Brexit - the next steps

[ProfessorDavey]

In the context of saying they are struggling with numbers ...

Despite it being clear in the article that crime had declined 20%

she mentions feuds being brought over, as Rhiannon quoted ...

Nope she said that 'that ongoing feuds can also be brought into the country' - not that they were, but could be.

... that she then specifies a specific case doesn't break the context that ongoing feuds have an impact.

Which she fails to indicate was anything to do with a pre-existing feud.

It can certainly be read to imply Rhiannon's statement.

Indeed would be for those with a confirmation bias that migration is fuelling a crime spree.

Alternative, and more balanced, interpretations are available. Specifically that although there has been significant migration into the area there is no evidence of an increase in crime, indeed that crime has dropped considerably. That the influx of people speaking a variety of languages does create challenges when those people are either accused of crime, or are victims of crime. However given that crime rates are declining and funding has increased 20% that there should be significant capacity to be able to cope. Finally that there are tensions, but the implication is that the migrants are more likely to be the victims when those tensions break out into incidents, rather than the perpetrators.

A more cynical interpretation would be that here is a senior and ambitious police officer pushing for more funding for her force.

[Nearly Sane]

Despite it being clear in the article that crime had declined 20%
Nope she said that 'that ongoing feuds can also be brought into the country' - not that they were, but could be.
Which she fails to indicate was anything to do with a pre-existing feud.
Indeed would be for those with a confirmation bias that migration is fuelling a crime spree.

Alternative, and more balanced, interpretations are available. Specifically that although there has been significant migration into the area there is no evidence of an increase in crime, indeed that crime has dropped considerably. That the influx of people speaking a variety of languages does create challenges when those people are either accused of crime, or are victims of crime. However given that crime rates are declining and funding has increased 20% that there should be significant capacity to be able to cope. Finally that there are tensions, but the implication is that the migrants are more likely to be the victims when those tensions break out into incidents, rather than the perpetrators.

A more cynical interpretation would be that here is a senior and ambitious police officer pushing for more funding for her force.

I note now that you are happy to dismiss this as not balanced. You might as well just write in big flashing letters 'I'm going to be patronising and cling to my own confirmation bias'.

I think your reading of the point of ongoing feuds is desperately disingenuous. 

[ProfessorDavey]

This is about all the people who you have decided weren't talking about their experience but we're just talking about it third hand

Let's broaden this out from the migration issue.

Actually crime is a classic of the third hand experience leading to a perception that isn't true.

So the British Crime Survey annually asks people about their own experience - specifically whether they have been a victim of crime. And thought the period 2000-2010-ish when you summed all of those individual experiences there was a clear decline in crime in England and Wales. Yet when you ask about their perception of crime in a broader context during that period individuals suggested that crime was rising a little in their area and a lot elsewhere in the country - but of course people elsewhere in the country were also being asked about their individual experiences and also indicated that they were less likely to be a victim of crime.

[ProfessorDavey]

I note now that you are happy to dismiss this as not balanced. You might as well just write in big flashing letters 'I'm going to be patronising and cling to my own confirmation bias'.

I think your reading of the point of ongoing feuds is desperately disingenuous.

Do you really think that a balanced summary of the entire article is that 'she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding'?

Really?

[Nearly Sane]

Let's broaden this out from the migration issue.

Actually crime is a classic of the third hand experience leading to a perception that isn't true.

So the British Crime Survey annually asks people about their own experience - specifically whether they have been a victim of crime. And thought the period 2000-2010-ish when you summed all of those individual experiences there was a clear decline in crime in England and Wales. Yet when you ask about their perception of crime in a broader context during that period individuals suggested that crime was rising a little in their area and a lot elsewhere in the country - but of course people elsewhere in the country were also being asked about their individual experiences and also indicated that they were less likely to be a victim of crime.

Why are we broadening something out from you making assumptions about the millions of people who voted for Brexit, and what they talked about and you appearing to regard then as racist, which for some reason you edited from my post? Is it because you want to go and insult some more people for just being stupid so you can dismiss all of what they talk about as well?

[Nearly Sane]

Do you really think that a balanced summary of the entire article is that 'she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding'?

Really?

It's not a summary but it's part of her position. I note that you seem to take as true what Liam Byrne says in the article - that would be your confirmation bias showimg.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's not a summary but it's part of her position. I note that you seem to take as true what Liam Byrne says in the article - that would be your confirmation bias showimg.

It isn't though as she never said that 'she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding' - it is a complete misrepresentation of what she said. Given that Rhi posted this on the basis of her recollection of a tv interview it is presumably misremembering, but nonetheless wrong assuming the BBC article is similar to the tv report.

Interestingly about a year later (when being tipped as a possible Met commissioner - hmm) Spence effectively retracted many of those comments, specifically implying that there was no evidence that the influx of Eastern European migrants was having a disproportionate effect on crime - any changes were merely linked to an increase in overall population levels.

[jeremyp]

your posting certainly  reads as patronising,

No it doesn't. Perhaps it's your confirmation bias that makes you think so.

[jeremyp]

But then I'm not as effortlessly patronising or dismissive of others opinions as some.

I would say calling somebody else's every post patronising and accusing everybody of confirmation bias is pretty dismissive of of others' opinions.

[Nearly Sane]

No it doesn't. Perhaps it's your confirmation bias that makes you think so.

Yes, it does in my opinion so in what way am I 'wrong'?

[Nearly Sane]

I would say calling somebody else's every post patronising and accusing everybody of confirmation bias is pretty dismissive of of others' opinions.

Even I had done that, wouldn't make me wrong.

[jeremyp]

In the context of saying they are struggling with numbers, she mentions feuds being brought over, as Rhiannon quoted, that she then specifies a specific case doesn't break the context that ongoing feuds have an impact. It can certainly be read to imply Rhiannon's statement.

She mentioned lots of things like a 17% increase in drunk driving offences and an increase in the incidence of people carrying knives. The feud thing was way down the list and she brought up only one example of it happening.

[Nearly Sane]

She mentioned lots of things like a 17% increase in drunk driving offences and an increase in the incidence of people carrying knives. The feud thing was way down the list and she brought up only one example of it happening.

Which still doesn't remove it as a part of her position

[jeremyp]

Even I had done that, wouldn't make me wrong.

You are doing it and the tone of the post to which I was replying suggested to me that you are critical of such things.

[jeremyp]

Which still doesn't remove it as a part of her position

A very tiny part of her position in 2007 and one that doesn't really have too much basis in fact - not if she is naming a single case.

[Nearly Sane]

You are doing it and the tone of the post to which I was replying suggested to me that you are critical of such things.

I would disagree that I am saying it evetytome but again even if I were to be it doesn't me me wrong n saying that the post is patronising and subject to confirmation bias.

[Nearly Sane]

A very tiny part of her position in 2007 and one that doesn't really have too much basis in fact - not if she is naming a single case.

Which doesn't make it not something she was saying which was Prof D's position. You might argue that Rhinnon's post overemphasised it, not that it wasn't part of the position.

[Rhiannon]

She mentioned lots of things like a 17% increase in drunk driving offences and an increase in the incidence of people carrying knives. The feud thing was way down the list and she brought up only one example of it happening.

So if I'd added all the other things that she listed as being due to immigration that would have made it better? I remembered the feud thing because someone died.

[jeremyp]

I would disagree that I am saying it evetytome but again even if I were to be it doesn't me me wrong n saying that the post is patronising and subject to confirmation bias.

Whether the post is patronising or not in tone is irrelevant to the argument it is making. To dismiss a post because you think it is patronising is similar to dismissing it for ad hominem reasons.

Similarly, claiming a poster has confirmation bias does not advance your case. You should show why the particular post you are responding to has confirmation bias and since that is the same as showing that the facts are incorrect or cherry picked or that the interpretation is erroneous, you might as well just do that without throwing in the personal accusations.

[Rhiannon]

Whether the post is patronising or not in tone is irrelevant to the argument it is making. To dismiss a post because you think it is patronising is similar to dismissing it for ad hominem reasons.

Similarly, claiming a poster has confirmation bias does not advance your case. You should show why the particular post you are responding to has confirmation bias and since that is the same as showing that the facts are incorrect or cherry picked or that the interpretation is erroneous, you might as well just do that without throwing in the personal accusations.

And yet you were happy to insist that I'd 'implied' something even when the word that you chose to put in my mouth wasn't there, and you kept on insisting that was what I meant even when I told you that it wasn't.

Was that you implying that I'm a liar?

[jeremyp]

So if I'd added all the other things that she listed as being due to immigration that would have made it better? I remembered the feud thing because someone died.

Yes, I think it would (and by better, I mean worse). The statement was made in relation to the police force's resources being put under extra pressure. A 17% rise in drink driving is of far more concern from that point of view than one extra murder.

It would also be pretty easy to conjure up fear of immigrants driving around in their Ladas swigging from a Vodka bottle as they go if you were of a mind to do so.

[jeremyp]

And yet you were happy to insist that I'd 'implied' something even when the word that you chose to put in my mouth wasn't there

A nice tu quoque there.

[Rhiannon]

Yes, I think it would (and by better, I mean worse). The statement was made in relation to the police force's resources being put under extra pressure. A 17% rise in drink driving is of far more concern from that point of view than one extra murder.

It would also be pretty easy to conjure up fear of immigrants driving around in their Ladas swigging from a Vodka bottle as they go if you were of a mind to do so.

It would, but I didn't. The potential crime wave that she talked about isn't something I experienced so I didn't pay it much heed. And 'feuding' immigrants isn't a frightening prospect, is it? It certainly doesn't frighten me.

[Rhiannon]

A nice tu quoque there.

No, it's an attempt to understand your reasoning on correct debate.

[jeremyp]

No, it's an attempt to understand your reasoning on correct debate.

What do you mean by "correct debate"?

My point was just that calling somebody's argument patronising or saying it exhibits confirmation bias without evidence does not help if you are trying to show the argument is wrong. Surely that point stands or falls independently of whether or not I have used such tactics on you in the past.