I was looking at the recent Met crime statistics, in particular how those for Sydenham ward (covering only part of SE26 - I live in Forest Hill ward, despite being in Upper Sydenham). See link below:
http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/d ... eriod=year
I have various questions which I hope people can answer:
* Why have drugs offences more than doubled in the last year? This has happened in Lewisham as a whole, but Sydenham has seen a higher than average rise.
* Why have "other notifiable offences" declined so markedly year on year, both across Lewisham and in Sydenham?
* Why has robbery more than doubled in the last 12 months?
Why has "violence against the person" doubled?
* In many categories, crime in Sydenham is about, or above, the Lewisham average. Should we be concerned about this?
Thanks
Crime statistics
-
blue&whitewizard1991
- Posts: 46
- Joined: 23 Jul 2008 18:32
- Location: Lawrie Park Road
Of the several questions that I posed in my original post, which exactly are you saying "yes" to? I was posing these questions as a concerned, law-abiding citizen, so I don't see how your (baseless) assertion that "you have to commit murder to be locked up nowadays" should lead me to to "not worry". Does anyone have anything more enlightening to say?YES.
But do not worry you have to commit murder to be locked up now adays.
-
Robin Orton
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: 9 Sep 2008 07:30
- Location: London SE26
I wonder whether crime levels in an area tend to be positively correlated with the range of the distribution of wealth and other forms of social advantage? I suspect - someone may prove me wrong - that the distribution in Sydenham is wider than in other parts of Lewisham i.e. that we have both lots of poor people and also lots of quite well off people. If so. might that help to explain why some of our crime figures are slightly worse then the Lewisham average?
Robin - with respect, this is a complete misreading of the latest theories of wealth disparity and its effects on crime and "well-being".
Those putting forward this theory (which is frankly totally unbalanced) don't suggest - as you do - some crude "local" link between wealth and social status as a source of crime.
Differences in wealth may have some effect on crime on a national or societal level but no academic is claiming, as you do, that some poor person looking over their fence at their rich next door neighbour suddenly decides to commit to a life of crime.
Crime is highest, not in areas where there is a high disparity between rich and poor but in areas of poverty wherever they are situated. Deptford, where a tiny proportion of the local population is "well-off" (and concentrated in a tiny ghetto) has far higher crime statistics overall than Sydenham. Kirkby in Liverpool has virtually no "wealthy" people at all but startlingly high crime statistics. Look at the maps attached to Thomas's link. They invariably show high crime linked almost directly to poor areas. In many cases the areas of high crime encompass exactly one large council housing estate. Moreover, the poor are generally robbing and hurting each other - not their rich neighbours.
Those putting forward this theory (which is frankly totally unbalanced) don't suggest - as you do - some crude "local" link between wealth and social status as a source of crime.
Differences in wealth may have some effect on crime on a national or societal level but no academic is claiming, as you do, that some poor person looking over their fence at their rich next door neighbour suddenly decides to commit to a life of crime.
Crime is highest, not in areas where there is a high disparity between rich and poor but in areas of poverty wherever they are situated. Deptford, where a tiny proportion of the local population is "well-off" (and concentrated in a tiny ghetto) has far higher crime statistics overall than Sydenham. Kirkby in Liverpool has virtually no "wealthy" people at all but startlingly high crime statistics. Look at the maps attached to Thomas's link. They invariably show high crime linked almost directly to poor areas. In many cases the areas of high crime encompass exactly one large council housing estate. Moreover, the poor are generally robbing and hurting each other - not their rich neighbours.
-
Robin Orton
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: 9 Sep 2008 07:30
- Location: London SE26
I wasn't 'claiming', Nasaroc (or may I call you 'Nasa'?), but 'asking'. But thanks anyway. I realized soon after posting that the hypothesis I was putting forward was probably wrong, for the reasons you give.
Do you have your own theory to explain the figures Thomas has drawn attention to? One wonders how robust the statistics are anyway.
Do you have your own theory to explain the figures Thomas has drawn attention to? One wonders how robust the statistics are anyway.
How do we account for the rise in reported crime figures in Sydenham?
It could be better reporting of the crimes themselves. Many crimes currently go unreported. You only need a couple of slightly more assiduous local police officers or a keen "desk sergeant" at a local police station to make the figures "climb". Or could the presence of extra police officers on our streets in the shape of PCOs have resulted in a better rate of reporting? It would be surprising if this wasn't the case.
Or "rising" crime figures could actually be as a result of the police themselves tackling crime more effectively than before. For example, local police have been very successful over the last 18 months in raiding and shutting down local drug-dealing premises in this area. In doing so, the police will have "thrown the book" at the perpretators, so making drug dealing statistics "rise" sharply (as they have done according to the figures). But could this be a sign more of police being successful in containing drug crime rather a rise in drug crime itself?.
In other words, you need to know the story behind the statistics to make sense of them.
If you are a victim of crime, one crime is too many. Of course we should be concerned. But I think we ought also to bear in mind that according to the reported figures, crime is still comparatively rare in Sydenham. Sydenham West and Sydenham East wards are combined in these figures. So out of the 22,000 inhabitants of Sydenham, last year there were around 400 cases of criminal damage, 130 robberies and 240 cases of violence against the person.
It could be better reporting of the crimes themselves. Many crimes currently go unreported. You only need a couple of slightly more assiduous local police officers or a keen "desk sergeant" at a local police station to make the figures "climb". Or could the presence of extra police officers on our streets in the shape of PCOs have resulted in a better rate of reporting? It would be surprising if this wasn't the case.
Or "rising" crime figures could actually be as a result of the police themselves tackling crime more effectively than before. For example, local police have been very successful over the last 18 months in raiding and shutting down local drug-dealing premises in this area. In doing so, the police will have "thrown the book" at the perpretators, so making drug dealing statistics "rise" sharply (as they have done according to the figures). But could this be a sign more of police being successful in containing drug crime rather a rise in drug crime itself?.
In other words, you need to know the story behind the statistics to make sense of them.
If you are a victim of crime, one crime is too many. Of course we should be concerned. But I think we ought also to bear in mind that according to the reported figures, crime is still comparatively rare in Sydenham. Sydenham West and Sydenham East wards are combined in these figures. So out of the 22,000 inhabitants of Sydenham, last year there were around 400 cases of criminal damage, 130 robberies and 240 cases of violence against the person.
Nasaroc is quite right in that the statistics collected by the police are useful but are only those reported to, accepted and classified by the police. Their policies and passions of the moment will affect these statistics. The assumption is that it will under report 'true' crime.
Many people prefer the British Crime Survey: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs1.html
This uses a different approach - interviewing the public and asking what crime they experienced in the last year. This is not perfect as with changing social attitudes a particular bit of yesterday's banter may be perceived as a 'hate' crime today. It is useful with crimes like rape which some victims may not wish or have difficulty in reporting to the police. There may be a tendency to over report crime in the legal sense.
The two always differ and the differences tell a story. Which is not to rely exclusively on either ...
And one must not forget that our legislators have criminalised a lot more activity.
Admin
Many people prefer the British Crime Survey: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs1.html
This uses a different approach - interviewing the public and asking what crime they experienced in the last year. This is not perfect as with changing social attitudes a particular bit of yesterday's banter may be perceived as a 'hate' crime today. It is useful with crimes like rape which some victims may not wish or have difficulty in reporting to the police. There may be a tendency to over report crime in the legal sense.
The two always differ and the differences tell a story. Which is not to rely exclusively on either ...
And one must not forget that our legislators have criminalised a lot more activity.
Admin
Christ! Barry, I actually agree with you......
Also short term trends tend to say little - unless big spikes (and dips) can be ascribed to large events...
There are lots of problems with crime statistics as they reflect a very complicated social picture. That's not to say they don't have their uses of course.
Also short term trends tend to say little - unless big spikes (and dips) can be ascribed to large events...
There are lots of problems with crime statistics as they reflect a very complicated social picture. That's not to say they don't have their uses of course.
Blimey - I launched this thread in order to stimulate debate and get a better understanding of what is going on locally in terms of crime (which I think is actually quite difficult for a lay person). I wasn't quite expecting to see agreement between Bensonby and Nasaroc!
Nasaroc quite rightly states that "you need to know the story behind the statistics to make sense of them": whilst it's good that the Met do provide such detailed statistics, do they (or anyone else) offer any official explanation of what might be driving their statistics at local area?
Nasaroc quite rightly states that "you need to know the story behind the statistics to make sense of them": whilst it's good that the Met do provide such detailed statistics, do they (or anyone else) offer any official explanation of what might be driving their statistics at local area?
I doubt it, but there's not harm in asking....drop them an email. I'd be interest to see what they say.Thomas wrote: do they (or anyone else) offer any official explanation of what might be driving their statistics at local area?
Thomas wrote:I wasn't quite expecting to see agreement between Bensonby and Nasaroc!
I know! terrible isn't it....I'm off for a stiff drink on the bench outside to make me come to my senses
