gun owners is, therefore, to point out that legal guns (and their owners) were and are quite irrelevant to the recent increases in gun crime. Gun control advocates, when taxed with the view that the pistol ban has not reduced crime, reply, 'Well, we never thought it would. That wasn't the point of it.' This wasn't what they said at the time of course. ACPO's submission to the Cullen Enquiry said [I am paraphrasing from memory somewhat] 'we cannot identify any changes to the current system of firearms control that would achieve any significant increase in public safety. Practically everything in the way of tweaking the system that could be done has already been tried. Since doing nothing is not an option politically then a complete ban it will have to be.'
    As probably the only one around here who did actually own several pistols and was on the club scene at the time I can state with confidence that pistol ownership never was any significant deterrent to crime as virtually no criminals ever reckoned they might be confronted by an armed victim in the first place. Self-defence was not a subject which was much, if ever, discussed around the table. If you were meeting your legal obligations you would have gun and ammo locked up and inaccessible in separate locations so you would have no chance of getting to it in any useful timescale anyway. On journeys to and from the club I never carried the gun loaded -partly because most of them were unsuited to concealed carry and I would have had to buy multiple holsters, but mostly because I never rated the risk sufficiently high to be worth worrying about. I might occasionally have a speedloader in the pocket, if I could be bothered.
  20. rrader

    rrader member


    The statistice I quoted are for robbery of the person, homes, and business, i.e., for cases where force or the threat of force was used against the individual. The statistics don't include simple theft if that is what you were implying.

    As for cell phones, the statistics indicate only that cell phones were taken along with other property and cash in 2/5ths of these robberies. The huge increase in robberies can't be accounted for by a rash of snatch-and-grab thefts of cell phones from teenagers waiting for a school bus.

    In fact it appears weapons were brandished and victims injured in around 1/3 of these robberies.

    The post-Dunblane mania for victim disarmament in the UK is a contributing factor in this rise in crime. The absence of handguns carried by civilians obviates an important deterrant to crime of all types. No other weapon is as uniquely suited to the defense of the individual.

    From the BBC 1/14/2003


    Overall crime: 9.3%
    Gun crime: 35%
    Robbery: 14.5%
    Domestic burglary: 7.9%
    Drug offences: 12.3%
    Sexual offences: 18.2%
    Source: Home Office

    "Gun crime has risen by 35% in a year, new Home Office figures show.

    There were 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 - a rise from 7,362 over the previous year.

    That represents an average of 27 offences involving firearms every day in England and Wales, with guns fired in nearly a quarter of cases.

    Overall crime in the year to September was up 9.3%, with domestic burglary up 7.9%, drugs offences up 12.3% and sex offences up 18.2%.

    The statistics come after the government this week announced a crackdown on gun crime with a series of plans to tighten firearms law.

    The latest gun crime figures are more than double the 4,903 firearms incidents recorded in 1997 when Labour first took power

    The biggest increases are in the large metropolitan areas.

    Robbery was up 13% on the adjusted figures

    The biggest increases are in the large metropolitan areas.

    That was followed on Wednesday by plans to ban anyone carrying a replica or air weapon in a public place without a good reason, as well as new age limits.

    Opposition parties have accused ministers of mounting a snap response to the New Year shooting in Birmingham in which two teenage girls died.

    There are worries about replica guns being reactivated

    Conservative shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin dubbed the new recorded crime figures "truly terrible".

    Mr Letwin said: "The only word for this is failure.

    "The government's response of knee-jerk reactions and initiatives is not working and confused signals on sentences for burglary will not help either."

    Speaking on Radio Five Live, Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith said some inner city areas were almost "lawless" following the growth of a gangs and guns culture."

Share This Page