Talk:Luton/Archives/2008/June

Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png

Image:EH icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Crime - yet again

Although this was debated some time ago, here again are the stats taken from the Reform crime surveys for 2005 and 2006 for Urban areas. Unless there is a sensible reason for not using the Urban crime rates to compare Luton against I personally feel that these are the most sensible ones to use.

Luton in 2006 - the most recent figures available had a crime rate of just below the national average of 58.85/1000 or 5.88% (the 2005 figures show Luton slightly above the national average)

The reform figures for 2006 are as follows: (http://www.reform.co.uk/filestore/pdf/Urban%20crime%20rankings,%20Reform,%202006.pdf)

2005 figures taken from (http://www.reform.co.uk/filestore/pdf/Urban%20crime%20rankings,%20Reform,%20July%202006.pdf)

2007 figures are not yet available.

For overall comparison the 2006 figures for other crimes were as follows (these are crimes per a certain number of population and not percentages. Thus total crime (per 1000) 58.85 = 5.88% roughly 1 crime per 20 people. Or a resident could expect on average to suffer a crime once in 20 years.

Total crime (per 1000 popultion)

Luton: 58.85 (2005: 59.35)

Average: 61.42 (2005 56.40)

Murder (per 100,000 population)

Luton: 2.16 (2005:2.17) (actual number of murders:4 )

Average: 2.01 (2005: 1.88)

Highest: - Nottingham 5.21 (2005:3.27)

Rape

Luton: 5.82 (4th) (2005: 5.87)

Average:3.91 (2005: 3.64)

Highest: Portsmouth 6.58 (2005: 6.53)

Assault Luton: 17.35 (2005: 17.50)

Average: 18.62 (2005: 17.39)

Highest:Leicester 30.91 (2005: 35.84)

Burglary

Luton: 15.19 (32nd) (2005: 15.32)

Average: 16.77 (2005: 15.72)

Highest Manchester 41.21 (2005: Nottingham 34.78)

Robbery

Luton:4.47 (5th) (2005: 4.51)

Average: 3.82 (2005: 3.60)

Highest:Manchester 8.78 (205: 7.92)

Vehicle Crime

Luton: 20.85 (26th)(2005: 21.02)

Average: 20.61 (2005: 19.09)

Highest: Manchester 40.30 (2005: Nottingham 36.57)

Gun Crime

Luton: 3.93 (12th) (2005: Stats not published)

Average: 3.86 (2005: Stats not published)

Highest Bradford 12.53 (2005: Stats not published)

There are a couple of stats that jump out, such as the rape and murder stats. I personally feel that we need longer term stats to obatin a more meaningful assessment. However the bottom line crime figures show that Luton is average. Not a great stat in reality, but not the crime ridden hell hole it is claimed by some.

When i have more time to get the facts i shall try and get together the long term trends over the last say 5 to 10 years. The Reform 2007 figures are unlikely to be relased until early summer judging by the previous couple of years.

Crime in Luton fell in 2006 against an increasing crime rate nationally. However without the long term trends this doesnt really proove anything one way or the other.

Bedfordshire police did however obtain a very poor ranking in the recent police rankings, which would tie in with the stats on some of the more serious crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random articles (talk • contribs) 15:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the 2005 figures are incorrect and are simply an earlier version of 2006 figs (which actually cover crime during 2005). The actual number of murders at 4 would mean a change of only 1 would significantly affect Lutons position. I did recently see figures for crime overall which did show a downwards trend over the period 2002-2006 but there was no source attributed to them.

However it is key to comply with Wiki standards, i havent noticed similar discussions or info on crime on other town pages.

Luton is a very mixed town, crime experiances and rates in say Marsh Farm will differ significantly from say Barton Hills, even though the areas are close.

Longer term trends are needed to give sensible comment.

If say murders fell by only 1 to 3, then Luton would drop right down that table (with a rate of about 1.55 below average) similarly an increase of 1 to 5 would put luton up (at about 2.6).

Its the rape stat that i was most surprised about and would be interested to see earlier year figures and subsequent, as to whether this was a horrific blip or the norm. I think i was particularly surprised as the Reform figues said there were over 100 rapes, which I would have expected would have had a much more prominent press coverage. I didnt notice 2 reports per week of such crime in the press. Some more info on this would be useful, i wonder whether the figures included a high rate of rapes reported within marriage etc.--82.163.75.59 (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason its not reported is because its so common. I am struggling to understand this seemingly pathological hostility to having facts about crime in the crime sub-article. Luton has very serious problems in the areas of sexual assault, burglary and violent robbery/mugging. Any attempt to allude to this is deleted straight away. Reform's figures may be limited in time, the Government's are not, the figures for sexual assault have been horrifically high for the past decade. The reason you seem to be shocked by this is that you have not heard about it. The reason you have not heard about it is that it is not covered.

It seems that a single spurious reference to car crime is the only mention of crime that those who 'own' this page will tolerate, even though car crime is falling and is one of the most unexceptional aspects of crime in Luton. I don't see the point of the Crime heading at all, as any mention of crime even when it is factual is deleted, presumably for reasons of civic pride/myopia. PrivateWiddle (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm a little tired of this discussion anyway, but for your information, it is not civic pride that makes us (as in wikipedians) delete factual information from this article, just the fact it has little to very moderate relevance in this article. As a general rule, i think Luton leaves a lot to be desired, however, in the context of this article, this is not something i add for it is neither neutral POV nor is it relevant.

I do not, and will never, say that we should ignore what the stats say, but to be frank, and blunt basically, this section is not of high importance in comparison to the other sections. sure we need to mention it, and what the hell, go and give every last detail that you can possibly find from the government, independent and why not even your own research to the section, but consider this. once you have done it - do you really think that anyone will bother reading all that writing about crime and it various manifestations in Luton? unlikely is my opinion

What might be a better idea would be to take the stats we have (or get up to date ones if you are still unhappy with what we have already) and condense them down into something that will both be informative and also not make people just skip the entire section because they are bored of reading never ending statistics. its admirable to a point that you, privatewiddle, are taking such an interest in this section, but i think you may agree when i say that people would be more interested in the basic hard hitting facts, than an endless supply of facts and figures. and when i talk about condensed, i mean no mentioning of all the specifics such as vehicle theft, then robbery, which is personal theft, but a tight focus on the general divisions (eg total, violent, petty etc etc)

Hopefully this might have given you something to consider and work upon. Of course, we could stay here and argue for another 6 months about this section, not getting anywhere, however i would rather see some progress than just some chattering and petty arguing. (and by the way, i'm up to the eyeballs in coursework for my A2's, so thats my reason not to be doing the updating myself)

thank you, once again, for getting involved with this never ending argument Random articles (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick question Privatewiddle - what are your views on Crime in Watford, Oldham, Bury, St Ives, etc etc, why have you not added crime comments to all town articles. Crime is not somethibng covered in very much detail in other town pages. Crime in Luton is about average for an Urban area. You clearly do not have a neutral PoV, and have added little to the rst of the article. In short you wish to portray Luton as a crime ridden hole. Which for anyone who lives here will know it is not, its about average....Not an exciting stat at all really. anyway I htink its abou time that an agreement is reached, and suggest an independent view from say the UK towns project. Crime generally is not commented on within wikipedia in relation to other towns, unless a sensible encuclopdic paragraph is written then i agree with Widdle here and lets just forget it. GazMan7 (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I put a single sentence in the "Crime" section which stated what the key areas of crime are in Luton. How on earth is that not neutral?

Crime is not average in Luton. The country is divided into 13 demographic groups for the purposes of comparing like with like. Luton is in the highest group and ahead of three quarters of that group.

I am also sick of this

Given the situation here, I think the crime section should be deleted altogether. Crimes other than car crime are not mentioned, which is misleading. Any attempt to mention the crimes that do occur is instantly reverted. As this is the case it is obvious that this subject is off limits.

Perhaps someone could start a page which lists the subjects we are allowed to mention, thus saving those who don't share your views from wasting their time. PrivateWiddle (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur - this section is causing way too much more trouble than it is worth, and with it gone, we can get on with this article. and on a final note, neutrality depends on whats written, not how much is put down onto this website. i would say the only reasons that a lot of your "statistics" widdle were reverted pretty quickly is because they were neither neutral nor useful for that matter.

its definitely time we ended this and put it to a vote - delete or keep this section?

i vote delete

Random articles (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep: Crime statistics are notable. I think we need to take this matter higher though maybe WikiProject England or WikiProject Bedfordshire. We must remember that wikipedia is not about saying how good a town or city is, it's about portraying it as it actually is. There is no point in over exaggerating statistics eitherway because that will make a crime section invalid.UKWikiGuy (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen any town article in WP that had a crime section or mentioned general crime statistics. Perhaps if Luton appeared in one of these, Category:Police operations in the United Kingdom, then maybe it would be relevant. MickMacNee (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Power Court

Does anyone know the latest on power court? Everything seems to have gone quite. I was told the plans were rejected and that it will end up as a retail park rather than shopping centre.

The website has also gone down.--82.163.75.59 (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)