Rail attacks on women up 50% - The Times

[43066]

From family experience I think it is fair to say that women, generally, feel a little less safe than in the past. That's enough for me.

But decisions around policy and policing etc. need to be based on facts, not feelings.

The Evening Standard website features this article:

Violent crimes against women on Britain’s trains jump by more than 50%

A third of all women are likely to be assaulted while commuting, according to a study

www.standard.co.uk

Quoting - "BTP said that the increase in such offences was because victims were more willing to report them."

It seems The Times has taken a political line with this story - as has Jess Phillips.

women are more at risk of assaults or sexual interference on trains then something is wrong and we simply shouldn't stand for it.

But that’s the point - the stats quoted don’t necessarily tell us they are more at risk!

We should be discussing why people FEEL they are more likely to be attacked on trains not worry about how the numbers are collected or compared!

It could be because they fall for scaremongering headlines and are either unwilling to unable to think critically about the data they’re presented with.

 

[Haywain]

That's called a strawman argument and I don't respond to them, because they're usually made in bad faith.

The comment is made because you blamed everything on social media and whilst social media has a lot to answer for, there is nothing new in women suffering harassment and assualts of a sexual nature.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Aug 2024 ==

There is something wrong with the country where there are parts where you feel you cannot visit, which are no go areas.

Where are these no go areas? Do you make this comment from personal experience or just from what you are reading or being told?

But decisions around policy and policing etc. need to be based on facts, not feelings.

Feeling unsafe is a fact. And, sadly, the reasons for feeling unsafe are also fact.

 

[DarloRich]

It could be because they fall for scaremongering headlines and are either unwilling to unable to think critically about the data they’re presented with

it is a good job there are plenty of sensible men around to tell the silly women why they are wrong!

 

[RoyalMint]

The comment is made because you blamed everything on social media and whilst social media has a lot to answer for, there is nothing new in women suffering harassment and assualts of a sexual nature.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Aug 2024 ==


Where are these no go areas? Do you make this comment from personal experience or just from what you are reading or being told?

Feeling unsafe is a fact. And, sadly, the reasons for feeling unsafe are also fact.

Another strawman. You just fabricate other people’s arguments…

 

[DarloRich]

What do you actually suggest the railway do about it? Saying "how terrible!" isn't going to do anything . We could spend half the countries budget putting a BTP on every train , but that wouldn't be proportionate, which is why keeping the actual context behind the statistics in mind.

BTP on every train would deal with many issues not just this one

It is difficult to find a steps to address this issue directly. The biggest thing the railway can do is have even greater visibility & accessibility of staff along with training to help spot vulnerable people and provide staff with skills to try to intervene early to stop problems happening. Also, yes, we need more BTP.

As a wider society we need more resources putting into the police, cps, courts and prison services to make the time from identification & arrest to imprisonment an acceptable one!

Out of context statistics is also why we don't have bendy busses anymore

that and they weren't very nice!

I maintain that worrying about the statistical methodology underpinning this story is seeking to minimise it. It is a way to say that this isn't really a problem or that it is over blown and so not worth worrying about or doing anything about.

 

[Haywain]

Another strawman. You just fabricate other people’s arguments…

Thank you for your valuable contribution to the discussion.

 

[43066]

Feeling unsafe is a fact. And, sadly, the reasons for feeling unsafe are also fact.

But if people only feel unsafe because of misquoted stats, or hyperbolic headlines with no factual basis, the solution is surely to ensure the information isn’t misleadingly presented in the first place.

Or should we dispense with statistics altogether and just police based on irrarional fears rather than actual risks?

it is a good job there are plenty of sensible men around to tell the silly women why they are wrong!

Come off it .

It’s a great shame when people of whatever gender are manipulated by the media and politicians into a state of irrational fear. Maybe I’m cynical but it might well suit politicians and the police to focus only on female victims to take the focus off their own failure to control the rise in anti social behaviour and violent crime more generally.

 

[DarloRich]

It’s a great shame when people of whatever gender are manipulated by the media and politicians into a state of irrational fear.

I don't think you can make that link from the report linked by the OP. People ( and especially women) ARE concerned about thier safety when using public transport. That may be perception ( and as I said I am not really bothered by method used to generate the headline more the problem it describes) but it is a real perception.

As I say, if my partner tells me she has felt unsafe at times on the train then there is a problem. She is a robust Yorkshire woman who knows what the world is like. She doesn't read a newspaper or use social media much. She isn't being led to that view or told to hold that view. It is her view based on her own experience and that of her friends/colleagues.

I was surprised and saddened to hear her say that as I don't perceive a threat but she does, at times - for instance she wont get the last train home from Leeds anymore as it is a zoo. She gets the bus. Obviously being Yorkshire she wont pay for a cab!

 

[al78]

I maintain that worrying about the statistical methodology underpinning this story is seeking to minimise it. It is a way to say that this isn't really a problem or that it is over blown and so not worth worrying about or doing anything about.

I'd say you are dead wrong and what you asserted here is a MASSIVE strawman. No-one is arguing it isn't a problem or not worth worrying about, and calling out data presented in a misleading fashion is not saying that either. It is possible to object to statistics presented in a way that makes a problem appear far worse than it might be, whilst at the same time acknowledging that even if the facts were presented objectively, the problem is bad and effort needs to be made to reduce it. So many bad opinions are formulated on manipulative presentation of data and as such all it ultimately does is stifle progress, except maybe for those with vested interests who seek to gain from putting out misinformation. In the specific cases of deaths or assaults, whether accidental or malicious, putting fear into people of a risk that objectively for any individual is very small and well within the bounds of what most people accept on a daily basis is a very bad thing to do. Unfortunately critical thinking skills in the UK are appalling which is why the population can be so easily manipulated by the media/politicians.

 

[Egg Centric]

Another strawman. You just fabricate other people’s arguments…

What is your argument? People voted for this? What did they vote for exactly?

 

[DarloRich]

the problem is bad and effort needs to be made to reduce it

respectfully - this is the only bit in your sentence that needs saying. You miss this point in the tiresome noise about methodology.

Unfortunately critical thinking skills in the UK are appalling which is why the population can be so easily manipulated by the media/politicians.

Perhaps you ought to speak to my partner and explain how her critical thinking skills are not up to snuff.

As say above: She doesn't read a newspaper or use social media much. She isn't being led to that view or told to hold that view. It is her view based on her own experience and that of her friends/colleagues.

Sorry not to have acceptable critical thinking skills! As I said I am simply human. I understand the point you are making and why you are making it. I just think it is dull, tiresome and dismissive. It comes across, whether intended or not, as minimising the issue and being a complete "yeah but" argument designed to avoid the subject.

PS what "vested interests" are misrepresenting this problem?

EDIT - there is CLEARLY a perception issue here ( whether driven by lurid media reporting, poor presentation of statistics, anecdotal experience, lack of critical thinking, vested interests or emotional responses) and it is something that we need to address.

How we do that should have more focus than how we collect and present the data! it is no good taking a boring Nigely voice telling people that really it is all ok and the chance of being attacked is very low - they simply wont believe you. This is very much an emotional feeling and response and needs a solution that addresses that

 

[deltic]

It’s a great shame when people of whatever gender are manipulated by the media and politicians into a state of irrational fear. Maybe I’m cynical but it might well suit politicians and the police to focus only on female victims to take the focus off their own failure to control the rise in anti social behaviour and violent crime more generally.

There is no increase in violent crime. As House of Lords report from last year states https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/...ve remained below 2,March 2013 and March 2022.

What we have is a constant stream of media stories that give the perception of rising crime. Bad news sells - good news less so.

The ONS reported that victimisation rates shown by the CSEW have been decreasing in the long term. They peaked in the year ending December 1995, when 4.7% of adults were a victim of violent crime. Rates have remained below 2% since the year ending March 2014.

 

[TUC]

Yes, I know, I was referring more to the grumbles by those who seemed to think it necessary to add that men get attacked too. We all know they do. But it seems paltry and almost slightly ignorant to complain about that or suggest that it's an even score, when it really, really isn't.

It's not that at all. It is that anyone who works with statistics will say that the first questions include:
a) what's the position for comparator groups?
b) if it's a percentage increase, what are the underlying numbers? (remembering that an increase from 2 to 4 is 100%)
c) if it's a national figure/percentage, how does it break down regionally? (For many national-level statistics, taking London out of them will give a different picture).

That's not grumbles or 'paltry'.'. That's taking it seriously and wanting a high quality informed position.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Aug 2024 ==

my issue is that focusing on the statistical method is both boring and minimizing of the problem. We should be discussing why people FEEL they are more likely to be attacked on trains not worry about how the numbers are collected or compared!

Sorry, but to say it is 'boring' is a very shallow approach. It is not 'boring' to want to get to the truth.

As for people feeling unsafe, feeling safe is important, but feelings and facts are not the same thing. If anything, it is knowing the facts that can be reassuring if they indicate a better position than may be thought.

 

[Broucek]

Many thanks to @TUC for the thoughtful post. Sadly, most news outlets these days are at best incapable of presenting or interpreting statistics in a meaningful way or at worst deliberately aim for sensationalism

 

[Merle Haggard]

Many thanks to @TUC for the thoughtful post. Sadly, most news outlets these days are at best incapable of presenting or interpreting statistics in a meaningful way or at worst deliberately aim for sensationalism

The news radio programme I listen to has a presenter with an arts or media degree who repeatedly expresses his opinion that STEM subjects are unimportant compared to arts. The sports presenter reported a billion pound football deal and said (rather proudly, I perceived) that he didn't know what a billion was. The anti-STEM presenter answered that by saying 'it's a one with 8 noughts behind it'. I rest my case.
You will see on this forum posts that display misconceptions about the behaviour of percentages that have an impact.
Recently, I heard a politician say that 'removing VAT would reduce prices by 20%' . On that logic, why don't they put VAT up to 100% for one day, then abolish it the next? Then everything would be free!
But evidently an inability to regard interpretation of statistics as important is no barrier to strongly expressed opinions that might, perhaps, depend upon them.

 

[contrex]

We all have a wife, partner or mother

Many of us have a wife, partner or mother. There. Fixed that for you.

 

[Wolfie]

It's not that at all. It is that anyone who works with statistics will say that the first questions include:
a) what's the position for comparator groups?
b) if it's a percentage increase, what are the underlying numbers? (remembering that an increase from 2 to 4 is 100%)
c) if it's a national figure/percentage, how does it break down regionally? (For many national-level statistics, taking London out of them will give a different picture).

That's not grumbles or 'paltry'.'. That's taking it seriously and wanting a high quality informed position.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Aug 2024 ==


Sorry, but to say it is 'boring' is a very shallow approach. It is not 'boring' to want to get to the truth.

As for people feeling unsafe, feeling safe is important, but feelings and facts are not the same thing. If anything, it is knowing the facts that can be reassuring if they indicate a better position than may be thought.

As someone who trained as an analyst and then worked in that and related areas (e.g. policy formulation and evaluation) for over 30 years that post warms the cockles of my heart.

Given half a chance way too many people would write policy solely on the basis of who shouts loudest....

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Aug 2024 ==

Many of us have a wife, partner or mother. There. Fixed that for you.

True enough (although everyone had a mother at one point). A fair few of us may have a daughter also.

 

[contrex]

True enough (although everyone had a mother at one point). A fair few of us may have a daughter also.

I take your point, although some people might think it is a bit insensitive to people who have lost a mother, wife, or partner through death or separation (all three in my case). I still have a sister and daughter. What does bother me slightly more, at the risk of being called 'woke' by some of those who use this forum, is the notion that men need to have extant wives/mothers/partners (etc) to understand how awful male violence and harassment of women is.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

More generally I’m not surprised there has been an increase in attacks given the appalling rise in anti social behaviour since Covid

The social fabric of this country really is fraying at an alarming rate since Covid. Although I feel its an acceleration of the fallout from 2008.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm sorry, but the harsh, hard truth is that people voted for this. They voted for politicians to liberalise every aspect of our society. Welcome to the offspring of that ideology; anarchy.

It's not very intellectually honest to accuse people of using strawman arguments when you open by saying that people literally voted for women to be harassed and assaulted on trains.

 

[Broucek]

Given half a chance way too many people would write policy solely on the basis of who shouts loudest....

I actually feel a little sorry for policy makers as they can't always work out who to listen to. On a few occasions, I've given expert support to government and I think it's actually quite hard for politicians and civil servants to differentiate between lobby groups, academics and industry experts. Ironically, more knowledge in a complex field can make experts less definitive in their advice which may be misinterpreted as a lack of capability.

That said, they can be quite dumb. I once gave evidence to a Select Committee. A competitor who was also appearing gave the Committee a good answer but one of the less astute Committee members responded, "Well, Polly Toynbee said exactly the opposite in the Guardian this morning." Of course he'd heard of La Toynbee and not the person giving evidence.

(As an aside, I'm not a fan of PT but she once made the time to come to meet several people at my previous employer to understand more about a particular topic - respect for that!)

 

[Wolfie]

I actually feel a little sorry for policy makers as they can't always work out who to listen to. On a few occasions, I've given expert support to government and I think it's actually quite hard for politicians and civil servants to differentiate between lobby groups, academics and industry experts. Ironically, more knowledge in a complex field can make experts less definitive in their advice which may be misinterpreted as a lack of capability.

That said, they can be quite dumb. I once gave evidence to a Select Committee. A competitor who was also appearing gave the Committee a good answer but one of the less astute Committee members responded, "Well, Polly Toynbee said exactly the opposite in the Guardian this morning." Of course he'd heard of La Toynbee and not the person giving evidence.

(As an aside, I'm not a fan of PT but she once made the time to come to meet several people at my previous employer to understand more about a particular topic - respect for that!)

As you say expert answers often come with qualifiers and caveats. Anathema to the tabloid/social media types who want everything to be black or white.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Aug 2024 ==

I take your point, although some people might think it is a bit insensitive to people who have lost a mother, wife, or partner through death or separation (all three in my case). I still have a sister and daughter. What does bother me slightly more, at the risk of being called 'woke' by some of those who use this forum, is the notion that men need to have extant wives/mothers/partners (etc) to understand how awful male violence and harassment of women is.

I absolutely agree that last sentence. However l would say that having one around sometimes opens your eyes to things that you wouldn't always realise. I certainly have found that since meeting and having a relationship with a younger black lady - the amount of passive aggressive crap, apparently based on her skin colour, that she gets....

 

[Haywain]

the notion that men need to have extant wives/mothers/partners (etc) to understand how awful male violence and harassment of women is.

I think much of what goes on passes most of us by, because we don't all behave in the same way.

 

[contrex]

I certainly have found that since meeting and having a relationship with a younger black lady - the amount of passive aggressive crap, apparently based on her skin colour, that she gets....

When I was 29 I and a black woman of 20 were dating, and I recall the same things. Being looked up and down by both sexes, and ribald remarks by men. But I lived in a multicultural area and knew what sort of things went on. My father was an anti-semite and racist.

 

[bramling]

Is there any evidence attacks on women have increased at a greater rate than those on men? The article doesn’t seem to want to tell us.

If attacks generally have increased that’s a slightly different issue to an increase in attacks on women specifically. From just looking at figures for attacks on women we don’t actually know whether women are more or less safe than before.

More generally I’m not surprised there has been an increase in attacks given the appalling rise in anti social behaviour since Covid, and indeed there has been a corresponding rise in attacks on traincrew. I suspect we are reaping what was sown by the lockdowns.

Agree very much with the sentiment here.

Stating there has been an increase in one sort of attack isn’t particularly helpful without the much wider context.

And I completely agree that I would entirely expect an increase in problems across the board since Covid (or, more correctly, the Covid response). We’ve all noticed the very obvious increase in trouble which seems to have arisen off the back of that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Aug 2024 ==

there seems to be a number of posters seeking to minimise this information or find a way to dismiss it or question the data. We shouldn't do that. Regardless of the noise this is a headline that should worry us all. If women are more at risk of assaults or sexual interference on trains then something is wrong and we simply shouldn't stand for it.

I don’t think anyone is trying to minimise it. However I find it reasonable to make the point that other crimes are happening as well. There seems to have been a conspicuous increase in the number of robberies occurring on the railway in the London area, some of which involve violence or threats of violence. We shouldn’t be standing for any of it, but it’s one of many things which seems to have got lost in the post-Covid “new normal”.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Aug 2024 ==

there seems to be a number of posters seeking to minimise this information or find a way to dismiss it or question the data. We shouldn't do that. Regardless of the noise this is a headline that should worry us all. If women are more at risk of assaults or sexual interference on trains then something is wrong and we simply shouldn't stand for it.

I don’t think anyone is trying to minimise it. However I find it reasonable to make the point that other crimes are happening as well. There seems to have been a conspicuous increase in the number of robberies occurring on the railway in the London area, some of which involve violence or threats of violence. We shouldn’t be standing for any of it, but it’s one of many things which seems to have got lost in the post-Covid “new normal”.

 

[DarloRich]

However I find it reasonable to make the point that other crimes are happening as well. There seems to have been a conspicuous increase in the number of robberies occurring on the railway in the London area, some of which involve violence or threats of violence. We shouldn’t be standing for any of it, but it’s one of many things which seems to have got lost in the post-Covid “new normal”.

i don't disagree. However this thread and the article linked by the OP are about attacks on women.

As for people feeling unsafe, feeling safe is important, but feelings and facts are not the same thing. If anything, it is knowing the facts that can be reassuring if they indicate a better position than may be thought.

I repeat: deploying the dull Nigelly voice and telling people that acktually the chance of being assaulted on the train is very small is not going to cut through. You have to address the feelings and emotion behind the sentiment.

I know what my partner would say if i tired the acktually approach: That is great dear but I don't want to be the recipient of that small chance!

 

[Haywain]

I don’t think anyone is trying to minimise it.

I'm afraid your comments suggest otherwise. For victims of crime statistics are meaningless and of your house is burgled you won't feel better about it because someone else had their car stolen. And I will echo the comments above that the thread and the article it originates from are about a specific type of crime, not about crime in general.

 

[TUC]

I'm afraid your comments suggest otherwise. For victims of crime statistics are meaningless and of your house is burgled you won't feel better about it because someone else had their car stolen. And I will echo the comments above that the thread and the article it originates from are about a specific type of crime, not about crime in general.

But if, hypothetically, data showed that the number of incidents outside London were proportionally much lower than those within it, whilst that's not much comfort to Londoners, but it would help women elsewhere feel safer.

 

[Wolfie]

But if, hypothetically, data showed that the number of incidents outside London were proportionally much lower than those within it, whilst that's not much comfort to Londoners, but it would help women elsewhere feel safer.

Well at least until the logical consequence, namely increased investment in policing in London (and possible reductions elsewhere to compensate), occurred.

 

[bramling]

I'm afraid your comments suggest otherwise. For victims of crime statistics are meaningless and of your house is burgled you won't feel better about it because someone else had their car stolen. And I will echo the comments above that the thread and the article it originates from are about a specific type of crime, not about crime in general.

I don’t really get this view. It isn’t about feeling better about something, but seeking to establish whether there’s a *specific* issue, or whether the rise in one particular type of crime is simply a reflection of rising crime rates in general. It’s quite important to get to the bottom of that question if you want to find the most effective solution, rather than just be a news outlet having an ineffective moan about something.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Aug 2024 ==

i don't disagree. However this thread and the article linked by the OP are about attacks on women.

Okay, but that doesn’t mean the best solution is to consider the issue in isolation.

Should we focus a response on being very targeted at this particular subset of crime, or could we get better effect simply having more BTP around to hopefully reduce the instances of *all* types of crime on trains?