South Yorkshire has the 2nd highest murder rate in the UK.

[Flexo 10]

These are shocking ststistics.

 

I don't suppose you can recommend a removal firm in Broomhill?

[facom1 10]

I don't suppose you can recommend a removal firm in Broomhill?

 

Try Detetcives.com guaranteed to rip you off..

[SUNANDSEA 10]

Murder, Crime and violence happen all over the country (and world for that matter) I don't think it's anything to do with areas...... Yes, South Yorkshire has been in the press over the last few months, but no more so than for e.g London...!

[vincentb 10]

23 years on the front line and you have the nerve to question the figures she gave me without hesitation, or doubt and within a few seconds.

 

I would question anybody anybody who gave a figure like that, off the top of their head, without hesitation or doubt. Nobody, whether they work in forensics or pathology or CID or the courts or the prison system, knows everything about all violent crimes in one area. The point of the stats is that they're traceable and comparable; your partner might be right, or she might be wrong - and there's no way to tell the difference. With official published stats there is, and there are people who make sure of it.

[Tommo68 10]

The point of the stats is that they're traceable and comparable; your partner might be right, or she might be wrong - and there's no way to tell the difference. With official published stats there is, and there are people who make sure of it.

 

I do admire your confidence in official published figures.

Although I think anyone, especially these days, would be naive to trust any kind og information that they can only verify from one root source.

 

I'd much rather trust the gut feeling guesstimate from a local or resident expert.

 

But as usual ....each to their own.

.

.

[GLASGOWOODS 10]

I would question anybody anybody who gave a figure like that, off the top of their head, without hesitation or doubt. Nobody, whether they work in forensics or pathology or CID or the courts or the prison system, knows everything about all violent crimes in one area. The point of the stats is that they're traceable and comparable; your partner might be right, or she might be wrong - and there's no way to tell the difference. With official published stats there is, and there are people who make sure of it.

 

Who are the people who make sure of it?

 

And you make reference to violent crime. This topic is about homicide figures isn't it?

Edited March 6, 2015 by GLASGOWOODS

[Dannyno 19]

23 years on the front line and you have the nerve to question the figures she gave me without hesitation, or doubt and within a few seconds.

 

Here's how things work...

 

FS go to the scene, then lab, followed by "backing up" their findings in the courts. Believe it or not they can count and log/store the figures.

 

After they've done their job your guess is as good as mine and my partner why the figures change.

 

Imagine your down the pub with your forensic pal with 23 years service in the bag and he gives you figures different than some Gov statistician, who would you believe?

 

Do you believe Gov figures on crime, employment, immigration? etc. I don't.

 

I do have a partner. Why the hell would I come on here and make something up? I've learnt a lot of interesting things on SF without demanding links/stats, or whatever. It doesn't take a genius to work out whose genuine on here and those who live in a wee fantasy world.

 

Sadly the world is full of trolls and fantasists, and just as we shouldn't just trust the government, nor should we just trust people we don't know on the internet.

 

So the response to my question about why the figure you quoted was difference to the official stats was "your guess is as good as mine and my partner".

 

But there must be a reason, and I'm surprised that a forensics expert with 23 years experience who is so confident about numbers they come up with "without hesitation or doubt" (not very skeptical!) doesn't have any kind of theory. Where are all these missing bodies? No, I suspect that not all the deaths that forensics see are actually treated as murders in the end.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2015 at 22:27 ----------

 

I do admire your confidence in official published figures.

Although I think anyone, especially these days, would be naive to trust any kind og information that they can only verify from one root source.

 

I'd much rather trust the gut feeling guesstimate from a local or resident expert.

 

But as usual ....each to their own.

.

.

 

If it's naive to trust official sources, it's just as naive to think that "gut feelings" are superior, given the many sources of human error!

 

Skeptics need to be able to justify their skepticism. For example, general crime stats are not completely reliable. But we know and can explain why they are not completely reliable. Skepticism has reasons, it's not just militant know-nothingism and conspiracy theorising.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2015 at 22:39 ----------

 

There is a lot of sense here. Statistics are made up by a percentage or a poll. Either way, the results will only be based on whom they have spoken to. Lets use the old cat food claim. 8 out of ten cat owners, blah blah. Well, they never asked me or my mother and we both have cats, and our moggies preferred the other one, which rhymes with Helix. I also don't believe in stats, and prefer pure hard evidence.

 

I don't think you understand statistics, which if done right and well are in fact hard evidence, or as good as. Not understanding statistics is not the same as skepticism about statistics. It's worth knowing why and how statistics can mislead, so you can spot when people are misleading you, or being misled. Dismissing all statistics is not sensible.

 

For example, when it is announced that "8 out of 10 cat owners say their cat prefers X", you haven't disproved that statistic by triumphantly saying that your cat preferred Y, have you? The statistic doesn't say, "10 out of 10 cat owners..." does it?

 

Furthermore, the statistic will be based on results from a survey, and will be true, if its true of anything, of the participants in the survey. And if the survey was big enough, and representative enough, and designed well, then there are good reasons for thinking that it won't be completely off beam as a prediction of the views of a wider population. And if it wasn't big enough, or representative enough, or well designed, then those will be informed reasons for doubting the results that aren't just a know-nothingist "all statistics are rubbish".

 

Statistics in medicine, for example, are an essential tool for objectively telling the difference between a treatment that works better than no treatment, and a treatment that doesn't.

 

I do agree that there are a lot of bad statistics out there. But you deal with that by applying more and better statistical knowledge, not less.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Dannyno

[GLASGOWOODS 10]

Sadly the world is full of trolls and fantasists, and just as we shouldn't just trust the government, nor should we just trust people we don't know on the internet.

 

So the response to my question about why the figure you quoted was difference to the official stats was "your guess is as good as mine and my partner".

 

But there must be a reason, and I'm surprised that a forensics expert with 23 years experience who is so confident about numbers they come up with "without hesitation or doubt" (not very skeptical!) doesn't have any kind of theory. Where are all these missing bodies? No, I suspect that not all the deaths that forensics see are actually treated as murders in the end.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2015 at 22:27 ----------

 

 

If it's naive to trust official sources, it's just as naive to think that "gut feelings" are superior, given the many sources of human error!

 

Skeptics need to be able to justify their skepticism. For example, general crime stats are not completely reliable. But we know and can explain why they are not completely reliable. Skepticism has reasons, it's not just militant know-nothingism and conspiracy theorising.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2015 at 22:39 ----------

 

 

I don't think you understand statistics, which if done right and well are in fact hard evidence, or as good as. Not understanding statistics is not the same as skepticism about statistics. It's worth knowing why and how statistics can mislead, so you can spot when people are misleading you, or being misled. Dismissing all statistics is not sensible.

 

For example, when it is announced that "8 out of 10 cat owners say their cat prefers X", you haven't disproved that statistic by triumphantly saying that your cat preferred Y, have you? The statistic doesn't say, "10 out of 10 cat owners..." does it?

 

Furthermore, the statistic will be based on results from a survey, and will be true, if its true of anything, of the participants in the survey. And if the survey was big enough, and representative enough, and designed well, then there are good reasons for thinking that it won't be completely off beam as a prediction of the views of a wider population. And if it wasn't big enough, or representative enough, or well designed, then those will be informed reasons for doubting the results that aren't just a know-nothingist "all statistics are rubbish".

 

Statistics in medicine, for example, are an essential tool for objectively telling the difference between a treatment that works better than no treatment, and a treatment that doesn't.

 

I do agree that there are a lot of bad statistics out there. But you deal with that by applying more and better statistical knowledge, not less.

 

Politically motivated/manipulated stats! Stats are important I agree, but in this case you are well of the mark. As I've already stated, my info is from the horses mouth, on the front line and not faceless suits sat at their desks churning out figures certain establishments want the public to believe.

 

Lets agree to disagree.