Could someone please explain to me exactly why the ONS stats on domestic abuse are not accurate?

[AVirginLitTheCandle]

I know that they're not and that they've been criticized in the past for overestimating the number of male victims but could someone please explain how they're not accurate.

I'm not quite sure I understand how they've come to the 40% of victims are male figure.

I think it's more they record rape/sexual assault/indecent assault/voyeurism etc in one bucket called "sex offences" and gbh/abh/assault/wounding in another bucket called "violent crime". There are so many individual types of crime that from a statistical sense it makes sense to analyse in "buckets". But obviously in the case of DV sex crimes and violent crimes are both a feature.
I don't think the HO is suggesting sex offences aren't violent.

Sorry that was to preemptive

Thanks Felas (re collation).

I dig the buckets concept, thanks Felas. But that kinda leads onto a whole new question. Why would "buckets" even be needed these days? This isn't Ripper Street with the painstakingly maintained card files. We've got the technology to crunch whatever numbers we need to at the touch of a button.

It's good to hear things like "violent crime is down" (apparently it is). But when somebody (the ONS) doesn't use numbers that are vital to the picture because they're in the wrong bucket? Gaah!

Well technically it isn't in the wrong bucket preemptive. Violent crime has a particular definition. And I think the motivations behind assault/abh etc are different to the motivations behind rape/indecent exposure etc except in DV cases.
Sex crimes are up. However it's hard to know why because actually the police are trying to increase reporting and correct recording of sex crimes so they would be expected to increase. So are they up because there is better recording? Or because there is more offending? Or both?

I used to work in a role involving analysis of crime stats and it's a lot more complicated and time consuming than you would think!

The thing about the buckets is that it's a pity they can't use different buckets for different purposes - because whilst Voyerism isn't a violent crime, sexual assault/rape is

There was a D V project on the internet I looked at some time ago where victims and circumstances were listed month by month. I remember that although there were male victims every one of the perpetrators were male. A case I remember was where a man killed his ex and also her father, who's house she was in at the time. The father is recorded as a male domestic violence victim. There are lots of these types of cases.

A brilliantly resourced thread. Thank you for all the informative links and analysis.

Regarding female violence on males, it does happen, but clearly not on the scale of male violence against women. I was explaining to my 15 year old son about how his Uncle is in an abusive relationship, she was jailed overnight after the neighbours called the police - which frankly I think was an over reaction (my bug bear is that females are punished more harshly for similar male related crimes). They got back together, but everyone knows. On giving him the details my son said "So what did he do to provoke her?", which I thought was an interesting response. Yes, his Uncle is incredibly passive aggressive.

Sorry pressed too soon. Conversely, he thinks male violence on women is about power and aggression and wanting to keep control.

I was just mopping, and thinking about what I'd read (as you do) and this bit popped into my mind again from the Domestic Abuse Against Men in Scotland link (emphasis my own):

Relative to female victims of domestic abuse, those men identified as 'victims of domestic abuse' in the Scottish Crime Survey 2000 were less likely to have been repeat victims of assault, have been seriously injured, and report feeling fearful in their own homes. These factors, coupled with the embarrassment many male victims felt, partly explained the infrequency with which domestic abuse against men had come to the Scottish Police's attention.

Do they really, really think that women aren't embarrassed that they're being abused? That women aren't reluctant to report as well? That they won't minimise and wait until it's un-bearable or someone else reports?

It's just seeing everything through the male lens again isn't it - that women aren't really quite as much people as men, that they're different and so can't feel the same way about being abused as men do.

Yes chocchoc after I posted my last post I started thinking more about why sex offences aren't considered violence. Maybe an interpersonal crime bucket would be useful. I started wondering whether sex offences are treated differently because if the prevalence with which women are affected.
Thing is which ever way it's cut some things don't easily fit into the buckets. For example a handbag snatch could fall into robbery or theft from the person. The difference between two similar crimes inot different categories can be quite slight but theft is a much less serious offence than robbery.
Detail of counting rules is here for any geeks out there
www.gov.uk/government/publications/counting-rules-for-recorded-crime

Sorry that was to your first post! Yes I know what you mean. That was kind of where my train of thought was going with the rape stuff. Almost like crimes against women are counted differently because the impact on women isn't understood, because men are in charge of the rule. So it wouldn't occur to them women would also feel embarassment or shame (or it would and they don't care as much).
I never used to think this deeply about that kind 8f stuff. I blame this board and on particular buffy

I think it also isn't helpful how wide ranging the govt have made "domestic abuse" I attended a job where two brothers (both early 20s) had a heated verbal argument over a xbox game. Both recorded as domestic abuse victims, in line with home office rules.

Domestic violence very much gendered, male on female.

Domestic abuse I'd say is more of an event split, especially since "non crime" reports are also included on statistics

Keep meaning to mention, OP, I love your name. I gotta go get me some MidlerParkerNajimby now. 'tis the season!

Yes Felas I know what you mean about the thinking about this stuff more than I used to!

I think that with all the big data stuff around, all the freely available tools, that these stats could start to be more analysed - it's fantastic that all this stuff is openly available in the UK. My day job involves a certain amount of this kind of analysis (albeit for trivial purposes), so I can't help but ponder how it could be done differently as I perform menial tasks..

1/3 admitted they had made the offence up

Fruit/Cadnow -it was actually follow up from the Scottish Crime Survey 2000 - they went back and re-interviewed.

So it doesn't sound to me that this is a report of men saying that had admitted making up the offence. Later the report linked by ChocCh, says there, 13 of these 46 men said they had never experienced any form of domestic abuse. Some men explained that they were referring to crimes committed around their homes (i.e. vandalism or theft) and/or acts of stranger/acquaintance violence when they undertook the self-completion questionnaire.

So basically of these men 13 who said that there hadn't been any domestic abuse - 'some' (although no number provided or explanation of what the others thought) of these seemed to have misunderstood the forms.

Does capping apply even when each instance involves a different perpetrator? I suppose it must do but that seems crazy.