Slashdot Mirror

heres the actual home office press release:
http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/government-prevent-youth-crime

This used to be true, however in the last couple of years the treaty has been fully ratified by the US such the the extradition conditions are now the same for both the US and the UK. See http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/UKUS-extradition-traety for details

London's crime rate hasn't gone down with the many cameras they have.

Yes it has.

http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/

More widely, crime in the UK has dropped by more than 40% in the last decade according to the British Crime Survey. And detection rate for those crimes that have happened are well up.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708.pdf

Also, this study: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors292.pdf from the Home Office says you're full of shit. Page six, last sentence of the first paragraph, four million CCTV cameras.

If you do not, and you maintain that you can't compare the statistics, then there's no way you can say crimes are higher in the US either.

I don't think I ever claimed that crimes are higher in the US.

There is an objective reality. There are a certain number of crimes that occur in both countries each year. One country is more crime ridden than the other, even if only by a fraction of a percent. You assert we can't tell the difference.

No. I assert that we can't tell the difference from those sets of figures.

Again, if you can find a different report that you find suitable for comparison from either country, please post it and I'll read it. We can then discuss it.

Tell you what, why don't you start at the UK Stats Office:http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/crime-justice/crime/crime-trends/index.html. They explain when recorded crime is a better measure, and when a crime survey is better. If you look at the trend graphs, you can immediately see that in 2007/8 BCS reported 10 million incidents, while Police figures show only 5 million recorded crimes. Surveys report more crimes than police record. Or look at the Home Office report for 2007/8: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708.pdf. Burglaries 300,000 according to police, 800,000 according to the survey. Measuring different things in different ways.

You ask in another post "If you are unwilling to consider why methods are picked, what implications those methods have, and what institutional goals are supported by those methods and implications, then you are the essentially the most likely to be bullshitted by statistics.". I suggest that this comment applies very well to the OP who tried to compare US recorded crime figures with UK victim survey figures. And to anyone who gullibly believed the comparison actually meant anything.

So I take it you have burglaries all sorted in the US?

Comparatively speaking, Yes.
FBI Crime Statistics

Home Office Crime Report for 2005/2006

Take a look at page 115 of the home office report. Chapter 7.4.
Let's use the Rural numbers, just for fun. They're lower.

Percentage victims once or more
All burglary: 2%
All Vehicle Theft: 4%
All Violence: 2%

Now compare it to the United States FBI report:
2005, violent crime rate: 469.2 per 100,000 people (equivalent to less than or equal to 0.462%, per UK standards)
Burglary: 726.7 per 100,000 (equivalent or = 0.7267 %)
Motor Vehicle Theft: 416.7 per 100,000 ( = 0.4167%)

Notice also that the FBI counts discrete events of crimes, where as the Home Office will only count you once if you get robbed, beat up, or stolen from multiple times per year. In essence, the Home Office method is a clear attempt to reduce crime statistics by any defendable method.

You are at least 4 times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in the UK.
You are at about ten times more likely to have your car stolen in the UK.
You are about three times more likely to have your home robbed in the UK.

I invite you to poke around the official numbers for both the US and the UK and make a counter argument.

My argument is this: Offering violence to criminals reduces their numbers.

It's true. U.S. prison population dwarfs that of other nations

For references, from wikipedia: The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world at 737 persons imprisoned per 100,000 (as of 2005).[16] A report released Feb. 28, 2008 indicates that in the United States more than 1 in 100 adults is now confined in an American jail or prison.[9] The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population.[6]

Christ. Ever heard of the IRA? They're a recognized terror group residing within the UK.

Knee-jerk idiocy?

OK, I didn't RTFA and didn't know that the blacklist wasn't government run. Yet. I have no problem believing that the government don't freakin love it, and will probably soon make it goverment run/a legal requirement.

Anyway, what I personally find more scary is biometric ID cards (homeoffice.gov), biometric passports (ips.gov.uk), and the latest ISP snooping law (bbc.co.uk) to name a few, all coupled with numerous unpunished breaches in data security (google.com)

All in the name of stopping "the terrorists". It might give you a fuzzy warm feeling, after all, you have nothing to hide, right?

ALTHOUGH THERE IS A LACK OF UNIFORM DATA, RESEARCH INDICATES THAT WHILE IMPROVED STREET LIGHTING DOES NOT RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN CRIME, PARTICULARLY IF CRIME DISPLACEMENT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, IT DOES SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE FEAR OF CRIME. IT IS FURTHER CONCLUDED THAT A DEFINITIVE STATEMENT CANNOT BE MADE ABOUT THE IMPACT OF STREET LIGHTING ON CRIME

Other studies have demonstrating that removing lights (e.g. from schools ad night) reduce the incidence of certain crimes, particularly vandalism, "Hey lefty, I can't see where me spraypaint is going." "you painted me you gob****". So why did we populate our cities with these glare prone lights which at worst help criminals hide in shadows and glare and at best do nothing? Why do we call the halogen/mercury lights hanging from houses and barns "security lights?" Someone once proposed that the utility companies have excess load at night and wast lights help balance their load.

But the real reason is that "feeling safer" is what homeland security is all about. Just like "feeling wealthy" works well in a keynsian based fiat currency system.

-- I must be old, I remember when reality had a bit more reality in it.

The RIPA act http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa/ makes it an offence to NOT disclose passwords when required, by the law enforcement agencies of this country. Non disclosure is punishable by up two years imprisonment!

These columns are, in order : Year, Total injuries, Fatal injury, Serious injury, Slight injury, all from non air based firearms in the UK :

1998/99 864 49 162 653
1999/00 1,195 62 200 933
2000/01 1,382 72 244 1,066
2001/02 1,877 95 392 1,390
2002/03 2,179 80 416 1,683
2003/04 2,367 68 437 1,862
2004/05 3,856 77 410 3,369

The number of firearm crimes which resulted in injuries has more than doubled in six years: from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,358 in 2004/05. The largest rise was seen in crimes involving non-air weapons.

Where the fuck are you getting your statistics? These are from the Home Office. Honestly, you're just completely wrong.

Why does this report then show the following on pages 9 and 10:

Between 1995 and 2004/05 violent crime, as measured by the BCS1, has fallen by 43 per
cent and the composition of violent crime has changed.

You're very quick to say this, but I've read the data by the Dutch Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek as well, and there it's even shown that violent crime has been on the decline ever since it started being measured and stored in the 1920's.

Lol.. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth. I'm not some snot nose punk you play with on recess.

First, the crime rates stopped increasing so we know there wasn't an increase. Second, The crime rates have gone down, even if there has been a slight surge in recent times. According to this site which I retrieved from the home office site in case the link goes dead, but in 2002-2003, the total number of reportable crimes was 4,072,719. In 2007-2008, that number was 3,465,080. Don't worry about the 2008, it is a complete number as you can see by the 2006-2007 number of 3,810,971.

Finally, any system using something like facial recognition or other technology would have to be supported by a competent law enforcement force. No, it wouldn't need to be a police state nor a prison, and my comments weren't to that either. My comments were to their effectiveness which they have that potential. especially when as a layer in a more complex system. Again, it doesn't have to be a police state or a prison.

I'm not sure why it is nothing but extremes with people like you. You don't agree with something so without any regard to reality it is automatically a worse case scenario and then you attempt to portray the opposite as pushing that worst case scenario when nothing said could come close to that. Why is that? Are you out of ideas or something? I mean seriously, why would you take my explanation of why the technology works as supporting making that world a prison? When put in place at key areas like entrances to subways, airports, and so on, they can catch the majority of terrorist or deter them from coming in. Your not one of those people who see the deterrent working then claim because X isn't happening "any more", we don't need the deterrent any more, are you?

http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/statistics/statistics35.htm And Europe is Europe. If you're going to proclaim the superiority of Europe to the US then you shouldn't exclude those less-developed European countries to make your side look better.

"So if you've already emigrated then why do you care what is happening in Britain?"

Maybe (just guessing) because he has family or friends still in the UK, and he has a right to be concerned about them?

"And I don't accept your statement - nobody leaves ... "

Maybe you should read his comment again more carefully. He said he left "in no small part because of your beloved 'security' measures". His meaning is clear (English is my first language in case of doubt). It makes him a counterexample that disproves your rule. I agree with you that it is a silly reason to leave, but certainly there are people who will leave for that reason.

"I doubt the criminal justice system views me as a law breaker purely for a minor driving offence - besides which, a speeding offence does not give you a criminal record. You've probably been too long out of the UK such that you need to do some reference reading before to bone up on current laws here before making facetious comments."

You are automatically classified by the criminal justice system as a law breaker because you broke the law when you were speeding! You are only partially correct in your understanding of the definitions. Speeding does not give you a "criminal record" in the official meaning of the words. However, speeding is definitely a "criminal offence". The difference is that it is not a "recordable" criminal offence. Not many people know that. See, for example, page.10 of this official UK immigration form where it asks applicants to list "any criminal convictions in the UK or any other country (including traffic offences)"

Anyway, whenever it happens, I hope you have a happy retirement in sunny Spain!

When it finally happens it will be just another argument for the electronic chip identity cards that the UK government has been wanting to introduce.

The government, and businesses, will say: it would be so much simpler and more efficient if we had a unified ID standard. After all, you need to show ID to get a phone <strawman>(and Internet access, and airline, train, and coach tickets, and to vote, and to get health care or buy medicines at a pharmacy, and to stay at a hotel)</strawman> and everyone needs that!

The first people to get these ID cards, starting next month, will be foreign students and foreign spouses. Gradually they will be rolled out to more categories of foreigners.

Not that I agree with the governments intentions, but the measure that is proposed intends to collect data about communications, not the content.

That is the destination of every email, phone call and start and end time of every session with an ISP will be logged.

Some of this is required due to EU law, but other measure are UK only.

See the Register story or the actual consultation doc.

Jacqui Smith
smithjj@parliament.uk
House of Commons Fax number: 020 7219 4815
House of Commons Phone number: 020 7219 5190
Constituency Fax number: 01527 523355
Constituency Phone number: 01527 523355
Additional Info: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/jacqui_smith/redditch

Home Office:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/contact-us?form=general
public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Tel: 020 7035 4848
Fax: 020 7035 4745

If you are in US or UK, I want to work for you. Will you apply for my work permit?

We've investigated this in the past for the UK and we think it's virtually impossible - or at least extremely difficult - to get a full work permit for a foreign national for an entry-level developer job. If you've just studied here then you can get a year or two to remain in the UK after your degree - I forget what that's called - but after that your best bet is the Highly-Skilled Migrant Programme which you apply for yourself. You basically need to prove that you have a good degree and evidence of earning power.

However, they can add data at any time, without informing people.

They will store everywhere you've ever lived, so then know who you've lived with, and who they've lived with. They'll also know who you worked with. As someone with an interest in datamining, this does somewhat concern me. Here's the full act (ID card act of 2006)

It can be used to store any data:

for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime

Nice cop-out, eh? This act gives any government the power to store data for the purposes of detecting people doing things they don't want them to do.

Oh, and under this act, *everyone* over the age of 16:

is entitled to be entered in it

Lucky them.

The act can require you to be present at a certain time to provide all of this information, too. If you don't agree on a time or a place then they will just specify one. Don't do it? You

shall be liable to a civil penalty not exceeding £1,000.

Of course, access to the database is highly restricted, it's restricted to people they want to let access it. Phew, was worried companies might get a hold of it for less than, but it's a good thing the government has never been found to give things in return for money.

Also, this is all ignoring the small level problems, like a jilted lover working in the government finding out where their ex now lives, etc.

but crime rates are still going up.

Actually (as others in this thread have stated) violent crime is going down. (see page 19 of The British Crime Survey - warning, 200+ page PDF - I couldn't quickly find a news report because for every article on this there are a dozen about someone being stabbed in a fight). There might be some rise in knife crime amongst younger people, but that might be because the fscking media have got every kid in the country convinced that every other kid is carrying.

Violent crime has been dropping in Britain.

It has been dropping over the last two years, at least for England and Wales. It's still up over what it was in 2002/03. For crimes in the category of "violence against the person" there were 844,692 recorded crimes in that reporting period. This rose to a peak of 1,058,786 in 2005/06 (a 25.3% increase), declining to 960,167 in 2007/08 (a decline of 9.3% from 05/06 but still 13.7% higher than in 02/03).

London and Wales are doing better than they were in 02/03, with recent crimes reported lower overall than they were then, but most are still higher. The mid-2002 population estimate for England and Wales was 52,455,000, and for 2007 it was 54,072,000, a growth of 3.1%, well short of the 13.7% higher crime count. Crime rates for this category for those years are therefore roughly 1610 per 100,000 for 02/03 and 1780 per 100,000 for 07/08, a difference of 10.6%.

All crime numbers are from the Home Office Research Development Statistics site. I'm not comparing them directly to those of the US, as the UK's definition differs from that of the US violent crime statistics; for instance, the US violent crime rates include rape, whereas the UK's does not seem to explicitly cover that; similarly, the UK apparently covers mere possession of a weapon as a crime against the person, but this is not considered a violent crime in the US.

You got the evidence to back up your claims of crime in England dropping?[sic]

He's actually right on this matter. "Does he got the evidence?" No, but the Home Office do. I've provided instructions for finding the dox below, as well as an executive summary. All incidents of violent crime are dropping, and the only category of crime which has shown an increase is "Drug offences" which showed an 18% increase between 06/07 and 07/08.

1. Google British Crime Survey
2. Click on first result: rds british crime survey
3. Scroll down to "Key publications"
4. Click first link: Crime in England and Wales 2007/08(PDF)
5. Navigate document.

Page 19, Comparison 2006/7 to 2007/8:

• All BCS Crime down 10% to 10.1 million crimes
• Police recorded crime down 9% to 5.0 million crimes
• BCS Violent Crime down 12%
• Police recorded "Violence against the person" down 8%
• Police recorded "Most serious violence against the person" down 12%
• Police recorded robbery down 16%
• Police recorded Domestic burglary down 4%

Page 20: Graphs showing number of incidents, as measured by the British Crime Survey, lowest they've ever been since the introduction of the BCS in 1981.
Still on page 20, the percentage change in offences 1995-2007:

• Vandalism: Down 20%
• Domestic Burglary: Down 59%
• Vehicle-related theft: Down 66%
• Other household theft: Down 53%
• Bicycle theft: Down 34%
• Theft from the person: Down 15%
• Other theft of personal property: Down 53%
• All BCS violence: Down 48%
• All BCS Crime: Down 48%

Page 23:

Weapons were used in a quarter (24%) of BCS violent crimes (this figure has been stable over the past decade); hitting implements were used in 7%, knives in 6%, glasses/bottles in 4% and firearms in 1% of incidents.

As for Obama's voting record on gun-control issues, I have no interest in discussing it, but this appears to be a useful link for anyone who wants to know more: Senator Barack Hussein Obama Jr. (IL)'s track record.

It's pretty bad in many places, my home town, along with about twenty others has CCTV cameras with speakers on them. They are used to disperse crowds and complain about littering or all manner of other things. The curious thing is, despite the heavy coverage they have done nothing to prevent numerous assaults, rapes or other violent incidents and quite often fail to produce useful evidence - which was the main argument for their introduction.

It is perfectly legal for anyone to screw a 16 year old girl, any way they want. However, if after they banged her every which way, they drew a picture of her naked and gave it to her, they can be done for distributing child pornography and put away for god knows how many years.

Note that a drawing is currently legal in the UK, however they are planning to criminalise them (see my other comment). But it would be illegal if they took a photo, which I fully agree is fucked up. In fact, she could be done for possessing a picture of her own body. The Government's own police agency has warned under-18s that they could be prosecuted for posing on a webcam. (Police Chief Jim Gamble - who incidentally headed the notorious Operation Ore also wants "extreme" adult porn to be illegal - says "It's no different in the virtual world". Er, yeah, except for the fact that watching 16 year olds would be legal if it was in the real world).

They do exactly that in the consultation document..
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2008-transposition

Suggesting how it's helped catch the evildoers is the one example they give.. Successes of the "Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre.." are listed etc.

I'll dispute it. source
p9

Between 1995 and 2004/05 violent crime, as measured by the BCS1, has fallen by 43 per
cent

Weapon use and the types of weapons used has
remained stable since 1995 in all crime types except mugging (including robbery), where
weapon use (mainly knife use) has decreased from 35 per cent in 1995 to 18 per cent in
2004/05.

Oh, and then there's this: p72

The implementation of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) by police forces on 1 April 2002,
increased the number of crimes recorded in 2002/03 and, as a result of audits to further improve recording,
in 2003/04 and 2004/05 too. It has not been possible to assess accurately the effect of this change on
recorded firearm crimes. This change inflated the overall number of violence against the person and
criminal damage offences but had less effect on the number of robberies (see Simmons et al., 2003). Many
firearm offences are amongst the categories, such as criminal damage involving an airgun, that are most
likely to have been affected by the NCRS.

So even if we grant that there has been a increase in reported handgun usage in crimes since the ban, we have to consider that it was merely a difference in reporting methodology. Also gun violence decreased between 2004-2005 and I would suspect that were the methodology consistent the UK would be below 1997 levels of gun violence.

about 20,000 firearms offences a year

Of course you fail to mention that about half these offences involved air guns, which are not the subject of this discussion and not regarded by most people as 'proper' firearms. And also of the remaining offences, a quarter involved imitation firearms not able to be fired. And CS gas and pepper spray are counted as 'firearms'. A reasonable figure of 'real firearms offences' (shotgun, non-imitation handgun, rifle, machine gun etc.) for 2006/7 is about 6000-6500.

Also, to put it in context, only 0.2% of all recorded crime in the UK involves (non airgun) firearms, and roughly 50 people die per year from gun crime. In the US it's 14,000.
Population adjusted, that's roughly 1 in 1 million deaths for the UK and 1 in 25,000 for the US - *forty times worse*

Given the effectively negligable gun crime in the UK illustrated by these figures and the fact that most people have never even seen a gun apart from police at airports or a farmer's shotgun etc., I think this is one area where the UK does pretty well.

Of course, gun control of the UK sort is probably impossible in the US and inappropriate because it does not have a democratic mandate; you're starting from a completely different position.

Sources:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf
and for the US deaths figure
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7047649.stm

One, it is particularly noted that the UK (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0607.html)has switched its methods on crime reporting since the 2000 data, and that there is alot of conflict with that (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aBKQE71WDa4U&refer=uk). The new method of reporting DRASTICALLY increases the numbers, on top of excluding groups considered to be the highest rate of offenders. I use these numbers, the British Parliament has fought hard to keep this method of reporting in place, so I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Second, I can take umbrage in the FBI report (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/index.html) on the fact that the numbers that would show a problem with gun violence haven't had any suspicious shift. I do this because the Director of the FBI (the guy who gives the final sign-off on the report) is an avid Anti-Gun supporter. No suspicious shift means the guy has some dignity, so I trust the FBI report a little more than most other sources culled by mostly liberal organizations. You know, the kind of liberal organizations that say things like "Women are %100 more likely to get killed when there is a gun in the household," without any numbers to back that up. I have yet to see a single solitary case study or statistical survey by any of the anti-gun organizations that has stood up to peer review. For the most part, they don't even bother putting their studies up for peer review, they just publish them and cite them as fact.

I don't use case studies that haven't stood up to peer review (for that matter, I haven't found a single one that points to guns being a problem), and I use reports that are giving numbers and statistics without offering comparisons or opinions. In my mind, that's about as much as you can ask for, show me one popular Anti-Gun liberal that has had the respect for what he/she believes in to actually look at the NUMBERS in depth, and not just take the "studies" for granted. I won't hold my breath.

Also my local council used the law to spy on a family trying to give their kids a decent education http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/11/localgovernment.ukcrime

Or if you want you can download the forms to apply to spy on someone form here http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa/about-ripa/forms/

> are in jail

Hardly. China has 1.5 million people in jail, only 0.1% of the population. The United States, by comparison, has 2.3 million people in jail, or 0.8% of the population. That's about eight times more, so let's not have the pot calling the kettle black.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r234.pdf

The way I see it, the more criminals in prison, the less there are on the streets.

That would make sense if you could simply divide the population into criminals and non-criminals. Unfortunately it's not that simple - people move between the two categories. So when judging whether a particular method of punishment works, we need to ask three questions:

1) Does it keep criminals off the streets?
2) Does it dissuade non-criminals from becoming criminals?
3) Does it persuade criminals to become non-criminals?

Prison does well on the first test, and fairly well on the second (although the worst offenders don't respond to deterrents). But it fails the third test: criminals released from prison in the UK have a higher reoffending rate than those given community sentences. That's why judges are reluctant to impose a prison sentence for a first offence: once you've gone to prison, you're likely to keep going back.

That statement is usually based on police records, here in the UK and those are generally very low compared to reality. The reason? people just don't bother reporting most crimes

No, that simply isn't true. There is something known as the British Crime Survey which consists of tens of thousands of interviews with the public annually. These results are factored into crime statistics all the time specifically to avoid the reporting biases you complain about. Straight from the source:

The BCS measures the amount of crime in England and Wales by asking people about crimes they have experienced in the last year. The BCS includes crimes which are not reported to the police, so it is an important alternative to police records. Victims do not report crime for various reasons. Without the BCS the government would have no information on these unreported crimes.

Oh you must be referring to the same independent minded Americans who voted George Bush into office TWICE, of which 37% believe that teaching of evolution in schools should be abolished and replaced with creationism; of which 61% believe that torture is justified in order to "beat the t'urrists". The same Americans who have calmly bent over for the last ten or so years and allowed themselves to be anally savaged by big business and their own government. The same independent minded people that will accept just about any violation of their so-called constitutional rights as soon as somebody mentions the word "terrorism".

Yeah. Real independent. I'll take Switzerland thanks.

The home office's website does actually say you have the right to remain silent.

I find the arguments surrounding freedom of speech interesting. While it'd be brilliant to be able to say what you like, there are still some cases where it isn't ideal: for example, there are laws against slander and libel. Then there's soliciting crime, encouraging racial hatred and similar. The government try to cut a fine line between what *needs* to be restricted, and what doesn't, and they do get it wrong - I agree censoring Gerry Adams was idiotic.

But if you RTFA, you'll find that the judge hearing the case ordered the leaked document to be removed from publication, but not to gag the press from talking about the fact that it had happened, nor to stop people reporting what was in it. This is not censorship, this is protecting confidentiality.

As for the UK not having free speach, name a particular UK law regulating it that you believe shouldn't be a crime.

The UK does not have ID Cards. Ok, the Government wants to introduce them but AFAIK, the bill to introduce them has not been passed by Parliament and received Royal Ascent( The Queen's Signature )

Unfortunately, you are mistaken. The Identity Cards Act received royal assent, becoming law, on 30 March 2006.

The first legal battle has already been lost. Now it's down to either electing someone to repeal the law before it really takes hold, or sufficient civil disobedience to undermine the law. Fortunately, both of those events are quite likely.

Your original claim was that "You do know that MOST crimes are committed by repeat offenders right?" Then you cite statistics to back yourself up on what percentage reoffend. These are different issues entirely: What percentage of crimes are committed by repeat offenders vs. what percentage of previous offenders commit crimes.

You also provided no evidence for your second point that, "for sexual predators, [reform] is almost-never possible." This flies directly in the face of the report that everyone is throwing around on the topic, which in the conclusions says that "the analysis also revealed that most of those judged to be 'dangerous' or 'high risks' were not reconvicted of a sexual offence or imprisoned for a violent crime, even after lengthy follow-up periods."

This is just lies. The offending rates is less than 5%. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r164.pdf

> I don't understand the psychology of rapists, so I can't say which position is correct.

So do some basic research. The first hit on google gives a government paper on the reoffending rates:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r164.pdf

To summarise, less than 5% reoffend. It seems the 'bleeding hearts' win.

dear cedric,
who has told you that they are "officially designated terrorist organisations"?

follow this link to see a complete list of organisations banned in the uk:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-and-the-law/terrorism-act/proscribed-groups

none of them are animal rights related.

when posting its important to get your facts right!

The short answer is yes, if you do that and they bring a case, you could be considered a criminal.

It is difficult to bring a charge of theft in [cases where the car is recovered shortly after] since the intention appears to have been to 'borrow' the car, rather than permanently deprive the owner of it.

I seem to recall that the list of "authorities" was specified separately to the act, and that it originally included all sorts of ridiculous local government agencies, benefit agencies etc.

Does anyone have a reference to the current actual list?

Yes, it's here. See section 9, particularly pages 41 - 43.

A quick Google search shows that there seem to be studies about lighting and crime. Sure the topic probably merits additional study, but discounting the work that has been done based on an unsourced sentence leading a wikipedia article probably isn't helping further the discussion.

Here are a couple papers which each include several references:
THE EFFECT OF BETTER STREET LIGHTING ON CRIME AND FEAR: A REVIEW

EVIDENCE-BASED CRIME PREVENTION: SCIENTIFIC BASIS, TRENDS, RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANADA

I'm all in favor of a darker sky, but we are not going to win many converts if we keep lying about something that can be so trivially debunked.

What's notable though, is that there is a considerable variation in the result based on where the study was done (and, presumably, the exact difference between the test and control situations, as I haven't went through all the underlying studies myself), with many areas producing negligible changes, or even statistically significant increases in certain types of crime with the introduction of additional lighting. The most simple conclusion is that the lighting has to be sensibly managed: floodlights on every street corner are not necessary, and may even be detrimental. Which means that there is certainly the possibility that the goals of improving the visibility of the sky and the improvement of street lighting (improvement not strictly meaning increase, of course) are not necessarily incompatible.

While it's true that, in London, "75% of all victims of firearm homicides and shootings and 79% of all suspects come from the African/Caribbean community", it would be madness to use use data from one city and apply it to the entire country.

According to combined data for 2002/3, 2003/4, and 2004/5:

Ethnic appearance of principal suspect
Total white: 1,667
Total black: 282
Total Asian: 135
Total Other: 94
Total Unknown: 51

That's just looking at homicides. If you look at the statistics for all crime in England, it is overwhelmingly perpetrated by white people (surprise surprise).

By focusing specifically on gun crime in London, and pointing fingers at the Black/Caribbean community in order to justify a disproportionate share of blacks on the DNA database for the whole of the UK, you're actually supporting the notion that the black population is being unfairly singled out.

All that exists, statistically, is that a greater percentage of the black population can be considered being guilty of a crime relative to the percentage of whites guilty of a crime as a percentage of the white population as a whole, but certainly the number of whites in that database should far exceed all other minorities put together.

The "community support officers" (wtf are they?)

CSOs are police authority support staff. They are intended to be used on high-visibility foot patrol, providing a strong anti-crime presence, and reassuring the communities they serve.

They complement the work of police officers by focusing predominantly on lower level crime, disorder and anti social behaviour. As such, they are an important weapon in the Government's drive to crack down on anti-social behaviour.

The Police Reform Act allows chiefs of police to designate CSOs with sufficient enforcement powers to enable them to perform their duties effectively. Having a strong CSO unit capable of dealing with minor nuisance crimes can free up regular police officers to concentrate on more serious crimes.