I couldn't believe the council meeting yesterday. Scope got drilled. I have never seen Gary get his back up like that before. The funniest thing of it all is that the paper is citing crime statistics at the pool without giving any kind of attendence figures. No one and I do mean no one from the State Police to the FBI Crime Reports gives just how many times something occurs. They have to give it a population base so that you can designate a trend. Funny that they don't have those figures available but they do have the crime reports. The fact is, crime was down when there was a cop there and less people are at the pool now. The pool fees are keeping people away which would obviously reduce crime. Less people, less crime (too bad that can't be said for the rest of the city). Citing crime stats without saying how many people make up the population is junk science and pure PR. How much more water can the Times carry on this issue before they get exposed?
Mr Wolfe the Cleaner wrote: I couldn't believe the council meeting yesterday. Scope got drilled. I have never seen Gary get his back up like that before. The funniest thing of it all is that the paper is citing crime statistics at the pool without giving any kind of attendence figures. The fact is, crime was down when there was a cop there and less people are at the pool now. The pool fees are keeping people away which would obviously reduce crime. Less people, less crime (too bad that can't be said for the rest of the city). Citing crime stats without saying how many people make up the population is junk science and pure PR. How much more water can the Times carry on this issue before they get exposed?
Ahh you read my post. First off, the numbers vomited by the Times and dumbass Elliot are not stats. There is no 'statistics", no percentage. To say they are stats is VERY misleading. The numbers provided by Elliot are meaningless. I thought about the factor the weather plays but I figured the pool fee is enough of a deterrent to lower the pool usage. The bad weather during the 2004 season weakens the Time's argument all the more.
Also, obviously the FBI and state police have census data to make statistics. But their data is still problematic because NOT all crime is reported to the police. It’s good at giving data about murder and bank robbery. But they are weak on things like rape and theft--things that are often NOT reported. Victim surveys seem to be the best although they too are problematic. The state police data used by some anti-Doherty folks is weak because not all crime is reported and the criminal doesn't always get caught. It's too soon (although it is never to soon to be concerned)) to say it is the end of the world and crime is through the roof. People have been saying crime has been going up for 30 years. This so-called crime wave may be a normal fluctuation; societies don’t reproduce themselves exactly from year to year . If you are familiar with CJ stats, you will know what I am talking about.
I think the "problem" at the pool is totally constructed and blown way out of proportion for political reasons. Sure, we're told the 16 year old girl had a firecracker thrown at her. But trouble happens from time to time. I think part of the real problem is that children are policing children and adults; and Doherty and Bob Scope are quick to pander to lifeguards for some reason.
