Michael Howard and Brixton
- Thread starter 2 Hardcore
- Start date
IntoStella said:Thanks Pooka.
Apart from the references to 'the notorious Coldharbour Lane', 'Ritzy Club'etc, that is a pretty unusual piece for the substandard. Glad they aren't swallowing Howard's shit.
What next in the 'Battle of Brixton", I wonder?
How about this? Oliver Letwin a while back praising the police in Brixton! He says:
' We need to give them the ability to recapture our streets through the real and sustained neighbourhood policing that we have had in Brixton - actively pursued by Borough Commander Richard Quinn and Inspector Sean Wilson...Over the past year, crime figures for Lambeth have radically improved. Since August 2002, robbery is down 36% and burglary down 50%. Over 140 abandoned cars have been removed, over 900 graffiti sites cleansed and 30,000 needles collected.'
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=64998&speeches=1
interesting if you google it the socially liberal tories are positive about Brixton (e.g. Letwin & Norris), socially illiberal Tories are negative (e.g. Howard & IDS)
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
oh dear, we seem to have the first split in Tory ranks for quite a while! 
edit; ed'ed out for stealth value
edit; ed'ed out for stealth value
The saga continues
From today's Guardian:
Howard's crime claims marred by Letwin
Michael White and Alan Travis
Wednesday October 13, 2004
The Guardian
The deadliest affliction known to British politics, the Curse of Letwin, struck again yesterday, inadvertently demolishing Michael Howard's claim that crime is out of control in Brixton because there are no police to be found on its streets at night.
Twenty-four hours after the Conservative leader used a Guardian article to attack the police record in the south London area - and columnist Polly Toynbee - for challenging his party conference thesis, internet researchers unearthed laudatory praise of the "Brixton miracle."
It came from the lips of Oliver Letwin. But he could not be accused of stabbing Mr Howard in the back. He stabbed him in the front - in two public speeches.
Admittedly, the shadow chancellor was shadow home secretary at the time and the past year in Tory politics has been a very long one. But at last year's Conservative conference in Blackpool Mr Letwin said he had visited Brixton, but found it to be an outstanding example of neighbourhood policing.
"I saw Inspector Sean Wilson and his team reclaiming the streets for local people. Burglary is down, robbery is down, graffiti is wiped away, abandoned cars towed away. Central Brixton is a safer, happier place than it was a couple of years ago," he reported, having made similar claims in a speech in June.
To compound future embarrassment to his party leader, Mr Letwin went on to say that it was "bobbies on the beat" - the ones Mr Howard told this year's conference he hadn't seen - that had made the difference in Brixton.
When the Guardian pointed out to Mr Howard that his claims had infuriated the borough police commander and local residents because crime had fallen, not risen, the Tory leader retaliated.
"They've howled in protest at my comments and demanded an apology. But no-one has contradicted what I said. I spoke the truth," he wrote in yesterday's paper.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1325934,00.html
From today's Guardian:
Howard's crime claims marred by Letwin
Michael White and Alan Travis
Wednesday October 13, 2004
The Guardian
The deadliest affliction known to British politics, the Curse of Letwin, struck again yesterday, inadvertently demolishing Michael Howard's claim that crime is out of control in Brixton because there are no police to be found on its streets at night.
Twenty-four hours after the Conservative leader used a Guardian article to attack the police record in the south London area - and columnist Polly Toynbee - for challenging his party conference thesis, internet researchers unearthed laudatory praise of the "Brixton miracle."
It came from the lips of Oliver Letwin. But he could not be accused of stabbing Mr Howard in the back. He stabbed him in the front - in two public speeches.
Admittedly, the shadow chancellor was shadow home secretary at the time and the past year in Tory politics has been a very long one. But at last year's Conservative conference in Blackpool Mr Letwin said he had visited Brixton, but found it to be an outstanding example of neighbourhood policing.
"I saw Inspector Sean Wilson and his team reclaiming the streets for local people. Burglary is down, robbery is down, graffiti is wiped away, abandoned cars towed away. Central Brixton is a safer, happier place than it was a couple of years ago," he reported, having made similar claims in a speech in June.
To compound future embarrassment to his party leader, Mr Letwin went on to say that it was "bobbies on the beat" - the ones Mr Howard told this year's conference he hadn't seen - that had made the difference in Brixton.
When the Guardian pointed out to Mr Howard that his claims had infuriated the borough police commander and local residents because crime had fallen, not risen, the Tory leader retaliated.
"They've howled in protest at my comments and demanded an apology. But no-one has contradicted what I said. I spoke the truth," he wrote in yesterday's paper.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1325934,00.html
hendo
Fish finger sandwiches
Are you the "internet researchers" referred to in the article Bob?
Sounds as if the Guardian might be lurking in these parts.
Fascinated by Howard's comment to the effect that "nobody" has contradicted him since he made his allegations.
I suppose he needs to inhabit that kind of mental tunnel when the polls are showing what they do.
Sounds as if the Guardian might be lurking in these parts.
Fascinated by Howard's comment to the effect that "nobody" has contradicted him since he made his allegations.
I suppose he needs to inhabit that kind of mental tunnel when the polls are showing what they do.
LOLBob said:
That must have been when that impudent wretch Anna key went up to him outside the library and asked him if he'd seen Oliver Letwin about anywhere.
Seeing as they have suffered a number of serious shooting incidents of late, why isn't Howard walking around Nottingham, Harlesden or Hackney?
Because he's too fucking scared, that's why.
He knows Brixton is a lot safer, even if the average Daily Maul reader doesn't. Cynical c*nt.
Because he's too fucking scared, that's why.
He knows Brixton is a lot safer, even if the average Daily Maul reader doesn't. Cynical c*nt.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
ooh dear, what rotter spilled those beans...Bob said:
<looks endearingly modest>
Oh yes??? Come on, elaborate, do.Red Jezza said:
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
who do you think emailed Ms Toynbee?IntoStella said:Oh yes??? Come on, elaborate, do.
and it went like this;
couldn't resist.
Mind, they may have got there first, but I sent it at 18.28, well before deadline....
You total star
A very large beer for you next time you're in Brixton, young man.
A very large beer for you next time you're in Brixton, young man.
Red Jezza said:
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
this is the first time in a long while I've wanted Blair to shoot and score....pooka said:
<tries hard to wipe smug grin off face>
2 Hardcore
mad old bat
I'm getting really worried now about our next visit to Brixton ......... all these marauding Tories.....
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
I really cannot believe how badly Howard has shot himself in the foot over this one. I mean, the least you expect is basic competence. didn't ANYONE think to check? jesus, how have the mighty fallen...
miss minnie
Well-Known Member
basic competence? from the party that brought us a treasurer who forgot to pay his visa bill?
Brixton Hatter
Home is south London mate
Yes, very unusual for the Sub Standard! Dont think they've turned over a new leaf though - they probably just couldn't resist giving Howard a bit of a kick! Still, nice to see some balance.IntoStella said:Apart from the references to 'the notorious Coldharbour Lane', 'Ritzy Club'
Ed, you must stop hanging around the Dog Star!
Finally..... well done Jezza!
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
I know.miss minnie said:basic competence? from the party that brought us a treasurer who forgot to pay his visa bill?
it's because I remember the awesome, evil machine that dominated the 80s, that their uselessness STILL stuns me.
when a certain Brixton forum poster was an arch-thatcherite...
And it rumbles on. Hopefully this will discourage people from continually using Brixton as an example of inner city failure...
Crimes against statistics
As a former home secretary, Michael Howard can't really believe what he is saying about violence in Brixton
Mike Hough
Thursday October 14, 2004
The Guardian
Earlier this week, Michael Howard called Polly Toynbee to task for drawing on British Crime Survey figures about falling crime. "The most reliable crime statistics - those recorded by the police - show that crime in England and Wales has risen by 850,000 in the past five years," he claimed. He referred to an increase in recorded violent crime of 83% over the past five years nationally, and, in defence of his remarks about Brixton, a rise in violent crime statistics in Lambeth of 10% over the past year.
As a former home secretary, he must be aware that this is a gross misrepresentation of crime trends. Police statistics bear little relation to the reality. The British Crime Survey (BCS) shows unequivocally that major types of crime have fallen dramatically since 1995: vehicle crime down by half, house burglary down by 47%, assault down by 43%, wounding down by 28%, vandalism down 27%. Mugging shows a small fall that is statistically not significant.
Recorded crime has gone up over the past five years because the police have changed the way that they count crime. In particular, they altered their "counting rules" in 1998, and introduced a national crime recording standard from 2002. They previously rejected victims' reports of crime if they doubted them; now, under the NCRS, these are taken at face value. Both sets of changes have inflated the police count of crime, and this inflation has been greatest for crimes of violence. That is the reason for the 83% rise in violence that Mr Howard cites.
What are we to make of Lambeth's rise of 10% in recorded crimes of violence last year? Nationally, police figures for violence rose by 14%, while the BCS figure shows a fall of 3%. If Lambeth follows the pattern elsewhere, the 10% rise is simply a consequence of the "bedding in" of the NCRS.
Statisticians have always known that only a proportion of crimes committed get reported to the police, and only a proportion of those reported find their way into police records. The BCS, which has now been in existence for 23 years, can put estimates to the "dark figure" of unrecorded crime; it interviews very large samples of the population about their experience of crime. Thus in 1981, 36% of such crimes were reported to the police, a figure which has risen to 44% today. The proportion of reported crime that is recorded has risen over this period from 62% to 77%. So the proportion of unrecorded crimes has shrunk since 1981, from almost four-fifths to around two-thirds - a very large change.
The BCS trend is simple: crime rose from 1981 until 1995, and then fell back again to near 1981 levels. The trend in recorded crime is more complicated: it rose at a faster rate than the BCS trend-line in the 1980s because as a nation we began to report more of the crimes committed against us. In the early to mid-1990s the recorded statistics showed a fall while the underlying trend was still upward - possibly a disciplined police response to targets set for them by Michael Howard. Are we to believe the BCS? It is done to high technical standards by survey companies independent of the Home Office. I trust it - but as a member of the original research team, I would say that, wouldn't I?
However, there are no persuasive technical grounds for doubting the validity of the trend information it has yielded. True, response rates have dipped by five or so percentage points since 1981. True, the estimates are subject to sampling error. But measurement error is not a plausible explanation of falls approaching 50%.
This brings me to Mr Howard's second claim about the BCS, that it has significant flaws in undercounting crime. The BCS is flawed in much the same way that my car is flawed in its failure to run on railway tracks. An index of people's personal experience of crime will not measure other sorts of crime. However, the Home Office is due to publish its survey of commercial victimisation and its "self-report" survey of offending later this year. These will plug some of the gaps left by the BCS.
The safest thing to conclude is that crimes that bear some similarity to BCS crimes will follow similar trends. I would expect commercial burglary to follow a similar pattern to house burglary, and vandalism against public property to track vandalism against personal property. There is no evidence to my knowledge that crime against the under-16s is rising. One crime type that could buck the downward trend is shoplifting - the main crime committed by dependent drug users. Violent crime involving firearms is rare but rising. E-crime is surging. But the headline trend for crimes that affect everyone's daily lives is downward.
We can hardly be surprised that opposition politicians play a spoiling game when crime goes down or when the government claims all the credit for the falls. But that is no reason to discount the very real improvements in knowledge that the BCS has brought about.
· Professor Mike Hough is director of the institute for criminal policy research, King's College London
mike.hough@kcl.ac.uk
Crimes against statistics
As a former home secretary, Michael Howard can't really believe what he is saying about violence in Brixton
Mike Hough
Thursday October 14, 2004
The Guardian
Earlier this week, Michael Howard called Polly Toynbee to task for drawing on British Crime Survey figures about falling crime. "The most reliable crime statistics - those recorded by the police - show that crime in England and Wales has risen by 850,000 in the past five years," he claimed. He referred to an increase in recorded violent crime of 83% over the past five years nationally, and, in defence of his remarks about Brixton, a rise in violent crime statistics in Lambeth of 10% over the past year.
As a former home secretary, he must be aware that this is a gross misrepresentation of crime trends. Police statistics bear little relation to the reality. The British Crime Survey (BCS) shows unequivocally that major types of crime have fallen dramatically since 1995: vehicle crime down by half, house burglary down by 47%, assault down by 43%, wounding down by 28%, vandalism down 27%. Mugging shows a small fall that is statistically not significant.
Recorded crime has gone up over the past five years because the police have changed the way that they count crime. In particular, they altered their "counting rules" in 1998, and introduced a national crime recording standard from 2002. They previously rejected victims' reports of crime if they doubted them; now, under the NCRS, these are taken at face value. Both sets of changes have inflated the police count of crime, and this inflation has been greatest for crimes of violence. That is the reason for the 83% rise in violence that Mr Howard cites.
What are we to make of Lambeth's rise of 10% in recorded crimes of violence last year? Nationally, police figures for violence rose by 14%, while the BCS figure shows a fall of 3%. If Lambeth follows the pattern elsewhere, the 10% rise is simply a consequence of the "bedding in" of the NCRS.
Statisticians have always known that only a proportion of crimes committed get reported to the police, and only a proportion of those reported find their way into police records. The BCS, which has now been in existence for 23 years, can put estimates to the "dark figure" of unrecorded crime; it interviews very large samples of the population about their experience of crime. Thus in 1981, 36% of such crimes were reported to the police, a figure which has risen to 44% today. The proportion of reported crime that is recorded has risen over this period from 62% to 77%. So the proportion of unrecorded crimes has shrunk since 1981, from almost four-fifths to around two-thirds - a very large change.
The BCS trend is simple: crime rose from 1981 until 1995, and then fell back again to near 1981 levels. The trend in recorded crime is more complicated: it rose at a faster rate than the BCS trend-line in the 1980s because as a nation we began to report more of the crimes committed against us. In the early to mid-1990s the recorded statistics showed a fall while the underlying trend was still upward - possibly a disciplined police response to targets set for them by Michael Howard. Are we to believe the BCS? It is done to high technical standards by survey companies independent of the Home Office. I trust it - but as a member of the original research team, I would say that, wouldn't I?
However, there are no persuasive technical grounds for doubting the validity of the trend information it has yielded. True, response rates have dipped by five or so percentage points since 1981. True, the estimates are subject to sampling error. But measurement error is not a plausible explanation of falls approaching 50%.
This brings me to Mr Howard's second claim about the BCS, that it has significant flaws in undercounting crime. The BCS is flawed in much the same way that my car is flawed in its failure to run on railway tracks. An index of people's personal experience of crime will not measure other sorts of crime. However, the Home Office is due to publish its survey of commercial victimisation and its "self-report" survey of offending later this year. These will plug some of the gaps left by the BCS.
The safest thing to conclude is that crimes that bear some similarity to BCS crimes will follow similar trends. I would expect commercial burglary to follow a similar pattern to house burglary, and vandalism against public property to track vandalism against personal property. There is no evidence to my knowledge that crime against the under-16s is rising. One crime type that could buck the downward trend is shoplifting - the main crime committed by dependent drug users. Violent crime involving firearms is rare but rising. E-crime is surging. But the headline trend for crimes that affect everyone's daily lives is downward.
We can hardly be surprised that opposition politicians play a spoiling game when crime goes down or when the government claims all the credit for the falls. But that is no reason to discount the very real improvements in knowledge that the BCS has brought about.
· Professor Mike Hough is director of the institute for criminal policy research, King's College London
mike.hough@kcl.ac.uk
JoshNeicho
New Member
Letters editor of the sub-Standard here - very good to read your discussion - please send in your views on the saga and our Tuesday article to me at letters@standard.co.uk. I've got a copper arguing against the BCS and the Toynbee/Mike Hough line that crime is falling...a personal perspective on Brixton and how it's changed, or political comment about Howard, Letwin and local councillors would be especially interesting.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
sounds like a fair offer to me peeps, but I'm too feckin' busy right now.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
can I also point out some thing out, JoshNeicho?
although I will gladly comply with your request, it is just a little bit rude to come barging in on a not-for-profit BB without so much as a by-your-leave, soliciting letters.
a 'hello, nice to meet you' or 'what a nice website, my congrats to editor' would have been rather more charming.
we do manners round here. do you?
although I will gladly comply with your request, it is just a little bit rude to come barging in on a not-for-profit BB without so much as a by-your-leave, soliciting letters.
a 'hello, nice to meet you' or 'what a nice website, my congrats to editor' would have been rather more charming.
we do manners round here. do you?
Similar threads
