http://www.flatearthnews.net/media-falsehoods-and-propaganda/crime ”

Septicisle - that is an interesting set of articles but I don’t see anything in there in particular that actually directly opposes the case Theodore Dalrymple is putting across, other than perhaps reinforcing the libertarian line that if you want a low crime rate without a huge prison population, you need to have some tough sentences AND legalise drugs, allowing their price to come down to be affordable for regular users (a combination of right and left policy).

The crux of the argument is that the left think that in order for prison to be effective, it must reform prisoners. That is not true: while it would be nice if they did, the main purpose of prisons (so far as the right is concerned) is to keep criminals away from the general public and thus prevent re-offending and the spread of criminal behaviour to other impressionable people in society.

If it comes down to a choice between knives and guns, I know which I think is worse.

Is NYC the best comparison for London?

I meant if they have three people robbed in one incident, does that count as one crime or three under NYC stats? I didn’t mean crimes happening outside the city, I meant simply to question what the difference is in measuring crimes.

Yes - the murder rate is higher
The point though is that is has COLLAPSED - by 78% - since 1990.

Eevn though our rate is lower, I assume we whould also like to see it collapse?

So, if NYC can get its (still higher) murder rate to collapse, perhaps they can teach us something about getting our murder rate to collapse?

The interest for me is how these incidents differ in their reporting, is assault and robbery higher in London because there is more of it happening, or because there are more incidents of people complaining/reporting about the same crime which may not happen in NYC? How do the methods differ?

The fact remains that NYC still has around double the number of murders that London suffers, and seeing as that’s what we’re so exercised about at the moment, I still fail to see how it provides any real initiative on how to lower crime here.

It’s the thought of “Well if I do get attacked at least I’ve got a knife”, despite the fact being that they’re unlikely to use it, that makes people feel more secure where they’re scared.

As I said, Matt, I don’t deny there are places with real problems..I don’t think anywhere in Bristol is one of them by the way…but perspective must be retained.

Except that the ‘weapons effect’ has been pretty roundly debunked as a general phenomenon over the years.

The problem with the weapons effect hypothesis was that it was initially identified under artificial laboratory conditions, but numerous subsequent studies have shown that in individuals who lack any history of violent behaviour or and weapons training the instinctive response to a violent situation is to either freeze or run away and not to reach for a weapon, and this becomes more and more marked the closer a test situation approximates a real scenario.

In short, if you’re not prone to violence or trained to deal with violent situations by fighting back then carrying a knife as a self-defence measure in next to useless, because when it comes to the crunch you won’t use it.

For most people, even under conditions of extreme stress or when faced with a serious threat, the best they can manage by way of using a ‘weapon’ is to grab whatever comes to hand and throw it in the hope of scaring off the threat, which is pretty much the same behaviour you’ll see in most primates, but for the more dominant and aggressive males.

“Utter rubbish that you’ve clearly picked up from recent news. Where is the study that shows people carry knives because they want to use them on someone?”

If you want an academic answer I suggest you google a psychological phenomena known as “the weapons effect” which proves, empirically, the common sense notion that proximity to a weapon massively increases the chances of it being used.
Your argument is akin to the “we keep nuclear weapons only as a deterrent and for self defence, everyone else keeps them to attack us” doublespeak of the cold war - at what point does “defence” become “offense”. If no one carried a knife, no one would need to carry a knife. And why are the kids so scared anyway, why do they perceive the streets so dangerous that they need to arm thmselves with an offensive weapon ?
If the streets really are that dangerous, why aren’t the police doing something about it ? Politicians and the left telling us “it’s all ok, don’t worry about, boys will be boys/crime is falling (ha fing ha)” just doesn’t cut it. If they’re not that dangerous then why carry a knife if not with the intention of using it.
If you go to any major european City (and I’ve been to most of them) the biggest social difference is that at night you will see old and young, male and female, families, couples, singles, mates, whatever, out enjoying themselves, that doesn’t happen here, why not ?

London: 31,073 officers
NYC: 37,838 sworn members

Both figures taken from Wikipedia. Proportionately, like for like, this gives NYC 3000 more police than London, given the population figures.

As you say though, Lee, it doesn’t matter whether NYC’s crime rate is higher or lower than London’s - though it does appear to be much lower - it’s the fact that crime has (a) collapsed and (b) actually still falling which is so impressive.

Moving from the facts to anecdotes…until last year I used to travel to NYC frequently for work, approx 50 visits in the past 10 years.
Walk around any part of Manhattan at any time of day or night and you find the police - they are everywhere . Walking on the street. In large groups in the most crowded areas, eg Times Square. Driving around and around every avenue, every street. You really can’t get away from them.

That makes for safer outcomes - as the facts show - and a much safer atmosphere.

The question is how that can be brought down though. By throwing young people in to prison? Young people seem most prone to reoffending, and reoffend more frequently the harsher the punishment against them. Aftercare in this country is a joke for people that have done their time and there is absolutely no priority going on community funding and social projects right now. It’d be interesting to see, other than policing (New York doesn’t really have any more police officers than London does, though I’m not sure how PCSO’s come in to the equation here), what New York has put its money and effort in to doing to solve its problems.

However the chasm is now so wide between the two cities it doesn’t really matter that much!

(1) even if you were correct - how about we try to bring about a similar fall as well?

(2) oh - have you actually looked at the stats?

Total NYC crimes against the person reported in 2007: 40,868
Total NYC crimes: 120,944
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cscity.pdf

Total London crimes against the person 12m to March 2008: 218,509
Total London crimes: 862,032
http://www.met.police.uk/crimestatistics/2008/2008_yend.htm
(need to click offences tab at bottom of page)

New York is now a far far safer city than London.

If anyone wanted to criticise Cameron’s speech, they could start here.

These are categories that DON’T EXIST. People can harp on about knife-crime rises or obesity or whatever - ‘good/bad’ and ‘right/wrong’ doesn’t really have anything to do with that. Situations are never simply about the one or the other - unfortunately, life and people are more complex than that! Cameron’s just trying to get people scared and stirred up in a rather simplistic fashion.

As far as I see it, his speech is doing several things, for several groups of people:

- for the plebeians, it is reeling off a long list of things that inspire fear and/or disgust to feed their emotions and win them over (’look at me, I am so in touch with you. I know what’s going on on the ground, I’m not an Old Etonian. Honest!’)

It also seems to be a criticism of past Tory behaviour to make people feel like he’s ‘learned from their mistakes’ and presumably also to strengthen his projection of himself as their New Hope, who will bring about change.

THEN

he brings in all the absolutist categories as a way of subtly reassuring the more overtly right-wing Tories that don’t worry, he’s not going to change THAT much! New man with some old ideas, that’s all!

I bet that somebody somewhere will tie ‘moral neutrality’ to ‘political correctness’ at some point. How soon will that be, I wonder?

By the sounds of it, Dave’s major crime is multi-tasking. He’s trying to please everyone, comme d’habitude. Ironic really, because that tends to make you look weak, and he’s going for the ’strong political father’ image, what with his wanton application of moral categories to err, just about everything.

However much people insist that crime is rising or disorder is rising continuously, the BCS, which despite its flaws is the best measure we have, says that the potential of becoming a victim of crime is at its lowest since the early 1980s when the survey started. It’s true that we have distinct problems in distinct areas, and it may well take action that some of us who consider ourselves liberal or left-wing object to to sort that out, but going for a one-size fits all solution akin to New York is not going to work except giving a warm fuzzy feeling to those who have demanded it from the beginning.

Incidentally, Nick Davies wrote a long series of articles a few years back who also saw the futility of the criminal justice system, but from the other point of view which you might find interesting and a counter-weight to a land fit for criminals, the arguments for which I certainly have looked into in the past:

http://www.flatearthnews.net/media-falsehoods-and-propaganda/crime

“Want to have a q”

should read “Want to have a quick fix, shave the population levels out of the cities, redistribute the population and see crime fall because the chance of conflict falls. Crime is about many more things in society that how much discipline people have”

Didn’t say that, read what I said. I simply believe it is completely irresponsible to make claims and to peddle stories without actually being able to back it up. I’m happy to admit kids are significantly more unruly than they would be without the corporal punishment regimes of the past if someone can actually show me a study that says that’s the case. Otherwise it’s just your usual Daily Mail tripe harping on about yobs.

“It never got that far because boys were disciplined by their fathers at home and by their teachers at school.”

This is all supposition, show me the proof that this is more than rose tinted glasses. I for one will simply say this. Mods and Rockers.

“In the streets, preventative policing and foot-patrols meant that delinquents were caught and often stopped at the “breaking-windows stage”.”

Heh, yep, there was a bobby on every street corner and boys froze at the sound of their whistle. That’s exactly how it was, yep, no crime whatsoever and no delinquency because Britain was a much more ordered and cultured place back then.

“And so the poor and the old will remain in their living torment, imprisoned in their houses after dark because we’re just too bloody civilised.”

I’ve said it before, people “imprisoned” in their own homes are only imprisoned by their own minds. Most youths out on the streets are just being youths. It harks back a few months to this mosquito bullshit where people honestly believe every group of kids is a violent bunch of thugs waiting to kill poor defenceless pensioners. It’s a fallacy, and one that needs challenging.

“The fact is Lee, crime and disorder are unbearably high for a large section of the population. It may now have stabilised somewhat but it may also continue along its long-term trend and reach a higher pinnacle.”

What trend? Aside from the statistics conveniently changing so we can’t accurately compare crime figures from one decade to the next, I’ve argued many times before that crime is pushed up by perfectly normal factors. I’m not saying it’s right, but the higher population densities mean that higher chance of conflict arises and thus higher levels of crime. Want to have a q

You’re very good at reiterating the heart and soul of the pathetic tabloid articles that have been printed over the last few years, you should get some sponsorship from the Sun or something.

Personally I don’t think New York City is a good model for how our police should operate but in any case your stats on NY show there’s been a sharp turnaround so I can’t really understand your position.

Dalrymple was an inner-city and prison doctor for many years so you should try and articulate a rebbutal before you say he’s full of crap. Here’s one good essay from him about left-wingers in denial of which you seem to be a fine example:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_4_oh_to_be.html

And read the actual book if you can. It’s based on 20 years of research. If you read it you would change your’e mind, I’m sure.

“Better that they, the right-thinking, should feel pleased with their own rectitude and broadmindedness, than that millions should be freed of their fear of robbery and violence, as in crime-ridden, pre-Giuliani New York.”

This would of course be the same obviously crime-free New York which has crime levels broadly comparable to that of London, but which has roughly the same number of murders as happen in this entire country in a year:

http://www.septicisle.info/2007/03/scum-watch-knife-crime-sun-has-solution.html
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm
http://www.met.police.uk/crimestatistics/tables/financialyear20042005.htm