Scottish Sunday Express | Comments | Breaking news, sport and showbiz from the World's Greatest Newspaper

OAKSTAFF

07.04.08, 6:00am

You say would they change our laws for us? They didn't get a chance, we illegally invaded and bombed their country, remember?

• Posted by: Immigration_benefits_our_economy • Report Comment

CRAIGDAVID

18.02.08, 11:55pm

you said:

"Basically, I dont believe any law in Britain should be based upon religion and any person that does is trying to force thier belief upon others. That is not the British way. For hundreds of years we have adapted to suit others and I believe it has gone too far."

while i might agree with the first part of that statement, it is, unfortunately not the case. we have parish councils, and borders, we have relgious leaders standing in law making bodies (the h of l), we have eruvim (which really i have no objection to).
religious laws are everywhere. the christian ones are often of legal status, and are enforced on us all. other ones by other religious groups serve them only.

there are many religious laws here, like it or not.

• Posted by: nofreespeechhere • Report Comment

RELIGOUS LAW IN BRITAIN

13.02.08, 8:19pm

No religous law should be allowed in our country. Every person that resides in this country should abide by OUR laws set down by our Queen and OUR parliament. Basically, if you dont like it you should not be here. I have travelled to many different countries and have allways followed thier laws. People should accept the way in which British citizens live and the laws set unto them, if they dont they should not be here. You cannot change laws to suit the minority or the many, many religions that exist and are accepted in this land. Many of us (including myself) are not religous and we will not accept the changes in our laws in order for religous people to perform in the unacceptable ways in which they do. Some of us find religion warped and twisted, but we do not try to force others to live by our beliefs.
Basically, I dont believe any law in Britain should be based upon religion and any person that does is trying to force thier belief upon others. That is not the British way. For hundreds of years we have adapted to suit others and I believe it has gone too far.
If you cannot abide by our law then you should live somewhere else!!!!!!!!!!

• Posted by: craigdavid • Report Comment

SHOULD SHARIA LAW BE TOLERATED IN BRITAIN

12.02.08, 8:22pm

What is the matter with people?
This is Britain. British law should not be compromised.

Would all these other countries put up with us going over and telling them they must have British law. The answer would be a quick boot out of the country that is providing you didn't get flogged and thrown in jail instead.

• Posted by: Oakstaff • Report Comment

INTERNAL VALIDITY, CHARLIE TREE, AND B TO B

12.02.08, 7:30pm

charlie,
regardless of whether or not it is 'underreporting crime' that fact is it would consistently be underreporting crime, wouldn't it?

so whether or not the hypothetical number was 50, or 100, the fact that the numbers decrease, means that there is a decreasing trend. it is the trend we are talking about here, after all charlie, remember?

so, normally i would insult you right now, but i'm so pleased that you actually tried to make an argument and think, i'll let you off. more of that, and you might actually become plausible one day.

back to basics, yes, it would be very nice if you took the time to look up some numbers (from primary sources if possible). i think that would be a good thing to do. and i promise i will not ignore them.

• Posted by: nofreespeechhere • Report Comment

STATISTICS AND DAMN STATISTICS

12.02.08, 1:45am

The British Crime Survey. Let’s see:

“The BCS seeks to measure the amount of crime in England and Wales by asking around 50,000 people aged 16 and over, living in private households”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Crime_Survey

Note the word “private.” So the experiences of people living in council housing, housing associations, flats etc., where most crimes are committed, don’t show up on these figures. And only 50,000 people? That’s nothing. Especially when you’re (deliberately) not talking to the most crime ridden areas! Who would have thought that the Home Office was trying to pull the wool over our eyes! Obviously not idiots like you.

Oh and:

“In 2007, it was reported that the BCS was underreporting crime by about 3 million incidents per year because it did not allow for a particular person to be victimized more than five times in a year. The error means that violent crime is actually at 4.4 million incidents per year, an 82% increase over the 2.4 million previously thought.”

This came from The Independent. I expect you’re a bit miffed about this, aren’t you? Twice now your crap about crime figures have been exposed by lefty newspapers. First The Observer, and now The Independent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/government-figures-missing-two-million-violent-crimes-454637.html

And as an aside, do you not find it alarming how few people report crimes these days? Why do they do that, do you think? Perhaps because they fear intimidation? Because we've become a more violent society?

Oh no, I forgot. We all have nothing to fear. Crime has been steadily falling since 1980.

I've said it once, I've said it a number of times and I really have to say it again after this:

You really are a pillock.

• Posted by: CharlesTree • Report Comment

VINCE – YOU’RE SOUNDING NEUROTIC!!!

12.02.08, 12:45am

This is what Charles T posted earlier…

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1784623,00.html

Did you look at it?
From the Observer!
Hardly a right-leaning paper.
(It doesn't support your claims of a falling crime rate at all!)

In the Telegraph a few days ago it was said that the government have no idea what impact immigration has had on crime rates, so they’re getting a research body together to find out.
(Another labourite whitewash to look forward to)

You want me to supply facts/ figures??

Give me a few days (unlike you I can’t spend too much time on here, not at the moment!)

I’ll get facts & figures and you will ignore them, but, never mind.

I aim to please!!!

PS – three replicated posts spewing your “nice reasonable” bile is a touch over dramatic, is it not?

PPS – if I bore you, then ignore me. Simple, but brilliant!!!

• Posted by: back_to_basics • Report Comment

BACK TO BASICS AND PARANOID DELUSIONS

11.02.08, 11:34pm

to quote the paranoid one:
"The British Crime Survey is a Home Office survey. (Presumably funded by the govt, for the govt, to make the govt look good)"

the british crime survey has been going for many years, through both conservative and labour governments. it is widely regarded as the most reliable indicator of crime rates partly because it relies on self reporting, not official reported crime statistics.

really, back to basics, your answer is the same for absolutely everything "don't believe anything, but believe what i say"

you are starting to live in a delusional world on par with dylan. there are many things you do not understand:

1. there is a difference between 'bureaucracy' and 'government'. i.e. agencies, like the office for national stats, or the census, are funded by taxpayers, yes, but they are not part of partisan 'government' and are not in the job of making anyone look good. they are record keepers.

2. the statistics you sometimes use when you allude to stories in the express or the telegraph, or whatever rag, are stats that come from these very surveys, but the figures are pulled and taken out of context. it is not the original sources that are biased, as much as the interpretations of them by biased media.

it is getting really boring 'debating' with you, as all you can do is say 'i don't believe' any evidence that is presented to you. you never actually undermine it, or contest it, you just say 'well, i don't agree, it must be from the government'.

given that i have in past discussions presented you with university research, independent economic research, offical stats research, and research from the bank of england, and all you have to say is 'i don't believe it, even though i have no actual way of disproving it', i have to come to the conclusion that you are either deluded, or just not up to this task.

so, what research is 'reliable' in your opinion? give me some nice objective scientific data that you will believe...

• Posted by: nofreespeechhere • Report Comment

BACK TO BASICS AND PARANOID DELUSIONS

11.02.08, 11:34pm

to quote the paranoid one:
"The British Crime Survey is a Home Office survey. (Presumably funded by the govt, for the govt, to make the govt look good)"

the british crime survey has been going for many years, through both conservative and labour governments. it is widely regarded as the most reliable indicator of crime rates partly because it relies on self reporting, not official reported crime statistics.

really, back to basics, your answer is the same for absolutely everything "don't believe anything, but believe what i say"

you are starting to live in a delusional world on par with dylan. there are many things you do not understand:

1. there is a difference between 'bureaucracy' and 'government'. i.e. agencies, like the office for national stats, or the census, are funded by taxpayers, yes, but they are not part of partisan 'government' and are not in the job of making anyone look good. they are record keepers.

2. the statistics you sometimes use when you allude to stories in the express or the telegraph, or whatever rag, are stats that come from these very surveys, but the figures are pulled and taken out of context. it is not the original sources that are biased, as much as the interpretations of them by biased media.

it is getting really boring 'debating' with you, as all you can do is say 'i don't believe' any evidence that is presented to you. you never actually undermine it, or contest it, you just say 'well, i don't agree, it must be from the government'.

given that i have in past discussions presented you with university research, independent economic research, offical stats research, and research from the bank of england, and all you have to say is 'i don't believe it, even though i have no actual way of disproving it', i have to come to the conclusion that you are either deluded, or just not up to this task.

so, what research is 'reliable' in your opinion? give me some nice objective scientific data that you will believe...

• Posted by: nofreespeechhere • Report Comment

BACK TO BASICS AND PARANOID DELISIONS

11.02.08, 11:34pm

to quote the paranoid one:
"The British Crime Survey is a Home Office survey. (Presumably funded by the govt, for the govt, to make the govt look good)"

the british crime survey has been going for many years, through both conservative and labour governments. it is widely regarded as the most reliable indicator of crime rates partly because it relies on self reporting, not official reported crime statistics.

really, back to basics, your answer is the same for absolutely everything "don't believe anything, but believe what i say"

you are starting to live in a delusional world on par with dylan. there are many things you do not understand:

1. there is a difference between 'bureaucracy' and 'government'. i.e. agencies, like the office for national stats, or the census, are funded by taxpayers, yes, but they are not part of partisan 'government' and are not in the job of making anyone look good. they are record keepers.

2. the statistics you sometimes use when you allude to stories in the express or the telegraph, or whatever rag, are stats that come from these very surveys, but the figures are pulled and taken out of context. it is not the original sources that are biased, as much as the interpretations of them by biased media.

it is getting really boring 'debating' with you, as all you can do is say 'i don't believe' any evidence that is presented to you. you never actually undermine it, or contest it, you just say 'well, i don't agree, it must be from the government'.

given that i have in past discussions presented you with university research, independent economic research, offical stats research, and research from the bank of england, and all you have to say is 'i don't believe it, even though i have no actual way of disproving it', i have to come to the conclusion that you are either deluded, or just not up to this task.

so, what research is 'reliable' in your opinion? give me some nice objective scientific data that you will believe...

• Posted by: nofreespeechhere • Report Comment

FOR ANYONE CURRENTLY NOT RESIDING ON PLANET VINCE...

11.02.08, 10:25pm

The British Crime Survey is a Home Office survey. (Presumably funded by the govt, for the govt, to make the govt look good)

So, given all that, then the accompanying statistics will be, as per usual, massaged, tweaked, skewed, and generally pummelled (in other words, what we're reading will be complete and utter lies and BS)

• Posted by: back_to_basics • Report Comment

CHARLIE TREE, CRIME RATES, AND GETTING IT WRONG... AGAIN.

11.02.08, 6:04pm

the problem with you is that you are not a smart man, who thinks he is a smart man. thus the phrase 'a little knowledge is dangerous" applies very directly to you.

you never go directly to the sounrce for anything, but rely on third party interpretations.

here is some stuff from some reliable, first party sources:
sexual offenses:
(crimestatistics.org)
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 was introduced in May 2004 and altered the definition and coverage of sexual offences. In particular, it re-defined indecent exposure as a sexual offence which is likely to account for much of the increase in 2004/05.
In addition, Police and Government action to support victims of sexual offences is likely to have increased the number of such incidents being brought to the attention of the police and therefore recorded by them.

violent crime:
Numbers of recorded crimes are affected by changes in reporting and
recording practices. In April 1998, certain new offences e.g. common assault, possession of a weapon, assault on a constable and harassment, were added to the recorded crime series. It is not therefore possible to draw direct comparisons between offences recorded before and after that date.

and most importantly, all crime, from the british crime survey (the most reliable set of crime stats):

How the British Crime Survey (BCS) works

For a variety of reasons, people do not always report crimes to the police - which means they don't get reflected in police recorded crime figures.

The British Crime Survey (BCS) asks people about their actual experiences - and so gives us a more accurate picture of crime levels and trends across England & Wales. (more...)
Note: The BCS does not include crimes against businesses or commercial property.

According to the BCS:

In 2005/06 the total number of crimes in England and Wales was around 10,912,000.
Total crime peaked in 1995, and has since fallen by 44%.
In 2005/06 around 23% of the population were the victim of some type of crime.
This has fallen from a high in 1995 of nearly 40% of the population.

and form the office of national statistics, also based on the british crime survey:

• The British Crime Survey (BCS) showed that there were 10.9 million crimes committed against adults living in private households in England and Wales, 8.4 million fewer crimes than in 1995. (Figure 9.1)

• Property crime accounted for the majority (73 per cent) of all offences recorded by the police in 2005/06 in England and Wales. (Table 9.2)

• The total value of all card fraud in the UK in 2005 was £439 million, a decrease of 13 per cent compared with 2004. (Page 117)

• The risk of becoming a victim of crime fell from 40 per cent of the population in 1995 to 23 per cent in 2005/06 in England and Wales, the lowest recorded level since the BCS began.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1755

amazing how different a picture is painted when you actually go to the source, and have a reasonable idea of that you are talking about, eh charlie?

once again, charlie tree demonstrates his ignorance.

• Posted by: nofreespeechhere • Report Comment

SAKADIN

11.02.08, 8:56am

This is what I know about sharia.It originated from the diseased mind of a thieving mass murdering paedophile.Do I want it in my country? No thanks!

• Posted by: urban • Report Comment

SALA HADIN

10.02.08, 1:38pm

Your user name says it all,no need to read further,we can be assured that a long bull$hit diatribe will follow.

• Posted by: rozipoz • Report Comment

MORE LIES, NOFREESPEECHHRE

09.02.08, 1:36pm

You lied:

"similarly, the media tends to highlight criome. giving the impression that crime is getting steadily worse. leading people too a sense of panic and paraoia.

well, its not getting worse, it has been decreasing steadily since the 1980's."

As is the norm, you're talking crap:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1784623,00.html

From that article:

"The true picture of rising levels of violent crime in England and Wales and historically low conviction rates can be revealed today by The Observer.

An investigation shows that conviction rates for many of the most violent crimes have been in freefall since Labour came to power in 1997 and are now well below 10 per cent. The chronically low figures for convictions come at the same time as reports that violent crime is increasing.

The record under Labour is worst for two crimes that arouse deep public concern. Serious woundings have risen by more than half in 10 years to almost 20,000 attacks each year, but their conviction rate has fallen from 14.8 to 9.7 per cent. Nearly 13,000 rapes were recorded by police in the year from April 2004, double the total for 1997, and over the period the conviction rate collapsed from 9.2 to 5.5 per cent. There was, however, a fall in the number of burglaries and the conviction rate for them rose - but only by 0.5 per cent.

The fall in total conviction rates began under the Tories in 1980 and Labour promised, before it won the 1997 election, that it would put this trend into reverse. Despite its failure to do so, Labour's ministers have claimed repeatedly that serious crime has been falling.

The Home Office insisted in a written statement yesterday that 'long term trends show substantial declines in levels of violent crimes'. The former Home Secretary Charles Clarke claimed earlier this year that the main problem society faces is not crime but the fear of it, and he set up a working party to investigate ways of making people believe the official position - that the huge rises in the levels of recorded violent and sexual crime are illusory, the result of more victims having the confidence to go to the police.

But The Observer investigation shows that since 1980, serious woundings have more than quadrupled, and recorded rapes have increased nearly elevenfold."

• Posted by: CharlesTree • Report Comment

ARTICLE SUMMARY

Should Sharia law be tolerated in Britain?

OAKSTAFF

CRAIGDAVID

RELIGOUS LAW IN BRITAIN

SHOULD SHARIA LAW BE TOLERATED IN BRITAIN

INTERNAL VALIDITY, CHARLIE TREE, AND B TO B

STATISTICS AND DAMN STATISTICS

VINCE – YOU’RE SOUNDING NEUROTIC!!!

BACK TO BASICS AND PARANOID DELUSIONS

BACK TO BASICS AND PARANOID DELUSIONS

BACK TO BASICS AND PARANOID DELISIONS

FOR ANYONE CURRENTLY NOT RESIDING ON PLANET VINCE...

CHARLIE TREE, CRIME RATES, AND GETTING IT WRONG... AGAIN.

SAKADIN

SALA HADIN

MORE LIES, NOFREESPEECHHRE