Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yes, the Crime Survey, which actually surveys representative samples about their direct experience as victims of crime.

With 131 biased samples over 5 years, to continue with Bradford, who are not asked about actual crime, but about how they feel about it without an qualification as to whether they have any actual experience with it, this site is not saying anything useful.

Presenting it as if it is ranking cities by actual crime rates is ignorant of the data gathering at best, and at worst blatantly dishonest.

Then again given the hyperbole you're employing regarding Malmö, I should perhaps not expect you to care much about the veracity of data - yes, attacks with explosives is an escalating problem in Sweden, but nowhere remotely at the scale you're claiming.



Well it's hyperbole alright, but a local measure helps not if it's not done the same way in all countries if you want to actually make a useful comparison.

Trying to find an international version leads me to ICVS and this[0] publication which likewise ranks London at the very top. By that data, the UK ranks average at per-capita crime but is second at the same people being victimized more than once, which I take points towards that the majority of the country is likely relatively normal, but a handful of cities have very concentrated crime rates that are raising statistics.

Do you have any other sources to show or do you just like pointing out that all of them are bad if they don't agree with you?

[0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282573613_Criminal_...


You conveniently left out that this ranking shows London top of 28 selected capital cities for a selection of 10 crimes in 2003/04, which we know from the Crime Survey for England and Wales was significantly closer to the UK all time peak.

You'll also note that the paper itself then provides data from additional capitals that it's conveniently not included in the main list. Several of those additional cities ranking above London. In other words, it's a sample that even the paper demonstrates isn't remotely comprehensive.

I don't need to provide any other sources - you're the one that made a claim that was based in "data" that was entirely worthless, and this new data still isn't even close to backing up the original claim.


Well said mate.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: