Would You Dare To Confront Some Of Today's Yobs?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293193/Face-grandfather-savagely-beaten-yobs-daring-confront-vandalised-local-park.html

What causes 'some' of the youth of today to be so violent, I say 'today' because no matter what some of you might say, it never happened when I was a youth?

[jim360]

I looked into that SJ and it seems that most statistics would agree with you, although in recent years things seem to be heading the other direction. Again I stress that the only issue I had with the first post is that "never".

[naomi24]

Jim, of course ‘never’ is nonsense. I don’t think anyone – except perhaps AOG who claimed it - disputes that. There have always been horrible people in the world – but I have to say they seem to be rather more prevalent now – and oddly those who were there appear to agree with that, so unless those eye witnesses are deluded or telling lies, the history books that lead you to believe that nothing has changed are wrong.

LG, //By most indicators, violent crime, especially violent crime against strangers is going down in the UK.//

I know – and we all know how statistics are manipulated. Good for the targets.

[LazyGun]

@Sqad - I use anecdotal evidence, but I also pointed out that the various studies and reports also support the view that such violence that we see today is not new, and not necessarily more rampant.

@Naomi - Of course statistics can be manipulated - but that does not mean we must reject or ignore all of them. population statistics are always going to offer a more accurate picture than anecdotal evidence...

[naomi24]

//population statistics are always going to offer a more accurate picture than anecdotal evidence... //

Really? Why?

[Orderlimit]

The crime stats for 'recorded' crime is not an accurate reflection of actual crime being committed and even the 'recorded' crimes are heavily manipulated by police forces.

[LazyGun]

@Naomi - Simply because anecdotal evidence is too small a sample size, and is by definition subjective.

[naomi24]

LG, I'm still not sure where population statistics that will apparently somehow offer a more accurate picture come into this - but it seems strange that when there are no eye witnesses, eye witness evidence is demanded - and when eye witnesses are available, their unpalatable testimony is conveniently dismissed as anecdotal and therefore unworthy of serious consideration. Perhaps these good people should write a history book for you doubters to learn from. ;o)

[LazyGun]

@Naomi - statistically recorded trends, measured over years and decades, will be more objectively true than subjective anecdotal evidence, although as I have already acknowledged, anecdotal evidence may sometimes chime and agree with what the statistics say.

I do not understand the rest of your comment. Who is it your are saying demands eye witness evidence when non is available, and rejects it when it is? Some examples and a better explication would be useful, never mind a good book for doubters :)

[jake-the-peg]

You really have to ask why?

Because variations occur across the country

To think that your personal experience accurately reflects an entire nation is a little bit - er - self centred? ( and I don't mean that in a selfish way)

I was last burgled in the 90s (twice) so from my experience crime rates have plummeted

Let's disband the police

[emmie]

most people lived in neighbourhoods and everyone knew one another, it was a community, people did look out for one another, so you would know by way of the local grapevine if there had been a crime committed, particularly domestic related.. pub fights weren't uncommon, but they didn't use a knife, but fists.
2sj has a very good point, that it was unheard of for youths to be involved in serious crime like rape, mostly it was theft, or being under the influence. it wasn't such a thing to be an underage drinker then because generally you did so in the pub, with mum, dad, gran, and grandad, and they would have given you a clout had you behaved badly.....

[naomi24]

LG. //statistically recorded trends, measured over years and decades, will be more objectively true //

If the statistically recorded trends for London measured over years and decades indicate that violent crime towards the ordinary man in the street is less prevalent now than it was when AOG and Sqad were young men, or even when I was a teenager, then the statistics are inaccurate. Nothing new there.

I’m saying that in most circumstances eye witness evidence is rather valuable – especially when several eye witnesses concur - but clearly not in this case. I really think the book would be a better idea – especially if we included some wonky statistics. ;o)

Jake, I’ve also been burgled twice – but unlike my parents and many people of the older generation who weren’t burgled and didn’t walk in fear of being mugged, I have possessions worth stealing.

[emmie]

well i have been the victim of a very serious crime, been burgled, and had my purse stolen on two separate occasions.. this was much later in my life, not something one can discount as aberrations...

i think that people did take more notice of the people around them, and that generally crime in our communities wasn't gang or certainly drug related.

[jim360]

Why are the statistics inaccurate if they disagree with you? I generally find that statistics when used carefully are more trustworthy than people, for two reasons: firstly most statistics are sourced with error checks and uncertainties all built in and well understood. So if the stats appear to show a particular trend it's worth taking that very seriously. Your own experiences are just one small sampling of how life has changed.

Secondly as long as you are aware of the sources and can check on the raw data and how it was gathered yourself, you can be sure that statistics don't usually have a political motive behind them - certainly not the raw numbers anyway. Whatever massaging takes place after that, if you are prepared to take the effort yourself to research their origin you can see past that. And again it's not always true that stats come from people with an agenda. By contrast a single person has an opinion and tends to select experiences that fit with that opinion and ignore things which do not. All of which means that your own personal experience, while possibly reliable, should not be taken to be the true picture and should not be assumed to be free of bias.

That massive preamble over, I did a little digging and as far as I can make out the following appear to be true: Violent crime rates appear to have been falling very recently but rose for a period up until recently. Youth crime rates appear to have been going up in a similar vein, but are dropping in the last few years. In the long run then it seems that those who claim things to be more violent today than say 30, 40 years ago are probably half-right, although that trend may be reversing briefly and reflects what I feel to be the most likely truth, that over long periods rates remain roughly the same but rise and fall around that. I also do think though that part of it is media coverage. That has changed a lot and does make people more aware of things that were always there but not really so widely reported. e.g. rhe amount of crime during the Blitz is quite shocking and people always talk of how much of a community spirit there was. Rose-tinted lenses again?

[emmie]

no it wasn't rose tinted specs, it was there, you had no choice, get along because you had no idea if you, your folks, neighbours would be there when you next looked.

[jim360]

Oh my, sorry, badly worded end. Definitely a community spirit in the Blitz. I mean that not all people shared it, there was the usual criminal element to it all. Robbing corpses and all of that. My bad.

[naomi24]

Jim, //By contrast a single person has an opinion and tends to select experiences that fit with that opinion and ignore things which do not. All of which means that your own personal experience, while possibly reliable, should not be taken to be the true picture and should not be assumed to be free of bias.//

If you’re talking to me, I’m not a single person. There are several people here all saying the same thing. Nevertheless, despite the fact that you have no personal experience whatsoever to offer, you know best. Mmm. Right.

[jim360]

I have been mugged once, beaten up once, threatened with violence goodness knows how many times and been burgled once. I have some personal experience, even if it is only of the last 20 years. And remember I did conclude my post by saying that the statistics appeared to agree with you at least over the last few years or so. I just don't believe that it's been a continuous downward trend of crime over the very long term.

[237SJ]

The question was "Would you dare to confront some of today`s yobs". Either you would or you wouldn`t. You would probably reach an opinion from your own experience. I can`t see where statistics come into the equation TBH

[naomi24]

Jim, I would hazard an educated guess that in the past 20 years you've experienced more violence than AOG or Sqad did in their youth.

[emmie]

makes some interesting points about crime in WW2.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/aug/29/blitz-london-crime-flourish-blackout