egafd.com

Zooter wrote:

> the same red tops which thrive on
> exaggerating the crime would be appalled, and the Tories,
> despite the hypocrisy of their pot-smoking leader, would no
> doubt capitalise on it.

It's alleged that Daveyboy has indulged in more than consuming the odd spliff.

I was listening to Christopher Hitchens the other day regarding journalism in America compared to the UK. He said that despite sensationalism being paramount in the British press, he trusted them more than the American press.

Why? Because the American press -including TV media- went all out to come across as objective in nearly everything, while all along they had political agendas they expressed covertly and subtly. A sneakier way of swaying public opinion where most of the public wouldn't even know they were being swayed.

In Britain the political agenda of our media is 'out there' for all to see, judge, agree with, or mock accordingly. Complete and utter bias, but it's more open for argument and debate.

It's sad that no one just reports facts anymore.

"Did it ever? "

I don't know - did it?

And whether it did or did not, would that make the slightest difference to the 14 year old having being 'Happy Slapped' or having their mobiles taken off them by malevolent 'gangstas' or chavs on their way home from school?




Officer Dibble







Officium Dibblus Est Amplus Amor Deus

"So who do the hyserical, screaming headline writers answer to?"

Their customers, I guess.




Officer Dibble







Officium Dibblus Est Amplus Amor Deus

[quote]And whether it did or did not, would that make the slightest difference to the 14 year old having being 'Happy Slapped'[/quote]

No, but it would make a difference if you're going to compare crime rates with other generations and eras. If the same commission omitted under 16's 20 years ago, as they do now, and it shows crime is falling, then the findings are legitimate.

If, however, under 16's were once included, but aren't anymore, recent findings that show crime is falling may not actually be true. You were critical of the findings but have no past findings to compare it to.

How can you state 'that is a big elephant' if you've never seen an elephant before?

24 hour news channels and sensationalist headlines are the only reason peoples perception of crime has risen, when in actuality it is falling. Street muggings may have risen, as car crime has due to people having more cars and more personal belongings being carried around (what would an average man in the 60's, 70's and 80's carried around? A watch wages?).

Everybody has a ?200-?400 mobile phone these days, ?150 iPods and ?1000 laptops.

On top of this, our population has massively increased over the same period that crime has fallen. How mad is that?!

Zooter wrote:

> So your post's subject title was misleading.

It was a quote from that article on the BBC's news website.