http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kxzuot8xnw0

No it doesn’t. In fact you can’t even pull a quote out that shows this proves that you’re in error.

Let’s recap shall we? The report concludes…

A) General crime:

Independent data indicates that the upward trend indicated by the recorded crime statistics and the abrupt discontinuity reported during July 2005, are not corroborated by other observations (such as CARD data, calls for service, ACC claim data).

So there’s this “upward trend” in crime is meaningless because it’s unsupportable using other measurements, and is explained away as being due to changes in policing practices. Following so far? It’s not that hard is it?

B) Violent crime:

The overall increase in recorded violent crime is however supported by ACC claim statistics. Much of the increase in violence, appears to be family violence related, and may be a consequence of increased proactive police activity to combat domestic violence.

Notice that the report only says that flawed increase in “recorded violent crime” is only supportable using ACC data, not “CARD” data, Or “Calls for Service” data. So it’s far from a definite conclusion.

Then we have DPF’s graph concerning youth offending, which is the topic of the thread. So let’s see what DPF claimed shall we?

Then on page 43, a table gives up the Police apprehension figures for 14 – 16 year olds for violent offences. We see in 1995 it was 2,690. In 1999 it had risen only 0.7% to 2,708. And by 2006 it had gone up 38% to 3,743.

what it does show is the youth violent crime level was steady, and has increased in the last few years.

I went on to debunk this by proving the following quote from the report which he pulled the figures from.

While Police apprehension statistics do provide an indication of trends in offending by young people, reporting and recording practices, along with policy and legislative changes, can significantly influence apprehension statistics and thereby distort offending trends.

So DPF’s graph is meaningless, particularly given that the only increase in per capita youth violent crime during Labour’s tenure happened in 2005-2006, and as the other report has shown …. “the abrupt discontinuity reported during July 2005, are not corroborated by other observations (such as CARD data, calls for service, ACC claim data).” So the increase in recorded “apprehensions” of youth for violent crime, that happened in 2005 could well be due to these statistical distortions. As such it’s problematic to claim that there has been a an increase in “violent youth crime”.

So yeah, guess I really have lost the argument in this thread, what with completely debunking the assertions made by DPF in its heading.

All the other weird personal diatribe, I can’t really be bothered with. It’s starting to look a little insane to be honest. You should probably get some help for that mate.

I agree with you, the report is of course concerned with ‘recoded’ violent crime, clever boy. You see Philip John, to measure whether crime is on the increase or decrease, we actually have to measure it, and then someone has to record those measurements.

If we always use the same method, it gives us an idea of how our police are performing, and indicates societal trends. If we change the method, it may exaggerate/minimise certain trends, and mislead people.

With me so far? It’s really not that difficult.

All the report notes is that the upward trend has been exaggerated by the change in police procedure. However it affirms the upward trend in crime apparent under the Labour government. This much is obvious to anyone who takes off their pinko tinted spectacles and reads it.

So again Roger- where is the decrease you touted? Oh that’s right, it doesn’t exist.

And take it easy on the liar accusations boy, you’ve been proven wrong several times on this thread and again everyone’s left wondering, are you dishonest or just plain stupid?

I think you get too carried away with the smart ass martyr thing, perhaps it’s some kink in your personality, perhaps you like being a dickhead and like getting your arse kicked? Unfortunately whatever it is, it brings out the ugly side of many people, a kind of bully mentality. Seems like everyone likes to pick on the weakest and most defenceless kid, who in this playground, happens to be Roger Nome. So I feel like I owe you an apology, sorry if I made you feel sad while I debunked your argument.

The increase in recoded violent crime moron. As I’ve spelt out to you before, this isn’t the same as an increase in the incidence of crime. The report stated that much of the increase in recorded crime is due to changing practices by the police. No where in the report does it say there has been an increase in the incidence of violent crime. The closest it comes to saying this ….. the very flawed police statistics are supported by ACC claims statistics. Doesn’t sound very comclusive to me.

“You’ve lost your argument on this thread, been humiliated by DPF”

Actually I humilated him by debunking his graph….

“Somehow this backs up your point that crime is decreasing under Labour? ”

Actually I’ve come to the conclusion that KBB graph is unreliable, as is farrar’s, and that there’s no way of proving any increase or decrease in the incidences of violent crime since labour has come to power. It’s seems like no ones been completely right, but we’ve probably all learned things from this thread. As far as I can see, all you’ve contiributed is sneering ad homenums, smears and lies. Nice guy. No wonder you’re so popular with the ladies.

phil(whoar.co.nz)

does anyone know..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

“Much of the increase in violence, appears to be family violence related, and may be a consequence of increased proactive police activity to combat domestic violence.”

‘much of the increase’ to us people IQ >50 means that some of the increase, not all of the INCREASE IN CRIME may be a consequence of the factors mentioned. Note the key word there, increase.

Somehow this backs up your point that crime is decreasing under Labour?

How dumb are you boy? Back to school.

I think your f%$ked up ego is getting in the way of logic again. You’ve lost your argument on this thread, been humiliated by DPF and others, and shown yourself up for a fool, again.
No amount of ad hominem attacks will drown out your stupidity on this issue so STFU and take it like a man.

You have no evidence for your assertion that youth crime is decreasing under Labour, except for a report which states that crime is on the increase. Classy.

I mean you seem to lie pathologically so that’s in line with the profession …

I could just as easily say that you lie pathologically in line with “highly-paid academics” – by whistling the daily mantra that “reality has a left-wing bias”

“that’s what we humans call an increase in violent crime roger”

An increase in “recorded violent crime” doesn’t equate to an “increase in incidence of violent crime”. In fact the report quite plainly points this out.

“Much of the increase in violence, appears to be family violence related, and may be a consequence of increased proactive police activity to combat domestic violence.”

Too easy. You sure you’re lawyer? I mean you seem to lie pathologically so that’s in line with the profession, but lawyers generally aren’t as stupid as you. I therefore have to conclude that you were lying when you claimed to be boasted “I’m an environmental lawyer”. Silly boy.

What don’t you understand about this quote;

“The overall increase in recorded violent crime is however supported by ACC claim statistics. Much of the increase in violence, appears to be family violence related, and may be a consequence of increased proactive police activity to combat domestic violence.”

That’s what we humans call an increase in violent crime roger

Show me the quote in that report which corroborates your story that crime has decreased.

Until then, you’re just a bullshit artist with no evidence to back you up.

There appears to be a higher propensity to record offence statistics in the NIA system than there was in the LES system. This represents a change in statistics recording practice, not an increase in the level of criminal offending. Enhancements integral to the NIA application architecture (e.g. wizard entry) and processes by which the organisation has adjusted to the NIA environment (training, data entry processes, file auditing and supervision) appear to have influenced the statistics capture.

There is a clear indication of an event in July 2005 that has influenced recordedcrime. One event in particular which may have had a significant impact on police crime statistics was the migration to a new computer system; from the Law Enforcement System to a new National Intelligence Application.

Independent data indicates that the upward trend indicated by the recorded crime statistics and the abrupt discontinuity reported during July 2005, are not corroborated by other observations (such as CARD data, calls for service, ACC claim data).

The overall increase in recorded violent crime is however supported by ACC claim statistics. Much of the increase in violence, appears to be family violence related, and may be a consequence of increased proactive police activity to combat domestic violence.

You just make it too easy “mate”. Dominated once again Mr “I’m an Environmental Lawyer” boy.

Oh well, just a couple of points will do.

A) I’ve never voted for Labour.

B) You’re the racist who has implied that all Maori are violent. You’ve tried (unsuccesfully) to label me a racist for using a term commonly used by anti-racists.

C) The report carried out for the police shows that distortions regarding recent crime statistics exist, and that “The independent data series that were examined show no evidence of the increase in crime that is suggested by the police crime statistics for the 2005/2006 year.” Furthermore, this shows that raw police crime statistics are open to statistical distortions and so are possibly misleading (in general).

More specifically, another report that I quote shows that the “apprehension” figures, which DPF uses to make his case are problematic

While Police apprehension statistics do provide an indication of trends in offending by young people, reporting and recording practices, along with policy and legislative changes, can significantly influence apprehension statistics and thereby distort offending trends.

I notice that you still haven’t produced any quotations to refute these points. Only a mangled quote, with words deliberately taken out of it. Presumably to produce a desired impression.

To easy.

You thought it was okay to call Craig R a house nigger because Malcolm x used the term.

Turns out he actually didn’t, so you tried to say it’s okay to call people house niggers because you can find it in the urban dictionary.

Okay then, so some racist people use the term nowadays, including yourself. It’s included in the urban dictionary, along side other offensive words, like fuck, cunt, cumstain,….. I don’t need to go on do I?

Then you squirmed “Um that term’s usually directed at pro-white-establishment non-whites CL”, which is pretty funny coming from the Maori guy who spends all his time on this blog defending the government who legislated away the foreshore and seabed.

Looks like you’re stupid as well as racist.

Dominated.