Slashdot Mirror

I know quite a few people who've visited the Middle East. It can be a cheap stop-off on the way to the far east (from Europe), or a close-ish place that's not European, but still has plenty of culture, history etc.

Does Turkey count? Loads of people visit Turkey. Just looking at one budget airline (Easyjet), they have flights to Turkey, Isreal and Jordan.

Also this was easy to find, but I knew to go straight to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/

NHS waiting list statistics: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Statistics/Performancedataandstatistics/HospitalWaitingTimesandListStatistics/index.htm

Crime statistics: http://www.police.uk/

Unemployment: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/labour-market/people-not-in-work/unemployment

Here in the UK we have CCTV at almost every corner,

No we dont!
 

ANPR cameras on all major roads and all entry and exit points of major towns. There are also speed, red light, and parking enforcement cameras. The argument used to be "If one has done nothing wrong rhwn one has nothing to fear".

So the traffic safety cameras (as i believe the term is for speed and traffic light cameras) aren't there to stop people doing nothing wrong? speeding and jumping red lights is OK now is it? On the subject of ANPR at least it can be used to help to try and reduce the number unsafe uninsured and untaxed vehicles on the roads. Are you saying that it's ok to drive cars with no tax, no insurance, that have failed their M.O.T. inspections? (or just not had one because the criminal driving it knows it wont pass) ANPR is also useful in catching 'vehicles of interest' as the police put it. This means vehicles used to commit a crime, oh and also is rather handy for tracking vehicles reported as stolen.

Whether this is valid or not it has still led to us being unable to leave our houses without being seen/tracked if they want

How, exactly do you expect to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place without curtailing people's freedom? The public at large is perfectly at liberty to record people's movements too if they so wish, this is part of a free society, and rightly so. You think that the law enforcement services should not be entitled to use equipment that other people or organisations are perfectly entitled to use? (think photography in public for example, want to ban that as well?)

but there has been no reduction in crime; seems the criminals are the only ones who manage to go unseen.

Want to cite some sources on that claim? Mostly crime has been falling over the last 20-25 years ( http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/crime-justice/crime/crime-trends/index.html#graphTabContent1 ) althouth the police reported crime figures seem rather high, one wonders how much of that is vehicle related crime (as well as the fact that alot more criminal law has been enacted over that timeframe thus increasing the number of actions that are actually crimes :)

Spoken like a true American, living your life from safety-tested cradle to carefully scrubbed and disinfected coffin, and in between using gallons of hand sanitizer and standing in line with your shoes off at the airport.

Actually the US driving test has reached the point that its stupid-easy. When I hear about people taking several attempts to pass it (at $20 each, one per day with no limit) I get a little concerned. In exchange, we have stupid road rules and enforcement because they have to be set up on the assumption that every driver is a no-talent assclown.

Contrast this to the UK drivers' test which, at least back in the 80s when I left, was long, extensive, had a limited number of attempts per year, and on which you could be failed for "lack of confidence." As a result you seemed, at least, to have far fewer completely moronic drivers on the road and could set things up with the assumption that most drivers actually knew how to drive.

Indeed, from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=5180 :

The United Kingdom has a good record for road safety compared with most European Union (EU) countries. In 1999 the United Kingdom had the lowest road death rates per 100,000 population in the EU, at 6 per 100,000 of population. This compares to figures of 9.3 per 100,000 population in Australia, 8.2 in Japan and 15.3 in the USA. Across the EU, the average road death rate for children was around 2.6 per 100,000 of population - again, the UK had the lowest rate at 1.9 per 100,000.

Sometimes having to actually pass a real test before doing things that are hazardous to other people can be a good thing.

If capitalism were a success, we'd all be working fewer hours ...

Why do you think that this should have happened already? Maybe in 100 years or 200 years, we will all be working fewer hours. Adults are already living significantly longer than they were even 30 years ago in developed economies. as these UK figures show. I think if we are to make bald statements ("capitalism doesn't work", "socialism doesn't work") we need to look at things over a very long period of time. A single incident isn't going to give much insight either way.

Back to the article - the author says students need to learn generalisable skills. I think we're in agreement here - university students should learn some specific skills, but also transferable skills. My first degree was in library studies: I was a librarian for a few years then changed career. But I'd learnt how to be a dogged and thorough researcher, so I could move to another field as I could hunt down knowledge in any domain and make use of it, and also I'd learnt about communicating with people and doing presentations (and dealing with nutty teenagers) so I ended up doing educational research in schools.

Not shocking that you make close to 6 figures without a degree, I noted "predominately" not "all" - but a report in the UK came out today to say UK Grad earnings are higher than non-grads, and generally non-grads will be earning a median of 17K (GBP) compared to 29K (GBP) by grads. A degree, it suggests, leads to higher earnings generally. Of course some people will be earning more or less than that. But I'd maybe question whether all non-grads in your country are earning "close to six figures".

Most of the reports I can find say it costs the NHS ~£2Billion to treat smokers and smoking related diseases. But I'll take the the most inflated figure I can find and we'll say it's £5Billion

UK tax duty on Tobacco alone is estimated to hit £10-12 Billion this year... Year on year it has been double or more the cost to the NHS. And that's only if take the inflated cost which includes figures for any disease that might've been caused by smoking, like asthma - despite the fact that car/bus/truck fumes are proven to be a more likely cause for such things.

Now I've linked to my reputable sources - though I apologise that ONS has decided only to provide excel spreadsheets, as it makes it a bit harder to find after following my link - so now, please show me where you got your facts about it being the other way round...?

Buggers Broadcasting Communism was the old Tory cry.

They are unquestionably racist, patronising various minorities via national policy intended to display the range of fashionable backgrounds rather than be nationally and regionally representative. Then you have whole channels dedicated to special needs: BBC 3 caters entirely for the idiot, and BBC 4 to the significant minority suffering from chronic bluffers' syndrome.

Chairmen remain rich white men. The BBC is a sad game to pat people on the head and make them feel more relevant than they really are. Which brings us to H2G2.

Mmm.... http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ tells an even more unbelievable story, but that's because it measures total road usage in "passenger km's" which is a bit unwieldy. But there's plenty of source data there - especially under http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/travel-transport/index.html.

The document here: http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/217792/4212241/transportstatisticgreatbrit.pdf is very enlightening, for example, especially table 8.1. - 45 casualties per 100m km (62m miles). That's one reported casualty per 1.3 million travelled miles (if I did the maths right). Know I want to know why those statistics are a third of your stated figures, from one extreme to the other!

Mmm.... http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ tells an even more unbelievable story, but that's because it measures total road usage in "passenger km's" which is a bit unwieldy. But there's plenty of source data there - especially under http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/travel-transport/index.html.

The document here: http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/217792/4212241/transportstatisticgreatbrit.pdf is very enlightening, for example, especially table 8.1. - 45 casualties per 100m km (62m miles). That's one reported casualty per 1.3 million travelled miles (if I did the maths right). Know I want to know why those statistics are a third of your stated figures, from one extreme to the other!

Actually, it's more of the dangers of the lifestyle in general. More people are killed from more reckless behavior in the US then in the UK. We do more stupid shit on a regular basis like give some types of guns to anyone over 18 based on nothing more then their desire to have them. We allow juveniles to handle loaded firearms and other weapons (Bow and Arrows) unsupervised for extended lengths of time (while hunting) and so on. We have one of the largest recreational boating populations in the western world, some of the largest lands allotted to motorcycle, quad-atv, and other recreational uses.

But probably the number one risk that would alter the life expectancy quite a bit would be cars. In the US, there is/was about 2.28 cars per household (in 2008) while only about 1.1 cars per household in the UK (at about the time- from 2008 to 2009). This means that more people are driving in the US then in the UK. Gas is also cheaper which generally means that more people are driving for recreational uses verses more restrictive usage like necessities and so on. But something that probably would make this skewed even more would be that in the UK, you typically have to be 17 to get a drivers license and even then, you are restricted to what types of cars you can drive until your 18 or 21. In the US, it differs from state to state, but in most cases, you can start driving at 16 years of age, there is no limits on the types of cars (or non-commercial trucks) and in some areas, with certain hardships you can get a drivers license at age 14 (Ohio is one).

A reflection of this is strongly shown in the UK traffic death statistics in which they listed that in 2006, there were 5.4 road accident deaths per 100,000 population in the UK compared to 14.3 per 100,000 populations in the US. I don't car where you are, if you have almost three times as many people dieing from more or less random occurrences, the life expectancy will be lower and it won't be much on the grounds of health care provided Health care provided is equal in traffic fatalities because it's all either not in the equation (dead on the scene) or life threatening injuries in which not only does car insurance cover, it's illegal in the US for a hospital open to the public to refuse or limit emergency medical treatment based around the ability to pay.

Here you go, life expectancies for England:

England - Male life expectancy 78 years, female 82.1 years.

Source.

Where are you getting a 12-month CD that earns 3% in this interest rate environment? I'm seeing rates more like 0.70%. Admittedly, this is in the US and not the UK (since I can't figure out where to get any quotes for CDs in the UK) but I'm not hopeful. Remember that you've got to pay taxes on it, and deal with the inflation.

"I bring it up because there is a tremendous degree of diversity: racially, economically, culturally, etc that most european nations simply do not have to contend with."

So London 1993-1997 - Infant Mortality rate 6.0 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/DS16/DS16_cap07.pdf
US 2004 Infanct Mortality rate 6.8 ? http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.htm

Does London's SocioEconomic and Cultural diversity measure up for you consideration?
(Ignoring that fact that the London figures are from last century.)

Still think it's because black babies have some kind of genetic thing going on?

UK, more specifically England, more specifically London.

My 5x factor is an approximation and was rounded down. It is in fact roughly correct for the area where I live (London) - see http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285 - if it was against the whole of the UK it would be closer to 7x.

This is before taxes, after taxes the difference is even bigger (i'm a freelancer so I end up paying less taxes but have no job security, no employee rights and no income while on vacations).

I'm very specialized and very experienced in what I do, and work as a freelancer (more specifically contractor) hence the income I get.

Compared with some of the people working in finance in London my income is peanuts.

As far as road safety goes, where I am in the UK, it's far safer than it was in the 1960s. Quite the opposite of parents perception:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208

It seems to me that one of the drivers of increased safety has been deliberate raising of the public's awareness. Increased awareness creates a perception of things getting worse, whilst actually causing things to get better.

I would imagine research into child abduction, abuse and murder would also produce results contrary to expectation.

I have no kids, but if I did, I'd give them as much freedom to roam as I had when I was a child. I certainly wouldn't be driving them everywhere.

US life expectancy is 78.2 years. You're saying other countries life expectancy is 92 years? I think you're off by a bit. Japan, with the highest life expectancy in the world, is at 82.6 years. The UK is at 79.4 years.

Well, according to the Office of National Statistics in the UK:

"The life expectancy figures above make no allowance for future changes in mortality. Taking into account the continued improvements in mortality assumed in the 2008-based principal population projections, life expectancy at birth for those born in 2008 is projected to be 88.6 years for males and 92.2 years for females. "

So it seems 92 isn't really such a stretch by some measures.

I agree that the cancer figures are way out - should be more in the 1 in 30 range :
"Over one in four people die from cancer. Cancer accounted for 30 per cent of all deaths in males and 25 per cent in females.

The four most common cancers accounted for nearly half of the 127,800 deaths from cancer (including non-melanoma skin cancer) in England in 2007. Of these, 66,500 of the total were in males and 61,200 in females."
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=915

However the road deaths are more accurate :
"The total number of deaths in road accidents fell by 7 per cent to 2,946 in 2007 from 3,172 in 2006. However, the number of fatalities has remained fairly constant over the last ten years."
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208

I agree that the cancer figures are way out - should be more in the 1 in 30 range :
"Over one in four people die from cancer. Cancer accounted for 30 per cent of all deaths in males and 25 per cent in females.

The four most common cancers accounted for nearly half of the 127,800 deaths from cancer (including non-melanoma skin cancer) in England in 2007. Of these, 66,500 of the total were in males and 61,200 in females."
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=915

However the road deaths are more accurate :
"The total number of deaths in road accidents fell by 7 per cent to 2,946 in 2007 from 3,172 in 2006. However, the number of fatalities has remained fairly constant over the last ten years."
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208

Hey genius, how's a single parent going to walk into the room quietly at (say) 3pm after school when he/she is TWENTY MILES AWAY BECAUSE SINGLE PARENTS HAVE FUCKING JOBS?

If mum can't be at home she's got more to worry about than what her kids are looking at on PCs in her house. They can go to a friend's house, or skip school entirely, etc, or work around the blocks from 3pm until she gets home. I don't see the point of blocking stuff to this extent.

(Incidentally, in this country only 57% of single parents have jobs.)

Having recently had dinner in LA with a lovely Welshman, don't tell him Wales isn't the third country in Britain.

For that matter, don't tell the UK Government: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/uk_countries.asp

No, it's only recognised to the extent that enough people wrote in "Jedi" on the last census that the Office for National Statistics assigned a code number for data entry purposes, and calculated a total for them instead of just lumping them in with "other". There are only seven options for religion on the census form: None, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Sikh, and "other, please write in".

The Office for National Statistics is not recognising religions, it's just reporting what people wrote in as their answer to the question, "what is your religion?" Other answers which have equal status include Secularism, Satanism, Heathen, Divine Light Mission, Rationalist, Own Belief System, Free Church of Love, and Church of All Religion.

But it wasn't legally recognized. It was media recognized, because folks made a big deal out of it. Beyond that, it was officially *NOT* recognized as a protected anything. Please reference the United Kingdom's "Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006"

    Or if you'd care to look at 2001 national statistics for the UK, you'll note that it says the following...

About sixteen per cent of the UK population stated that they had no religion. This category included agnostics, atheists, heathens and those who wrote Jedi Knight.

    You'll get just as much religious protection as a Jedi, as you would as a Heathen, which is still nil.

    If you care to think differently, more power to you. Folks think all kinds of things. Some people believe it is their right to steal and murder. Well, right up until about the time that they are caught.

    Jedi is as recognized a religion as Snoopy was a candidate in the 1968 presidential campaign. People may have written it in, but it didn't actually mean anything.

More people die on Britain's roads each YEAR than have died as a result of terrorism in TOTAL.

Wrong: stats for annual British road deaths; according to wikipedia, just under 3000 people died during the September 11th attacks. That puts the 2007 road death figure in line with that single attack.

The Sept 11 attacks did not happen in the UK

More people die on Britain's roads each YEAR than have died as a result of terrorism in TOTAL.

Wrong: stats for annual British road deaths; according to wikipedia, just under 3000 people died during the September 11th attacks. That puts the 2007 road death figure in line with that single attack.

I agree that this is an overreaction, but if you're going to draw a comparison to prove a point, make sure it actually does prove your point.

It actually needs MORE immigrants as it is loosing population due to low birth rates and an aging population.

Are you sure about that?

Also, stating that the UK is quite racist is generalising more than a little bit. There are a few idiots in every country, but claiming that the entire nation is racist is more than a bit hypocritical.

1) We are not running out of land to build houses on.
2) You appear to read too much of the Daily Mail. The official figures for asylum seekers as as follows :

Total applications for asylum Q2 2009 = 6,045.
Total people refused asylum in Q2 2009 = 4154.
So assuming that the figures are average for the whole year, you are only looking at a total of 7564 successful asylum seekers PER YEAR ! Hardly flooding the country.

Also, the population of the UK in mid 2008 was around 61,383,000. That's 8.5 million less than you quoted. It would take over 1100 years for the "influx" of successful asylum seekers to make up the error in your figures. More people pass through Heathrow in a year (68 million) than actually live in the country. 7564 staying on is hardly significant.

Maybe the problem is the same as always - divide and rule, and you're falling for it.

Figures gained from the ICAR site referencing the official Home Office quarterly report.
Population figures from the National Statistics site.
Heathrow figures from the BBC.

The population of London is expected to drop below 50% English by 2012. Would you want to let that happen with your own capital?

Gosh, like just imagine if Washington DC had less than 50% Native Americans! The population of London may or may not have more than 50% born abroad (though given the 2001 census figure of 24% that sounds unlikely), but that is not the same as them not being English, many are getting UK citizenship.

Yup, but the grandparent was referring to ethnic self-identification rather than birth place. The Focus on London report shows 58% "White British" and falling. And anything else - to many simple minds - is the equivalent of "dirty foreigner" even if they are 3rd generation Brits... And GP: Of course you would want that to happen to your capital. Or do you think London would be the financial and cultural capital of the world but for its ethnic/cultural diversity?

About two-third of the staff inside UK Health Services are bureaucrats, not medical personnel

More excuses for inhumanity.

I don't have the latest survey to hand, but http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7780 lists to 2002 percentages for England:

7.7% Medical and dental (doctors)
31.7& Nurses, midwifes, and health visitors
11.2% Scientific, theraputic, and technical
31.5% Support to clinical and other staff care
17.3% NHS infrastructure staff

Some of the nurses and clinical support staff will have administrative duties, but at least half of the total are involved with direct delivery of care.

The table at http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/nhsstaff/NHSStaffNHSLeaflet240406_PDF.pdf lists 2005 statistics and gives breakdowns on non-admin staff. The short summary:
10% Doctors
30% Nurses and therapists
10% Scientific and technical
1.3% Ambulance drivers
28% Support to doctors and therapists

You must have been overly educated if you believe Gordon Brown and his cohorts are not the real world implementation of modern social liberalism (as opposed to the fantasy that lives inside so many peoples heads).

And to be honest it *really* doesn't matter what Univerisities and academics and students claim is the perfect ideal in the class room and in papers. Over and over again the output of academia on any subject regarding political thinking bears absolutely no resemblance to what the ideal advanced by academia becomes when it *hits the real world*.

Maybe next time though they'll be far enough left for you? Hell go even further to the left and next time they'll meet your expectations and instead of 1 in 5 UK citizens working for the government, thought crime, open borders and and the state inserting itself absolutely between parents and middle class children they'll fully embrace the ultimate "necessary evil" to bring about a classless society?

I assume that's what you long for, they did try though - the current Labour government unfortunately they were just too soft to really bring it about...

When you know the total population of the UK is roughly 30 million households, that's a fair chunk of the population. (total population is roughly 60 million people)

Out of the total population, only 18.7 million have broadband. Guess roughly 40% of the population is a pirate then. We should make it legal, government being there for the populace and all that.

136 out of 1176 people in households with internet connections admitted to having used file-sharing software (source: the summary)
18.3 million households in the UK had internet access at time of polling in 2009 (source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=8 )

136/1176 * 18.3M ~= 2.12M

Not sure if "having used file-sharing software" means that they downloaded / distributed at least 1 item - say, a song - via said software and that they had no actual rights to do so (you know, as most people use file-sharing software to distribute Linux distros, or have simply 'used it' but didn't actually download or upload anything... *cough*)...

But let's presume it does.

Then let's take the low price in iTunes UK of GBP 0.79 per song, then the music industry 'lost' ('cos obviously people had no intention of buying that song that they didn't download / distribute because they were downloading a Linux distro instead *cough*) about GBP 1,671,897.96.

Well, that's peanuts, innit.

It's not a tax.

The TV licence was reclassified as a tax by the OFN in 2006 (read the blue book). It was even talked about in the House of Lords.

Except, it's not a tax, it's collected by the TVLA not the government, and we don't have a federal government at all.

It is indeed collected by the TVLA but the authority to do so is set out in the Communications Act 2003 which makes it a criminal offense to not pay the TV licence fee.

, and despite the fact that the money doesn't pass through the federal government

Or even just our government...

This is false. The licence fee is set by the government. It is paid into the government bank account by the TVLA and then voted on by the BBC trustees before being allocated and distributed to the BBC by a government department.

The BBC is funded by the government as far as any tax is.

It's not a tax.

The TV licence was reclassified as a tax by the OFN in 2006 (read the blue book). It was even talked about in the House of Lords.

Except, it's not a tax, it's collected by the TVLA not the government, and we don't have a federal government at all.

It is indeed collected by the TVLA but the authority to do so is set out in the Communications Act 2003 which makes it a criminal offense to not pay the TV licence fee.

, and despite the fact that the money doesn't pass through the federal government

Or even just our government...

This is false. The licence fee is set by the government. It is paid into the government bank account by the TVLA and then voted on by the BBC trustees before being allocated and distributed to the BBC by a government department.

The BBC is funded by the government as far as any tax is.

Big companies have more employees, and are therefore going to get a bigger benefit, in total, than smaller companies.

And the point here is that this isn't a tax on broadband, but on phonelines - you pay whether you've got broadband or not.

It's a little confusing to introduce an "if you've got a phone line then you can pay an extra 50p" argument, or a "pay more tax if you use the internet more" argument. It's irrelevant. If you earn more money, you are better able to pay taxes. If you earn a "reasonable amount" then I doubt a progressive tax system would really effect you negatively. See http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=2 - wealth is massively skewed in the UK, as it is in most countries. Most regular folks would be better off under progressive taxation policies.

Speeding motorists kill more people, maim more people, and damage more property than all other criminals put together.

hyperbole doesn't help your argument

What hyperbole? I stated a fact.

the number of accidents where excessive speed is a factor is variously quoted by the police at anywhere from 10-15%

"Nationally 13 per cent of all fatal casualties in 2007 were due to exceeding the speed limit."

total number of road deaths in GB in 2007 was 2,946

Indeed. There is a difference between 'exceeding the speed limit' and 'speeding'. The speed limit is a limit, not an obligation. If you hit someone and kill them then by definition you were driving faster than was safe, whether or not you were exceeding the speed limit.

so we can assume 300 of those are speed related

On the contrary all of them must have been speed related. Stationary cars kill no-one.

this compares with about 275 knife crime related deaths for the same period or 8,724 alcohol-related deaths in 2007

Drinking alcohol is not, in itself, a crime.

even if you dispute the 13% figure and assume all road deaths are speed related, you may wish to see the number of drug related deaths for the same period The total number of deaths related to drug poisoning in 2007 was 2,640

That number includes my brother-in-law, who died of paracetamol poisoning during that period. Precisely what crime was involved in that?

speeding may not be a very safe or desirable activity, but to suggest it is the most dangerous criminal activity is disingenuous at best

On the contrary it is strictly accurate.

Speeding motorists kill more people, maim more people, and damage more property than all other criminals put together.

hyperbole doesn't help your argument

What hyperbole? I stated a fact.

the number of accidents where excessive speed is a factor is variously quoted by the police at anywhere from 10-15%

"Nationally 13 per cent of all fatal casualties in 2007 were due to exceeding the speed limit."

total number of road deaths in GB in 2007 was 2,946

Indeed. There is a difference between 'exceeding the speed limit' and 'speeding'. The speed limit is a limit, not an obligation. If you hit someone and kill them then by definition you were driving faster than was safe, whether or not you were exceeding the speed limit.

so we can assume 300 of those are speed related

On the contrary all of them must have been speed related. Stationary cars kill no-one.

this compares with about 275 knife crime related deaths for the same period or 8,724 alcohol-related deaths in 2007

Drinking alcohol is not, in itself, a crime.

even if you dispute the 13% figure and assume all road deaths are speed related, you may wish to see the number of drug related deaths for the same period The total number of deaths related to drug poisoning in 2007 was 2,640

That number includes my brother-in-law, who died of paracetamol poisoning during that period. Precisely what crime was involved in that?

speeding may not be a very safe or desirable activity, but to suggest it is the most dangerous criminal activity is disingenuous at best

On the contrary it is strictly accurate.

Speeding motorists kill more people, maim more people, and damage more property than all other criminals put together.

hyperbole doesn't help your argument

What hyperbole? I stated a fact.

the number of accidents where excessive speed is a factor is variously quoted by the police at anywhere from 10-15%

"Nationally 13 per cent of all fatal casualties in 2007 were due to exceeding the speed limit."

total number of road deaths in GB in 2007 was 2,946

Indeed. There is a difference between 'exceeding the speed limit' and 'speeding'. The speed limit is a limit, not an obligation. If you hit someone and kill them then by definition you were driving faster than was safe, whether or not you were exceeding the speed limit.

so we can assume 300 of those are speed related

On the contrary all of them must have been speed related. Stationary cars kill no-one.

this compares with about 275 knife crime related deaths for the same period or 8,724 alcohol-related deaths in 2007

Drinking alcohol is not, in itself, a crime.

even if you dispute the 13% figure and assume all road deaths are speed related, you may wish to see the number of drug related deaths for the same period The total number of deaths related to drug poisoning in 2007 was 2,640

That number includes my brother-in-law, who died of paracetamol poisoning during that period. Precisely what crime was involved in that?

speeding may not be a very safe or desirable activity, but to suggest it is the most dangerous criminal activity is disingenuous at best

On the contrary it is strictly accurate.

Speeding motorists kill more people, maim more people, and damage more property than all other criminals put together.

hyperbole doesn't help your argument

the number of accidents where excessive speed is a factor is variously quoted by the police at anywhere from 10-15%

"Nationally 13 per cent of all fatal casualties in 2007 were due to exceeding the speed limit."

total number of road deaths in GB in 2007 was 2,946

so we can assume 300 of those are speed related

this compares with about 275 knife crime related deaths for the same period

or 8,724 alcohol-related deaths in 2007

even if you dispute the 13% figure and assume all road deaths are speed related, you may wish to see the number of drug related deaths for the same period

The total number of deaths related to drug poisoning in 2007 was 2,640

speeding may not be a very safe or desirable activity, but to suggest it is the most dangerous criminal activity is disingenuous at best

Speeding motorists kill more people, maim more people, and damage more property than all other criminals put together.

hyperbole doesn't help your argument

the number of accidents where excessive speed is a factor is variously quoted by the police at anywhere from 10-15%

"Nationally 13 per cent of all fatal casualties in 2007 were due to exceeding the speed limit."

total number of road deaths in GB in 2007 was 2,946

so we can assume 300 of those are speed related

this compares with about 275 knife crime related deaths for the same period

or 8,724 alcohol-related deaths in 2007

even if you dispute the 13% figure and assume all road deaths are speed related, you may wish to see the number of drug related deaths for the same period

The total number of deaths related to drug poisoning in 2007 was 2,640

speeding may not be a very safe or desirable activity, but to suggest it is the most dangerous criminal activity is disingenuous at best

Speeding motorists kill more people, maim more people, and damage more property than all other criminals put together.

hyperbole doesn't help your argument

the number of accidents where excessive speed is a factor is variously quoted by the police at anywhere from 10-15%

"Nationally 13 per cent of all fatal casualties in 2007 were due to exceeding the speed limit."

total number of road deaths in GB in 2007 was 2,946

so we can assume 300 of those are speed related

this compares with about 275 knife crime related deaths for the same period

or 8,724 alcohol-related deaths in 2007

even if you dispute the 13% figure and assume all road deaths are speed related, you may wish to see the number of drug related deaths for the same period

The total number of deaths related to drug poisoning in 2007 was 2,640

speeding may not be a very safe or desirable activity, but to suggest it is the most dangerous criminal activity is disingenuous at best

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.

At 5% inflation per annum, the price of a budget game today should be £7.96 if it was £3 twenty years ago

A 5% inflation rate is very high. If we start at 1989, the CPI rates average out to 2.73% per anum. £3 in 1988, in terms of consumer purchasing power, is £5.13 in 2008.

Or they have someone on staff that's under 30, or they have someone on staff that has teenage kids, or... I found this PDF which says 70% recent internet users * 12% P2P users = 8.4% filesharers in the UK. If you took out small children and the elderly from that you'd be way into double digits. It's probably more getting to the point where you need a show of hands rather than call someone up from the IT department.

I was half joking, but you seem to have missed my point: everything you say is right, from a point of morality of fairness it's a horrible dragnet law that would indiscriminately punish plenty of innocent people on the assumption that they might have done something wrong. Of course it's insane.

The (presumably unintended) consequence, however, is that they are making the tacit statement that the monetary value of copyright infringement is £20/household/year. They're admitting that they're unable to stop infringement and thus accepting the money in lieu of the cessation of 'piracy'. Since they (in this hypothetical situation) will choose to charge me £20/year for my downloaded media, I will in turn accept this offer (as I am being forced by law to do) and choose to download for free all the media that I would otherwise have spent money on, and encourage anyone I can get to listen to do the same.

Incidentally, if every household in the UK did pay this fee it would come to about £433,000,000. That's less than half of the music industry's current revenue, and the proposed UK tax includes films too.

Just because an idea is unfair and ridiculous doesn't mean that (in this case) we can't make it work to our advantage!

In 2007 there where:

301,621,157 people in the US
11,251,828 Total CRIMES
1,408,337 Violent (seperate from murders)
16,929 Murders (not included in violent)
855,856 Aggrivated Assault - a reckless attack with intent to injure seriously (as with a deadly weapon)
2,176,140 Burglaries - Lowest since 1991

This gives a .47%violent crime rate in America ((1,408,337+16,929)/301,621,157)

Source http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

In 2005 there were:
419,640 - Non fatal Gun crimes
8,478 - Handgun deaths
2,868 - other gun deaths
2,147 - Knife deaths
671 - Blunt object deaths
2,528 - Other object deaths

USDOJ Source.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm

UK Crimes

In 2007 there were:
60,975,000 - Total Population (estimate)
1,045,369 Violence crimes
621,958 Burglaries
3,810,971 Total Crimes

This gives a 1.7% violent crime rate (1,045,369/60,975,000)

http://212.78.84.22/superweb/login.do?guest=guest

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=6

So the UK has a crime rate roughly 3.61 times worse than the US in violent crime rates.

Does fear of being shot deter criminals in the U.S.? Are citizens of the U.K. better at reporting crimes?

Shamelessly copied from http://runryder.com/helicopter/t471261p1/

I knew you were trolling when I read:

Last time I checked, the US has the most college graduates of any country. Our worst college-educated state, West Virginia, has more college graduates than any country in Western Europe.

The population of West Virginia is under 2 million people. The population of the UK is 60 million. Germany has more. These countries both have very high numbers of people entering further education in order to get a degree. The UK tries to get 50% of students into further education. According to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/UK.asp there will be more people of university age (18 - 21) in the country than there are people in West Virginia, and even if only 25% ever gained a degree (and 50% of West Virginia had degrees) it would only take 2 years to overtake the entire population of West Virginia from scratch.

Maybe if you compared yourself to Slovenia you would have a valid comparison. Oh, and how big would the economy of Dakota or Wyoming be if it was a country on its own?

In the UK petrol duty is a fixed amount rather than a percentage, so whilst your 'gas' went from $1 to $4, our petrol merely went up around 50% in total. It's still cheaper than bottled water.

As regards the book (i.e,. being on topic), surely the best advice is to simply not do worthless fluffy subjects, but to do subjects that have business demand.

And surely being in debt at a young age will put them off ever being in debt again afterwards! People expect the world on a plate, even in their 20s, and it doesn't work that way.

Last time I checked, the US has the most college graduates of any country. Our worst college-educated state, West Virginia, has more college graduates than any country in Western Europe.

You honestly think that a state with 1.8million people has more college graduates than the UK (pop. 60 million)? In 2003 the UK had 3 million full-time students aged 16 and over. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/labour_market_trends/economic_inactivity_students_LMTDec03.pdf/ and had 16% of the working population with a degree http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7743.xls/.

Last time I checked, the US has the most college graduates of any country. Our worst college-educated state, West Virginia, has more college graduates than any country in Western Europe.

You honestly think that a state with 1.8million people has more college graduates than the UK (pop. 60 million)? In 2003 the UK had 3 million full-time students aged 16 and over. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/labour_market_trends/economic_inactivity_students_LMTDec03.pdf/ and had 16% of the working population with a degree http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7743.xls/.

the 2005 London bombings which killed 52 people and injured 700.

52 lives. In 2005 there were 271,000 road deaths in Great Britain. How much money was spent per head trying to reduce that, compared to the huge sums trying to reduce the number 52? I could also bring up a few medical statistics.

Why is it that a small number of deaths by one means merits spending of several orders of magnitude more than other causes of death?