Violent Crime doubles under Labour

[JagLover]

Violent crime recorded by police has doubled since 1998.

In 2004-05 there were 1,185,702 offences of violent crime.

The sharpest increase is in injuries caused by low-level thuggery.

Crime as a whole is falling from 5.93 million offences to 2003/04 to 5.56 million.

Given the rise in violent offences it seems that crimes to acquire property are being replaced by crimes committed simply for the sake of it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/21/ncrime21.xml

[tinman0]

the response to this will be to redefine the word "violent" to reduce it in future years.

[nuclearsquash]

some labour bint on the BBC this morning said something along the lines of "well it depends how you define violent, and violent crime that aren't mugging or robbery aren't actually important, so it's not as bad as it looks". I have ad-libbed that slightly, but it was the jist of it!

[mechsympathy]

tinman0 said:

the response to this will be to redefine the word "violent" to reduce it in future years.

The government lackey on the beeb this morning was arguing that very few people actually get hurt (it's just more people are going to the police), so it doesn't matter

[scorp]

tinman0 said:

the response to this will be to redefine the word "violent" to reduce it in future years.

Or move the start date back to get a lower average...

[Eric Mc]

Apparently 80% of violent crimes don't involve any physical violence.

Governments are hoist by their own petard in these circumstances. On the one hand, they want to tell us how dangerous society is so they can push through repressive legislation to "keep us in our places" but, on the other hand, bad statistics reflect badly on their policies.

[titiany]

More benefits = more violent crime. People can afford to go out, get drunk on taxpayers money, and cause havoc.

That's my simplistic theory anyway.

[dilbert]

The solution has already been presented by Bleary Hazel, this morning.

The government are to define alcohol disorder zones. The aim is to be able to single out the problem makers and focus the efforts of the police on them. That's what Blears said.

It's a bit like the "global database of terrorists" initiative. You'd have thought they'd have done it already.

[tinman0]

[quote=dilbert
The government are to define alcohol disorder zones.[/quote]

you mean - like pubs? the bit in front of the bar is a high risk area?

[yertis]

titiany said:

More benefits = more violent crime. People can afford to go out, get drunk on taxpayers money, and cause havoc. That's my simplistic theory anyway.

And it's a very good one - entirely valid. If the "unemployed" were forced to work reparing roads and rebuilding the railways (as they will be when I seize the reins of power) they won't have the energy to get pissed.

Also all TV will be banned so they get outside and tidy up their gardens, the lazy sods.

[Le TVR]

tinman0 said:

the response to this will be to redefine the word "violent" to reduce it in future years.

I expect that "deferred pacifity" will be appearing soon....

[dilbert]

tinman0 said:

[quote=dilbert The government are to define alcohol disorder zones.

you mean - like pubs? the bit in front of the bar is a high risk area?[/quote]

Don't panic matey, I've heard that the government is going to spend 500 mil on a think tank to come up with a design for special sign, and a police partnership.

I believe the idea is to obfuscate the actual alcohol disorder zone, but to tax anyone wishing to fight within it.

[wolves_wanderer]

Isn't it funny how when crime goes up it is becuase more is being reported, but when it goes down it is because of the triumphant policies of the government

[Eric Mc]

In other words, don't believe any of it.

Everyone is peddling their own agendas.