All children of this age need to read once a day on a 1 to 1
teacher basis if you want very good results. Ideally backed up
by parental reading every day. Yes, It kills the teacher!

In the two schools I have experience of recently, there is a strong
contingent of parents and teaching support staff that ensure that the
children get frequent 1 to 1 reading attention. This leaves the teacher to
continue to teach, or deal with more difficult cases.

Christian.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
...
The problem with all official statistics about crime is that they are
based
on "reported" crimes. since many people nowadays don'y bother to report
crimes anymore as they don't have a reasonable expectation that it will
do
any good. So the statistics are fundamentally flawed

Absolutely wrong. The British Crime Survey does NOT and has NEVER relied
upon reported crime statistics. It includes crimes that would not be
reported to the police.

Christian.

The BCS - Britsh Crime Survey - is a _survey_
the surveyors don't interview people who have
experienced a crime. They survey a sample of
people 'over 50, 000 surveys of people aged 16 yrs and over'

A claim is made that from the information given
by the people surveyed a quesstimate can be derived
of 'crimes' and 'non-reported crimes' .

It's somewhat like asking people how much money they've
got available to spend in their bank accounts. The answers
derived from such a survey might not track with the current
balances in their accounts.

Crimes reported to the police -and mostly unsolved- is
a factual number that can't be hidden from public scrutiny,
the BCS can be manipulated to produce any set of
statistics that the purse-holders desire.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs1.html


--

Brian

The BCS - Britsh Crime Survey - is a _survey_
the surveyors don't interview people who have
experienced a crime. They survey a sample of
people 'over 50, 000 surveys of people aged 16 yrs and over'

It's somewhat like asking people how much money they've
got available to spend in their bank accounts. The answers
derived from such a survey might not track with the current
balances in their accounts.

It is by far the best, most accurate and bias free statistic available. And
it clearly shows that crime is going down.

Crimes reported to the police -and mostly unsolved- is
a factual number that can't be hidden from public scrutiny,

Absolute ********. I've only once reported a crime to the police, but over
the years have been victim to many. On top of this, the rules as to which
crimes to record and in which category are in constant flux, making year to
year comparisons meaningless. To suggest that reported crime figures are
better than BCS statistics is ridiculous.

Christian.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
...
The BCS - Britsh Crime Survey - is a _survey_
the surveyors don't interview people who have
experienced a crime. They survey a sample of
people 'over 50, 000 surveys of people aged 16 yrs and over'

It's somewhat like asking people how much money they've
got available to spend in their bank accounts. The answers
derived from such a survey might not track with the current
balances in their accounts.

It is by far the best, most accurate and bias free statistic available.
And
it clearly shows that crime is going down.

Crimes reported to the police -and mostly unsolved- is
a factual number that can't be hidden from public scrutiny,

Absolute ********. I've only once reported a crime to the police, but over
the years have been victim to many. On top of this, the rules as to which
crimes to record and in which category are in constant flux, making year
to
year comparisons meaningless. To suggest that reported crime figures are
better than BCS statistics is ridiculous.


OK ! Your _once_ 'reported to the Police ' is a recorded crime.
But, you've been the victim of 'many' .... why didn't you report these
to the police?
Now, when were you contacted by the BCS and what did you report
to them? Do _your_ crimes (the crimes of which your were a victim)
feature in the BCS. Or were _you_ not one of the surveyed.

{I understand that the Met Office now forecasts 'a dry day
with isolated showers' when most people report 'I got soaked
coming into work today!' ]

--

Brian

OK ! Your _once_ 'reported to the Police ' is a recorded crime.
But, you've been the victim of 'many' .... why didn't you report these
to the police?

Either:

1. They were too minor to bother.

2. I had no intention of making an insurance claim, but I feared insurance
premiums would rise (or an insurance company would not pay out a subsequent
claim) if any record of the crime existed.

3. The crime was a result of lack of care on my part and I was too
embarrassed to report it.

Now, when were you contacted by the BCS and what did you report
to them? Do _your_ crimes (the crimes of which your were a victim)
feature in the BCS. Or were _you_ not one of the surveyed.

I was not one of those surveyed. However, had I been, I would have recorded
all the crimes that I had been victim to for the period requested, as they
guarantee anonymity and you would not feel that you were wasted their time
with triviality.

I also don't believe that a survey has to get 100% coverage of the
population to be meaningful, so it is no surprise that I haven't been
surveyed. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that surveys of really quite
low numbers give exactly the same results as far more comprehensive ones.
That is why polling organisations (who compete on cost) rarely waste money
interviewing more than 1000 people for a survey, as their studies show that
the same result will be obtained. The BCS, on the other hand, interviews
50,000 people, making it one of the most comprehensive surveys of any type
regularly carried out in the UK.

Obviously, for very low frequency crime, where the police recording rate is
very high, such as murder, the reported crime statistics may be more
accurate than a survey based methodology. However, for the majority of low
level or medium frequency crime, the BCS will be head and shoulders above.

Christian.

Brian Sharrock wrote:
OK ! Your _once_ 'reported to the Police ' is a recorded crime.
But, you've been the victim of 'many' .... why didn't you report these
to the police?
Now, when were you contacted by the BCS and what did you report
to them? Do _your_ crimes (the crimes of which your were a victim)
feature in the BCS. Or were _you_ not one of the surveyed.

{I understand that the Met Office now forecasts 'a dry day
with isolated showers' when most people report 'I got soaked
coming into work today!' ]

All this apart, just go by observation. Has "crime" gone up or
down?

Off to u.l.m....

"Christian McArdle" wrote:

However, for the majority of low
level or medium frequency crime, the BCS will be head and shoulders above.

Except for the fact that 99% of the population avoid canvassers like
the plague, the other 1% only talk to them because they have nothing
better to do (maybe they have no usenet access.)

Also standing with a clipboard outside M&S on a Monday morning, or
cold calling on a 90 year old too terrified to answer the door, or a
working mum in the middle of preparing dinner will sway the results
too far to be of any significance.

The *only* accurate statistic is that there are too many
statisticians, by precisely what percentage you can just make up on
the spot.


--

Also standing with a clipboard outside M&S on a Monday morning, or
cold calling on a 90 year old too terrified to answer the door, or a
working mum in the middle of preparing dinner will sway the results
too far to be of any significance.

As you wish. However, such factors remaining constant, how do you explain
the almost halving of crime that is reported to the survey?

The fact is that crime has gone down very significantly. There is no
credible evidence to the contrary.

Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:
Also standing with a clipboard outside M&S on a Monday morning, or
cold calling on a 90 year old too terrified to answer the door, or a
working mum in the middle of preparing dinner will sway the results
too far to be of any significance.

As you wish. However, such factors remaining constant, how do you explain
the almost halving of crime that is reported to the survey?

Easily - it's ********.


The fact is that crime has gone down very significantly. There is no
credible evidence to the contrary.

Take, for instance, the rate for murder - quite a hard thing to hide,
if someone's been done in, so not often unreported, and, AFAIK, a
constant definition. 300 murders per year, from 1898 'till the mid-
1960s. Peak of 1,043 in 2002/2003.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/100years.xls

Attempted murder, also hard to hide/not report. 100/year 1898 - the
middle of WWII. Up and down around 200/year 'till the mid-1960s. Peak
of 23,668 in 2004/2005.

Take, for instance, the rate for murder - quite a hard thing to hide,
if someone's been done in, so not often unreported, and, AFAIK, a
constant definition. 300 murders per year, from 1898 'till the mid-
1960s. Peak of 1,043 in 2002/2003.

There is no doubt that the murder rate has massively increased since the
war. However, this is largely drugs turf war related.

Attempted murder, also hard to hide/not report. 100/year 1898 - the
middle of WWII. Up and down around 200/year 'till the mid-1960s. Peak
of 23,668 in 2004/2005.

Attempted murder is easily affected by reporting changes, where, perhaps,
such an event might recorded as assault or GBH previously. Murder is less
affected, as the event is there for all to see and is easily and
consistently defined over time and has an exceptionally high reporting rate.

Otherwise, you'd be suggesting that murders have gone up 3 fold, whilst
attempted murders have gone up 120 fold, which would suggest a gross
reduction in the would-be murderer's competence!

I'm still waiting for ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that crime in general hasn't
reduced in the last 10 years. Your Aunt Maude doesn't count, unless she has
been compiling evidence about this field.

Christian.

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

NB I did *not* go so far as to suggest that you were lying. That is an
unwarranted claim.

The you should have been more careful with your language.

I was. I said 'not true' rather than 'you are not telling the truth'.
There is
a big difference. You assumed the second and I did not intend you to
make that
assumption. An appropriate response from you to what I said and meant might
have been:
"I think it *is* true ..." OR "It *is* true ..." OR "Isn't it true ..."
"...for the periond prior to CNAA coming into force."

I think we will have to agree to disagree on the normal meaning of the
words in question. To me your explanation sounds like the application of
logic. I used to have a flatmate who habitually answered any either/or
question with yes. Drove me mad.

Sorry if I sounded antagonistic. That was *certainly* not the intention.

Thanks. I think I better apologise in turn. I tend to be very prickly on
some subjects.

--
Roger Chapman

Christian McArdle wrote:
Take, for instance, the rate for murder - quite a hard thing to hide,
if someone's been done in, so not often unreported, and, AFAIK, a
constant definition. 300 murders per year, from 1898 'till the mid-
1960s. Peak of 1,043 in 2002/2003.


There is no doubt that the murder rate has massively increased since the
war. However, this is largely drugs turf war related.

OK, so the murder rate has massively increased - you say that it
is "drugs turf war related". It's still crime - and, drug crime
has gone up massively, too!


I'm still waiting for ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that crime in general hasn't
reduced in the last 10 years. Your Aunt Maude doesn't count, unless she has
been compiling evidence about this field.

She probably has more grasp of reality, as well as statistics. If you
lump in total motoring offences, for instance, with total crimes of
violence, a small percentage reduction in the former will skew the
result considerably.

Time to go to uk.l.m. Probably no more for me to say here.

"Christian McArdle" wrote:

Except for the fact that 99% of the population avoid canvassers like
the plague, the other 1% only talk to them because they have nothing
better to do (maybe they have no usenet access.)

Also standing with a clipboard outside M&S on a Monday morning, or
cold calling on a 90 year old too terrified to answer the door, or a
working mum in the middle of preparing dinner will sway the results
too far to be of any significance.

As you wish. However, such factors remaining constant, how do you explain
the almost halving of crime that is reported to the survey?

The 99% avoiding canvassers was quite probably 85% 10 years ago (or
was it 25% or 45% or 75%?)

The fact is that crime has gone down very significantly. There is no
credible evidence to the contrary.

There is no credible evidence for anything associated with the subject
matter.

Oh and can you get your newsreader sorted as your original poster
attributions are missing.


--

Roger wrote:
The message
from DJC contains these words:


Technical Colleges (unlike Universities funded and
controlled by local authorities) merged, became polytechnics,and offered
degrees validated by CNAA from ~1970.


I can only speak from my own experience but the college I attended as a
student apprentice (Staffordshire College of Technology) introduced CNAA
degrees (as a replacement for LU External degrees*) during the time I
was there, most probably during 1964 or 1965.

Yes. I meant (~) round about 1970. The degrees at Middx Poly were CNAA
when I was around there at that time and so the system must have been in
place a little before. My (much more recent) research was concerned with
education and science policy up to 1966, so neither my direct
experience nor researches were much concerned with when exactly CNAA
came into existence.

--
David Clark

$message_body_include ="PLES RING IF AN RNSR IS REQIRD"