There are areas where people do drugs openly, and overdosing, too, and no one cares. A cop walked past a lady overdosing.
You should watch videos of YouTubers going to these areas if you do not want to do it yourself.
The areas are famous for tourists where most phone snatching is rampant, 18 a day at a minimum, on one famous street alone.
FWIW, I am talking about London.
People doing drugs isn’t a danger to me.
Crimes (like phone, expensive items in a bag snatching) happen in rich areas, too.[1]
And UK is doing fuck-all about it, they care more about who said what online. It is absurd.
As for your personal experience, sure, that is valid. It really depends on when you go out or what you are wearing.
Crime overall is at a low level historically in the England, per the Crime Survey of England and Wales, which track actual victims through surveys.
That's not to say the UK couldn't do much better, but this fearmongering is basically repeating far-right conspiracy claims pushed by the press that are not supported by data including by peoples actual responses when asked if they have actually been a victim as per the Crime Survey.
From The Guardian reporting on Crime Survey numbers for London relative to the rest:
"According the Crime Survey for England and Wales, someone is actually less likely to be a victim of crime in London than they are across the country as a whole. In the capital, 14.9% of people experienced a crime either to their person or their household in the year ending September 2023, compared with 15.7% nationally. But what about different types of crime?"
Oh FFS.
Do you seriously consider this robust evidence?
Instead, have a look at the Crime Survey for England and Wales (HINT: This tracks peoples experience of crime and so includes unreported crime)
Yes, and they are doing it, and it is a major issue in London. We are not talking about other places right now. It is a huge issue in London.
You are free to walk around these areas (just go to Knightsbridge) with an expensive watch to see if it is true or not. Get back to us safely to report.
Also... I literally just saw a cop walk past a lady overdosing as if all is fine, and did nothing to the woman who threw a bottle at the YouTuber. Who cares if it is on YouTube or not? I saw it regardless.
When we know that police is understaffed and can't respond to all crime, perhaps you should spend less time blindly trusting the numbers. You, too, can't build an argument on unreliable data. Just like the poster you're replying to.
This was literally pointed out in the comment you replied to.
I'm guessing your solutions involve more police and anti immigration. While more social services and better prospects in life is what actually does something about the problem.
and "official figures" are an untrustworthy source of data
pray tell us just what could possibly be a trustworthy source of data??
"Go outside and look for yourself" that's people's experiences
The issue is there, they were just there at a time where these people who are snatching weren't there. 18 phone snatching per day on one street, but not at all hours, and not on all streets. It varies. But yeah, we want people's experiences. Maybe some of these people on HN did not experience it. Perhaps they could ask their friends and the friends of their friends.
People's experiences are, as yet, an inaccessible source of data.
People's claims about their experiences are an often untrustworthy source of data.
> pray tell us just what could possibly be a trustworthy source of data??
The absence of an trustworthy, accessible source of data does not make untrustworthy or inaccessible sources of data trustworthy or accessible.
> "Go outside and look for yourself" that's people's experiences
No, its not "people's experiences", but its also not a broad, general, representative source of data.
It's not going to be perfect, but it gives a very solid snapshot of peoples experience with crime without the massive distortion we know we get from looking at similar sized samples asked what they think crime levels are.
So? Sample size only addresses sampling error, not nonsampling error, for nonsampling error its exactly as bad as the dinkiest little poll on the same topic (and for sampling error, it's not much better; polls are the sizes they typically are because it doesn't actually take a very large scale to be fairly reliable when you only consider sampling error, and, again, adding more size doesn't help at all against nonsampling error.)
> using their own anecdotal experiences over data in order to confirm your own pre conceived notions
I am not doing this, at all, in fact, you are dead wrong. You think I am not aware of any of these fallacies / biases? I am self-aware enough.
Address this, tired of repeating myself: >>44905149 .
> I consumed https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-...
Official sources.
> And I consumed many people's "unsafe" experiences, similar to YOUR "safe" experiences.
I am considering both sides here.
> As I said, N = ~4 saying "it's safe" means fuck all, just like N = ~4 saying the opposite.
This should alone should strengthen the claim that I am considering both sides, and it means jack shit.
> So... you appear to be another person who invalidates and completely disregards other people's experiences (and your own Government's publishing) in favor of yours, because somehow yours is more valid. It is not.
---
Next time please do it without any personal attacks, that does not favor your case (wait, do you actually have any?) that is already standing on weak legs. If you have no case apart from personal attacks, then yeah, I am in the wrong here, with regarding to you.
If you are not interested in actually doing your research, do not even bother, I am tired of the old story that "but muh experiences matter more!!11!". They DO NOT. Your experiences are not the universal truth, and it goes both ways.