It seems to me that the elephant in the room — the thing we’re not really saying out loud — is the influx of East Africans in Victoria and some of the more violent attacks (machetes, etc.). Please correct me if I’m wrong; I’m observing this from a distance.
Actually, my Vicpol contacts tell me in terms of numbers it's roughly proportional to population figures, but in terms of media reporting it's not proportional to representation and it also varies significantly based on region.
They give me a great example they can actually talk about, petty crime, pretty much all the petty crime that makes it to reporting in the mainstream media, News Ltd or Nine media, is associated with or inferred to be linked to African minors. But in the real world figures the representation is reported to be proportional. However, we(the public) do not get that impression because of the media bias in reporting. At the moment the popular media clickbait is a teenage girl of any ethnic background running rampant, and as they are presented by the media it appears teenage girls are some sort of social criminal syndicate, yet they are and still remain a miniscule percentage of offenders.
The perception of a bias possibly exposes a misunderstanding of the generalised mandatory reporting that is in place in Victoria, that is not the same in other states by the way, at least not yet.
I'm happy to be proven wrong, but my understanding the Vic child protection act requires it for all child or youth crime, while and the public assume mandatory reporting only means mandatory reporting of child abuse. That means in Vic the mandatory reporting laws mean mandatory reporting of all children and youths involved in crime as well, they assume a child or youth involved in crime is a victim of some circumstance.
That is not the case in all Australian states, where officers have discretion over reporting in many cases, it's one of the big Federal issues to get it all standardized in the long term. Uniforms laws and reporting across Australia, but it's not there yet.
If you are in doubt, you can always get it clarified by Bec Judd!
Yes, I generally agree. There's a reason why you need tertiary qualifications to become a Criminologist - understanding the nature of crime, how crime is documented, recorded, categorized, being able to make sense of long term and short term trends etc is pretty tough.
In our country the laws are not even the same state to state, let alone the reporting requirements.
The public always comments based on a generalisation, and politicians often play on this even when they blatantly know otherwise, like Hansen bringing her Qld specific issues into the Vic elections!
But we have a bunch of lunatics running around claiming sovereignty or refusing authorities based on constitutional rights.
The people who are duded are those who paid way overs for front row at ground level on the wing, late purchasing at top dollar, they made the assumption they were the best seats in the house and were screwed over, due to the relative size and curvature of the ground they are basically looking at a bench full of arses!
The best seats would have been up a level front row.
When using the ABS statistics, or those from the Victorian Crime Statistics Agency, etc, it’s worth drilling down to see what limitations there are. The States and Territories don’t necessarily collect the same data or in the same way.
I'm sure I posted this on this very thread days ago, or at least mentioned it when discussing the findings of my friend in Vicpol who moved to Qld, the reporting criteria is different. But some will just ignore that because it doesn't suit the narrative, and that post was well before any stats were linked or quoted.
To him before he moved to Qld it looked like less crime to deal with and more money for not having to worry about it, when he got to Qld the story was very very different.
If you measure using the same reporting criteria then serious crime follows population, I think it was an ANU study that standardised the figures and if I can find it again I'll post it. The federal data is the correct data to look at the trend, but it has to take into account definitions can change from year to year and government to government.
A bit like when Kennett kyboshed metal health facilities, all of a sudden Melbourne was the happiest and healthiest place on earth!
To me it's the same error the general public keeping making when reading stats, they assume an assault is an assault, and that all are reported. It's a bit like when we debate AFL stats, what is a tackle, what is a contested possession. What we think can be significantly different from what the statisticians use as definitions!
I suppose the real question becomes, what makes people think we are all the same and why even expect that? In my opinion it's a bit of a tell!
At his recent rally RedTrump was promising to buy voters, but one crowd member called his bluff and screamed for the "Money up front, we don't trust you anymore!" and was escorted out. It got quite a laugh as opposed to the usual jeers, that's a tell!
Even the diehards are starting to see the bluff?
I wonder how long Hanson has on a beer budget before the it all turns to the sh1zen she claimed she would drain!
Yes, that's spot on. There are good reasons why most people don't trust insurance companies.
@DJC I worked for News Ltd for almost a decade, back then the "Style Book" was hardcopy and they printed a fresh copy every year or so. All done in house at an internal site called Rotaprint. It was handed out to all journos and editors. People(public) probably thought it was just about fonts and word choices, it looked like a thick little pocket diary or dictionary, it was of course nicknamed the bible, and beyond the typeface it spelt out the "News Ltd" position on just about every topic of public interest, politics, politicians, public servants, celebrities, society, crime, finance, etc., etc., not unlike a manifesto. It told you what words to use to describe them, what nicknames to use, what related issues to focus on, read enough of it and it became pretty transparent, ignore it at your peril, not many stayed around if they failed to follow the scripture.
I gather now we are in the internet era it's probably all digital or perhaps now an AI based proof-reader.
I understand everyone has their own reason/justification for leaving early and not wanting to judge anyone but I was very disappointed with the number of Carlton supporters that left early on Fri.
On top of perfectly valid reasons to leave, rain, cold, working on Saturday, getting a seat on the train, too late past bedtime, there are a lot of late season bandwagon supporters who have jumped on board. They wouldn't stick fat, and some were probably only there because the rain came after the start.
Years ago we'd leave the GF after 3/4-time to get the best spot at the bar, we'd usually have it all under control in the 3rd!
I started hearing from people wanting to go to the games this year around Rnd 18, people I hadn't heard from for years!
Ubiquitous technology plays a big part, communications, transport, everything is easier, easier to coordinate, easier to run, easier to get bored, easier to buy drugs.
My friend in Qld tells me the youth crime drug situation appears a bit worse in Qld than Vic, but it's mostly petty crime, drug offenses, domestics, etc., etc., and the reporting requirements are different. He also said there is a much higher incidence of crimes of opportunity like pick pockets and fraud due to the tourism economy and transient population.
The really serious criminal stuff scales with and follows the population and is the same everywhere, the more people the more money the more opportunity for crooks.
The problem I have with state based reporting is different state to state rules and definitions, for years we've heard one state is better than another, but when the Fed's published the report I recall crime followed population.
A friend of mine in the Vicpol force was "lured" to Qld by better pay and conditions, when he got there he said certain crime was worse than Vic but the stats don't show it!
I notice both F1 and the ATP Tour are cracking down on influencers ruining the events for the general punter. F1 has been slowly weeding them out for a period of time, to the point there was uproar about Hamilton's partner being exempt to the crackdown. In tennis the US Open announced a crackdown with a plethora of complaints from fans about blocked views and unwanted photography. This reminded me of an experience.
A short while back I had a similar experience at a hatted restaurant, we were there taking advantage of a very generous gift voucher, expensive but not too expensive for us as we had "help". But there were a lot of people in the venue paying the full ticket, celebrating anniversaries, birthdays, other special occasions, etc., etc.. All of it interrupted by a foodie influencer turning every coarse into a web documentary. To the point at one stage they stood on a chair and took an aerial photograph of the table, I'm assuming to get a wide angle view with obligatory cleavage shot. You know the type of shot, "I was ripped off by my landlord, but my tits saved me!" photograph. The restaurant staff asked them to restrain their activities for the sake of other diners, at which time they made a scene about paying good money to be there and being free to "experience what they have paid for however they like!" One diner quietly piped in with a beautifully timed comment, although it was also a bit misplaced, "The food is beautifully presented, but not so much your fat arse!" As the situation degraded security was called and the influencer and conspirator were ejected while "vlogging" all the way out the door.
What the feck is wrong with these influencer people? This was a hatted silver service venue, somewhere many people might only experience once in a lifetime and may have saved up good hard-earned money just to attend that once.
I recall seeing some Federal Bureau of Statistics data a year or two back that showed an almost direct correlation between the size of a state population and the amount of crime, it's probably still on MyGov somewhere.
Of course @Thryleon makes a good point about media coverage, although I doubt evidence really makes any difference, maybe on the conviction side it does, but the media do not need much "evidence" to report.
If you differentiate reported crime from convictions, it becomes an issue of statistical definitions, for example if someone is killed but there is no convicted murderer than would be no recorded conviction for a certain crime that was committed. That's an extreme example, but the same applies at all levels of crime.
