Showing posts with label police. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts

Friday, 6 September 2013

Statistics - The Truth


Mark Twain is famously quoted as saying , “There are lies, damn lies and statistics,” but he, in fact, attributed the saying to Benjamin Disraeli.   It highlights the difficulty about using statistics because the figures can be distorted to provide evidence for the point of order being argued.

When it comes to the victims of Domestic  Violence, you will encounter various statistics: 1 in 4 women will be a victim, 1 in 6 men will be a victim, even 95 % of all victims will be female ( I STRONGLY dispute this as you shall see).

The problem is that all statistics are based on samples, and some of the samples used were already quite restrictive in the profile of people interviewed and the questions or options given.  In other words, the results had already been determined  and the questionnaires had  been designed to provide the required outcomes.

The figures I present come from the latest statistics available complied from the UK’s Office for National Statistics: Crime Survey (Focus on Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, 2011/12


This is perhaps the most conclusive set of data available but is conveniently ignored by Misandrists to want to promote a different message.  The sample used for the following figures comprised of 5,129 men and 5,991 women. 

The Survey shows that
  • 40% of domestic abuse victims are male: for every five victims, three will be female, two will be male.
  •  7% of women and 5% of men were estimated to have experienced any domestic abuse in the last year, equivalent to an estimated 1.2 million female and 800,000 male victims.
  • 31% (one in four – not quite one in three) of women and 18% (one in six) of men had experienced any domestic abuse since the age of 16. These figures were equivalent to an estimated 5.0 million female victims of domestic abuse and 2.9 million male victims.

So, to recap, based on the latest data set available and taken from a pool of 11,220 people (46 % male 54 % female), 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men will experience Domestic Violence in their lifetime and 40% of domestic abuse victims are male therefore 60% are female.

I felt led to write this because I came across an article which made the following claims:

The reality, however, as indicated by Women’s Aid statistics, is that a quarter of British women suffer domestic abuse; many of them experience repeated violence. According to the charity, on average a woman has been assaulted 35 times before she is able to seek help. A perpetrator doesn’t necessarily only cause physical or sexual harm, but may also be psychologically, spiritually, emotionally or financially abusive.

And what about abuse directed against men? Although this does occur in the UK, Women’s Aid says that 95% of the victims of domestic abuse are female.”

I did contact the author to challenge the claims reportedly made by Women’s Aid.  From the information I presented, there is a clear discrepancy. …can both set of figures be correct? 

Perhaps the biggest clue is in the name of the charity.  It’s not Aid to Victims of Domestic Abuse, it’s WOMEN’S aid.  It is not in the charity’s aims or best interests to acknowledge male victims in any shape or form.

Looking at the Women’s Aid website is most enlightening about the misinformation against Men that they are spreading.  The sad thing is that many who accept at face value that Women’s Aid must be the leading  voice on all domestic abuse matters fail to see the true motive of the charity .


…1 in 4 women will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime – many of these on a number of occasions.

On average, 2 women a week are killed by a current or former male partner.

One misleading statistic, which is often repeated, is that - while one in four women experience domestic violence - so do one in six men.  These figures are, however, based on single incidents, of a criminal nature, and without regard to:
·         severity of violence
·         whether or not it was repeated - and if so, how often
·         the complex pattern of overlapping abuse of various kinds
·         the context in which it took place.,,,,

The Bold words are as they appear on the webpage.  I’ve unlined the text clearly designed to send out a Misandry message which is false and gender discriminatory.

According to Office for National Statistics: Crime Survey (Focus on Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, 2011/12

   In 2011/12 – 17 men (one every 21 days) died at the hands of their partner or ex partner compared with 88 women (one every four days)


In other words, 1 man every 3 weeks and 1 woman every 4 days (not quite 2 women a week) as Women’s Aid claim are killed by their partner or ex-partner.  Irrespective of Gender, these figures are far too high and any murder is immoral.

However, Women’s Aid clearly claim that all the murderers of female partners are male.  As far as I can ascertain, the gender of the suspects have not been recorded.  Although it would be commonly accepted that most suspects would indeed be male, it is likely that there would be  some same-sex relationships included in the fatalities.   

By slightly manipulating the crime statistics, Women’s Aid attempt to make male mistreatment of females look worse than it is without acknowledging women can also behave in such an evil manner. 

Women’s Aid accept the 1 in 4 women statistic, but  challenge the 1 in 6 men statistic although they both come from the same source!  How bizarre!

How can it be misleading ? Hmmmmmm?  Does that make the 1 in 4 women misleading by the  same token?   

They claim that it’s not reliable because it refers to a single incident but the same criteria is used to measure both genders. The real truth is that it promotes a reality that Women’s Aid doesn’t want to admit to! 

There is over 30 years of academic research available that offers confirmation that a similar proportion of men and women are domestic violence victims.  I've said it before and I will say it again, Domestic Violence affects everyone irrespective of Gender - it is never a gender issue alone.  This message has been silenced because it doesn't match the misandrist agenda of many feminists.  

A lot of Misandrists love to claim that 95% of domestic violence victims are woman.
This originated from the USA back in November 1994, nearly 20 years ago and came from the following:

90-95% of domestic violence victims are women. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings: Violence between Intimates (NCJ-. 149259), November 1994.)
Strange how the sampling or method used to arrive at this extortionate percentage has been lost over the period of time!  Also strange is that fact that academic reports which challenged this bias have been ignored, although accepted at the time as addressing an inaccuracy.
Professor Murray Straus’ epic and ground-breaking paper, ‘The Controversy Over Domestic Violence by Women 1999 ‘   can still be found online if you look hard enough:
In this paper Professor Straus writes of the attacks against him and his team because of their findings:
In the mid-1970s my colleagues and I made the disturbing discovery  that
women physically assaulted partners in  marital, cohabiting, and dating relationships as often  as men  assaulted their partners (Steinmetz, 1978; Straus, 1997; Straus, Gelles, & Steinnietz,  1980). This finding  caused me  and  my former  colleague, Suzanne Steinmetz,  to  be  excommunicated  as feminists. Neither  of  us  has accepted  that sentence, but  it remains in  force.  So when Salman Rushdie was  condemned to  death  for his heresy,  we  may  have felt even more empathy than most people because we had also experienced many threats, including a bomb threat.

As a result  of  the women's movement, the traditional reluctance  of the police to become involved in  "domestics"  (Kaufman  Kantor & Straus, 1990; Straus, 1977) has changed. In most jurisdictions  in  the United  States, state laws or police regulations now require or recommend arrest. However, consistent with the greater injury rate for women, these laws and regulations may state or imply a male offender. Although on average, when there is an injury, this is correct, it denies male victims equal protection under the law. In fact, there are  a growing  number  of  complaints  that  attempts  by  men to  obtain police  protection  may  result in the man being arrested  (Cook, 1997). That ironic situation is an additional reason that men are reluctant to call for police protection. The main  reason  is  one  already discussed  in  explaining  gender differences  in  police  statistics:  The  injury  rate  is  much lower  when  the offender  is a woman  and  there  is  therefore  less  perceived  need  to  call for protection.  The fact  that  assault  is  a legal  and  moral  crime, regardless  of whether there is injury, is lost from view.

Men  are also  less likely  to  call the  police,  even  when  there  is  injury, because, like women, they feel shame about disclosing family violence. But for many men, the shame is compounded  by  the shame of not  being  able to keep their wives under control. Among this group, a "real man" would be able to keep her under control. Moreover, many police share these same traditional gender role expectations. This adds to the legal and regulatory  presumption That is, they  know they  are likely to be able to get away with it. As in the case of other crimes, the probability of a woman assaulting her partner is strongly influenced by  what she thinks she can get away with (Gelles & Straus, 1988).

In the last paragraph, Straus touches on how the ‘90-95% of domestic violence victims are women’ statement was arrived at.  He expounds it further explaining how the figure is derived .

.. “Crime studies, without  exception, show much higher rates of assault by men, often 90% by men. Crime studies also find a prevalence rate (for both men and women) that is a small fraction of the rate of assaults found by family conflict studies. The difference in prevalence rates and  in  gender differences  between the two  types of studies  probably  occur because crime studies deal with only the small part of all domestic assaults that the participants experience as a crime, such as assaults which result in an injury serious enough to need medical attention, or assaults by  a former partner. These occur relatively rarely and tend to be assaults by men. “

….Other reasons why assaults by women  are rare  in  police statistics probably include the reluctance of men to admit that they cannot "handle their wives." In  addition, although police  in some jurisdictions  are now  arresting female offenders more than previously, analogous to their former reluctance to make arrests  of  husbands,  they  remain reluctant  to  make arrests  in  such cases
(Cook,  1997).”

Circa 1994, the 90-95% was the given gender split which reported serious Crime assaults resulting in injury caused by an ex- partner.  Back in 1994, men just didn’t report similar assaults where they had been victims and even today, 20 years later, there is a reluctance by men to do so.

The truth is out there – sometimes you just have to dig a little deeper to find it!

Sunday, 6 May 2012

Caution Disclosure


Every job application form that I’ve seen poses the question, “Have you had a criminal conviction?” I can honestly answer no.  Some expand that question to ask whether you’re had a caution or bind over order.   Any job that required a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check will highlight any caution received.

At the time of my job application, I had no convictions or cautions to declare and had received a clean CRB.  CRB checks are renewed after three years and the next one done on me would reveal that I now have a caution. This is a summary of what is means to receive a caution:

A police caution formally known as a simple caution has the following purposes:

  1. to deal quickly and simply with less serious offenders;
  2. to divert them from unnecessary appearance in the criminal courts; and
  3. to reduce the chances of their re-offending.

A police caution is a formal warning given to adults who admit they are guilty of first-time minor offences. A police caution does form a part of a person's criminal record.  A caution may adversely affect both employment and travel prospects A caution may be considered in court in the event of the offender being tried for a similar offence. A caution remains in police records along with photographs, fingerprints and any other samples taken at the time, although cautions (including reprimands and warnings) are covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 so will become spent immediately Furthermore, simple cautions normally expire after 5 years However, even after cautions expire, any cautions and the associated crimes may continue to be presented in trials involving the cautioned person.

A caution is intended to act as a first official warning and to deter people from getting involved in crime.

I’d received my caution on Thursday evening and was due to work the weekend shift.  I arrived early to speak to my line manager and inform her about my caution.

The news came as a shock.  There had been nothing in my performance or conduct to suggest that I was bad news for my employers. I’d not told the organisation of any of my problems prior to this.  I felt that there was no need.  No one declares their whole life story while being interviewed for a job.  I’d answered all the questions they had asked me.  I hadn’t lied on my application forms.   Working within mental health and the surrounding stigma, I did hope that the organisation would understand the mental pressures I’d been under for years as a Domestic Violence victim, and the poor state of mind I was in when I committed the crime.  I knew that they had employed staff with criminal convictions.  I was completely honest with my line manager, telling her the full details of the caution offence and the circumstances behind it.

After finishing speaking to me, my line manager left the site.  Fifty minutes later as I was preparing to start my shift, I received a telephone call from her summoning me to another location to speak with a senior manager.




Friday, 4 May 2012

Police Record


When I was younger I used to joke that I had a police record. When faced with a respondent to the line I had just fed them, I would replied, “Yes, Every breath you take.”  In recent days, I have learnt to my cost that having a police record is no joke.  I’m not talking about the odd speeding ticket although I’ve been known to collect a few of those over the years.

After my embezzlement of church funds, I was originally informed that the matter would be reported to the police authorities.  When the debt was fully reimbursed immediately with the church receiving back far more money than was misappropriated, I was told that no further action was to be taken.

I began rebuilding my life as described in previous chapters of this blog.  Six months after settlement I was completely shocked when the police contacted me asking to interview me in relation to a referral they had received from the church.  The police officer that telephoned me arranged a time to collect me for the interview. 

Having never been in this position before, I didn’t know what to expect.  I was ready at the agreed time hoping for a fairly discreet visit from police.  However, a large Police Riot Van pulled up outside my house ad out stepped the officer.  I stepped out to greet him anticipating that we would drive straight away.  The police officer said he needed to speak to me before we left and asked to enter my home.  He entered and recited my rights.  It was very surreal to hear those words, “I’m arresting you on suspicion of….  You have the right to remain silent....Anything you may say may be used against you….”   I was stunned, I hadn’t expected this.  I had been informed that the matter had been dealt with to the church’s satisfaction and no further action was to be taken.  This was the last thing I imagined would happen.  

The police officer then informed me he had the legal right to search and seize any evidence in the house relating to the offence.  I immediately handed him a full set of personal bank statements.  I asked him if he knew of the sum of money involved, to which he answered that he had not been given that piece of information so I gave him the church’s audit report.  I also produced a letter from the church stating that the debt had been paid back in full.  “I didn’t know about this” he said, “This throws a completely different light on the situation.”  With my full co-operation in providing the required evidence, I was escorted to the Police Custody Suite for further questioning.

Everything was carried out in dignity.  The arresting officer informed the custody sergeant of the allegations.  The custody sergeant asked about any medical conditions and informed me of my entitlements and the procedures that would be followed whilst being held in police custody. 

I sat and waited until they were ready to interview me.  Other people were being brought into custody, some handcuffed, some had belts and shoelaces removed.  I had been told that I may have to hand over belt/shoelaces etc but it was a decision the custody sergeant would take depending on my co-operation. 

After a short wait, I was taken to an interview room where more police procedures were explained.  Two tapes went into a recording machine and the interview began.  I didn’t feel the need to request a lawyer’s presence and answered all questions as fully and honestly as I could admitting to the theft that had taken place.  After the interview had concluded, I was taken to another room to have my photograph, fingerprints and DNA taken. 

I had been surprised to see that tape cassettes were still being used to record police interviews but there was nothing old-fashioned about the fingerprint machine.  Virtually every aspect and angle of my hands were captured digitally.

I was escorted back to the custody desk where I waited the outcome.  The arresting officer consulted the custody officer and I was summoned over.  They had decided to bail me to appear back at the police station in three months time so that further evidence could be gathered.  The police needed to confirm with the church the validity of the letter I’d produced.  All possible outcomes were outlined to me.

The arresting office escorted me home.  He had apologised to me on the inward journey for the Riot Van explaining that it was the only vehicle available to him.  As we chatted on the homeward journey, he was kind enough to say to me that “in all his years in the job, I was the nicest person he had to arrest.”   I asked about making a disclosure to my employers and was advised to wait until the final outcome before I made any statement.

About two weeks later, at nine in the evening, I was sitting in my front room watching a film with my partner when we saw a plain white van stop immediately outside in the road.  The driver found a space further down the road and parked the vehicle.  Out stepped a different police officer who came to my house and explained that the police were prepared to issue me with a caution on this occasion.  I could sign and accept the caution or I could take my chance with the juridical system.  I signed, accepting the caution not really noticing the caution offence which could have been fraud, theft or something else.  I just wanted an end to this sorry episode of my life and move forward.   The police officer informed me that as far as they were concerned, this was now the end of the matter unless I got into further trouble.  Maybe now, I could put everything behind me.