"Violence against women a ‘national emergency’ in England and Wales"

[Omlettes]

Jesus Wept!
"National Police Chiefs’ Council analysis reveals 2m women a year estimated to be victims of male violence"

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/23/violence-against-women-national-emergency-england-wales-police

This is true, but it does require both parents to be committed. Mums are also implicated in relationship problems.

The problem there is, it's really hard to have a solid parenting relationship with someone when your romantic relationship broke down. They aren't usually totally independent things. It takes a lot of self-restraint. And when things are bad, it does tend to mean the fathers back off, not just because of their own comfort but because it starts to affect the kids.

Tbh I think the main solution to this is not to have kids with someone you don't think you can have a solid relationship with long term. Which for a lot of people means, don't have sex with people you couldn't see yourself parenting with.

Well yes, the ONS repeatedly states the police crime data is not reliable for trend analysis because of changes in reporting, changes in how they count crimes and changes in laws.

The police crime data are not official statistics, as they only count reported crimes, the CSEW is more reliable and are official statistics because it is anonymous. It is well known many segments of society will not report crime to the police.

So why not start a thread about the CSEW (which they themselves say aren't reliable) figures?!

The article is about the police and reported crimes.

So for instance there doesn't seem to be any indication of the difference in numbers between reported crimes of violence and the number that reach court and (particularly in relation to rape) the number of convictions.

Telling people stuff doesn't work. It doesn't change their reality. Chances are they won't believe it, but even if they do, it does nothing to create actual changes in the person listening. If a person knows something is a problem, and does it anyway, either they don't care, or something is preventing them doing the right thing (probably something internal.)

They need to have different experiences, see different examples, and have different beliefs systems to create change.

This thread is about VAWG and how it is an “emergency” based on a Guardian article that uses mostly unexplained estimates with a few police data points to give the impression that VAWG is at an epidemic and increasing.

The CSEW official statistics are relevant to this because they don’t support the Guardian article at all. They are in direct opposition.

How can I agree with a journalist that such an epidemic and emergency exists when they haven’t presented any reliable data to support?

Haven’t rtft but wondering why this chart seems to go against reports

Will read and see what’s going on

So why not start a thread about the CSEW (which they themselves say aren't reliable) figures?!

No, the CSEW says only one set of figures - those ending Mar 22- are not official stats because they only cover six months. All the rest of the numbers for all the years from 1987-2021 are official stats and are reliable.

CSEW is always more reliable than police crime data.

Me too!

I thought the shocking stat was that a fifth of all reported crime was violence against women.

A fifth of ALL crime.

😮

Quite an anti-feminist post there.

Many men "back off" because parenting is hard work, and they see it as "womens work" and don't feel particularly compelled to do it (or pay for it in lots of cases).
Jeepers.

I haven't checked but IIRC they report domestic violence figures differently. So it could be that.

No the CSEW say they base figures on subject individual accounts from random households.

Any way this is just stupid diversion.

The Police report (ie not dreampt up by the reported) shouldn't be ignored.

There are holes to be picked in at as I outlined, ie conviction rate etc..

So randomly quoting unreliable figures collected in a totally different way just avoids what the police report is or is not saying.

To be totally cynical I think part of the motive behind the Police report is to show government that funding cuts means that the Police cannot respond to this level of crime.

https://policeprofessional.com/news/distorted-police-statistics-downplay-domestic-abuse-reports-says-commissioner/

I think that the story told by CSEW and police data is that

• All violent crimes, reported and unreported, as measured by the CSEW have gone down a lot, while
• the number of violent crimes reported to the police and arrests have gone up, because

VAWG has been taken more seriously by the police since 1995 such that fewer crimes now go unreported to the police and more women are listened to leading to more arrests of violent men.

This is then deterring the violence, causing the overall downward trend in all violent crimes (reported + unreported).

So the NPCC report says: "Domestic abuse (DA) remains one of biggest demands on policing, with arrests for domestic abuse related offences increasing by over 22% in the year ending March 2023, compared to the previous period. Whilst this is a positive shift, we acknowledge that this is only the start and there is still more to do."

But the recording rules are "police.... count only one crime for each time a victim comes forward and record fewer crimes of threatening or abusive messages."

So that could mean abusive men are being more abusive, not that there are more abusive men. Which makes sense in some ways.

Sorry, but according to the U.K. ONS, it is the police crime data that is the unreliable data for trend analysis in crimes and the CSEW data that is reliable.

You have it backwards.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/methodologies/userguidetocrimestatisticsforenglandandwales#comparison-of-the-csew-and-police-recorded-crime

And the decrease in crime as per CSW could be that the random households interviewed whose memories contribute to their figures are not comparable.

Yes and more arrests could mean fewer men getting away with DV rather than an increase in DV.

Look, I don’t understand why you are being so dismissive of the CSEW when it is recognised by the U.K. Gov as the gold standard for reliable data to do trend analysis whereas police data is not.

The table shows what one would expect. That total crimes (reported and unreported) would be a higher number than just the # crimes reported.

Memories are not what is faulty here, it is the fact that many victims don’t report crimes. The surge in reported crimes isn’t a surge in crime, the CSEW shows for a fact that violent crimes have decreased by two thirds.

The difference is that victims are now more likely to report violent crimes.

Telling people stuff doesn't work. I agree. We have been telling children to be kind for forty years and it hasn't worked. I don't think the solution lies in more "telling" whether it be talking, posters or talk therapy. We also need to involve men in the discussion and I would be interested to hear how they would approach this.

It might have worked…..actual number of violent crimes have gone down.

Let's hope so. I'm not holding my breath given overall performance on various crimes against women though.

You ever read that bit in Freakonomics where they make the case this is correlated with availability of abortion so less children being damaged by being brought up in homes where they weren't wanted?

The National Policing Commission report the Guardian article quotes is quite clearly to get more funds and more police to tackle the increase in reported crimes. We know in the past, victims didn’t report or were fobbed of by police who gave the excuse they have to catch murderers over a bit of sexual harassment or a bit of kicking your wife around.

Today the push we have made to get women to report to the police and for them to take it seriously means police workload has increased because they are actually going to arrest and convict more violent men.

Yeah I did. It is amazing the dots people will connect.