Political Spin

lancsdave · 23-10-2008, 17:15

Quote:

A number of police forces in England and Wales have been undercounting some of the most serious violent crimes, the government has admitted.

It means figures for serious violent crimes rose by 22% compared to last year - rather than showing a fall as previous figures appeared to indicate.
The mistake happened when some crimes classed as "grievous bodily harm with intent" were recorded as less serious. Figures say overall crime is down, and ministers say these can be trusted.

Can somebody explain the last line to me. How can they say the figures can be trusted when they are actually announcing they have already screwed up with the previous figures

mothernature · 23-10-2008, 21:42

Maybe the police are as confused as I am about assaults. To me Actual Bodily Harm & Grevious Bodily Harm are the same. Violence is violence and all assaults should be treated as such. Inflicting harm on any person be it a slap or a punch should carry a minimum prison term of 5 years.

Royboy39 · 23-10-2008, 21:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancsdave

Can somebody explain the last line to me. How can they say the figures can be trusted when they are actually announcing they have already screwed up with the previous figures

Lets not forget Mandleson is back to Lordy over the bullshine.

Bonnyboy · 23-10-2008, 22:46

Can’t explain the last line Dave, figures can be interpreted /manipulated as we all know.

Guess it’s a trust thing. We are expected to accept their judgement on the matter

If it wasn’t so serious it would be laughable

jaysay · 24-10-2008, 10:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by mothernature

Maybe the police are as confused as I am about assaults. To me Actual Bodily Harm & Grevious Bodily Harm are the same. Violence is violence and all assaults should be treated as such. Inflicting harm on any person be it a slap or a punch should carry a minimum prison term of 5 years.

The difference between ABH and GBH, MN is GBH is classed with the use of a weapon, ABH is gust with fisticuffs, not that I have any experiance mind you

jaysay · 24-10-2008, 10:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancsdave

Can somebody explain the last line to me. How can they say the figures can be trusted when they are actually announcing they have already screwed up with the previous figures

Tough on Spin, tough on the causes of Spin dave

well its a crime ain't it

mothernature · 24-10-2008, 13:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

The difference between ABH and GBH, MN is GBH is classed with the use of a weapon, ABH is gust with fisticuffs, not that I have any experiance mind you

Do the police know this

jaysay · 24-10-2008, 13:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by mothernature

Do the police know this

Your guess is as good as mine MN

Neil · 24-10-2008, 14:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

The difference between ABH and GBH, MN is GBH is classed with the use of a weapon, ABH is gust with fisticuffs, not that I have any experiance mind you

So explain how that pervert I spoke of a few weeks back got 4 years for ABH without actually meeting his victims, just talking to them on the phone.

andrewb · 24-10-2008, 14:08

I believe the 'fear of attack' also counts. Although perhaps Blazey will correct me.

jambutty · 24-10-2008, 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

The difference between ABH and GBH, MN is GBH is classed with the use of a weapon, ABH is gust with fisticuffs, not that I have any experiance mind you

As I understand it ABH is bruising as in black eye.

GBH is where the skin is broken to cause bleeding or a bone is broken or an internal organ is damaged.

The use of a weapon only increases the severity of the charge and is not the sole reason.

And I do have first hand experience. Years ago when living up Highercroft I was attacked by a thug who broke my nose with a Glasgow Kiss. The assailant was charged with GBH and I was able to make a claim from the Criminal Injuries Board.

His counter claim made in a very high voice was dismissed.

jaysay · 24-10-2008, 15:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

So explain how that pervert I spoke of a few weeks back got 4 years for ABH without actually meeting his victims, just talking to them on the phone.

That could actually be GBH of the inner ear Neil

jaysay · 24-10-2008, 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

As I understand it ABH is bruising as in black eye.

GBH is where the skin is broken to cause bleeding or a bone is broken or an internal organ is damaged.

The use of a weapon only increases the severity of the charge and is not the sole reason.

And I do have first hand experience. Years ago when living up Highercroft I was attacked by a thug who broke my nose with a Glasgow Kiss. The assailant was charged with GBH and I was able to make a claim from the Criminal Injuries Board.

His counter claim made in a very high voice was dismissed.

I think you can actually say that anyone using a weapon in an asult will get done for GBH, maybe a glasgow kiss is classed as an offensive weapon JB

MargaretR · 24-10-2008, 15:40

Threats of physical harm can do as much damage as a physical blow

blazey · 25-10-2008, 05:12

Assault = as little as putting someone in fear of unlawful contact from another, so for example a man raising a fist at you can constitute an assault. The term 'assault' is also used for ABH, which is the harm caused by a person that does not break BOTH layers of skin. So not drawing blood. Grazes for example can be ABH.

GBH is the breaking of both layers of skin. I can't recall whether breaking of bones constitutes GBH, I always forget as I always think of the two in terms of skin breakage.

Pretty serious that crimes are being recorded wrongly really, as sentencing in court is determined at times on how common the crime is and how harshly we need to punish it in order for the punishment to be a deterrent.

Anyway, that is my opinion. I know I'm not around much but someone asked me to clarify.