Has anyone any sympathy?

[motorbiking]

No it isn't. 1 in 4 are on the PNC.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/671a27f0da8fb5e23e65a435/Estimate_of_the_number_of_working_age_people_with_a_nominal_record_on_the_Police_National_Computer_pdf

For men the rate goes up to 33% but women only manage 9% I believe.

Estimates of the PNC data say 85% of those are convictions or cautions so it's actually closer to 1 in 5 than 1 in 4 adults have convictions or cautions, spent or unspent.

Your link is broken

 

[IT Minion]

Your link is broken

Your link is broken

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/671a27f0da8fb5e23e65a435/Estimate_of_the_number_of_working_age_people_with_a_nominal_record_on_the_Police_National_Computer_pdf.pdf

Missing the .pdf off the end.

 

[motorbiking]

No it isn't. 1 in 4 are on the PNC.

Based on the different data you presented:
42.95M people (in your data set) and 12.6M on the PNC (of the same set).

12.6 / 42.95 = (not 1:4)

the date comes from a FoI request, not estimates. But its irrelevant since its working age people and included NFAs.

 

[IT Minion]

Based on the different data you presented:
42.95M people (in your data set) and 12.6M on the PNC (of the same set).

12.6 / 42.95 = (not 1:4)

the date comes from a FoI request, not estimates. But its irrelevant since its working age people and included NFAs.

Jesus Christ can't you read?

12.6 of 55.

OR

9.2 of 42.95

They're two different data sets, you can't switch between then. Both estimates incidentally as the data isn't good enough to allow exact numbers. Which I'll bet were the source for the answers used in your FOI response.

The primary reason the numbers vary between data sets is one includes the 3 million criminal pensioners and one doesn't.

 

[Dec27]

Jesus Christ can't you read?

12.6 of 55.

OR

9.2 of 42.95

They're two different data sets, you can't switch between then. Both estimates incidentally as the data isn't good enough to allow exact numbers. Which I'll bet were the source for the answers used in your FOI response.

The primary reason the numbers vary between data sets is one includes the 3 million criminal pensioners and one doesn't.

Get a life!! Wow

 

[IT Minion]

Get a life!! Wow

This level of innumeracy is worthy of a Tory party front bench role. I think this forum deserves better.

 

[mitch66]

This level of innumeracy is worthy of a Tory party front bench role. I think this forum deserves better.

Thank goodness you're here to save the forum We can all sleep safely tonight.

 

[IT Minion]

Thank goodness you're here to save the forum We can all sleep safely tonight.

My pleasure. You can pick up on spelling and Transam can monitor grammar and punctuation.

 

[mitch66]

My pleasure. You can pick up on spelling and Transam can monitor grammar and punctuation.

Thanks mate. It's a winner for all of us!

 

[motorbiking]

Jesus Christ can't you read?

12.6 of 55.

OR

9.2 of 42.95

They're two different data sets, you can't switch between then. Both estimates incidentally as the data isn't good enough to allow exact numbers. Which I'll bet were the source for the answers used in your FOI response.

The primary reason the numbers vary between data sets is one includes the 3 million criminal pensioners and one doesn't.

Your data is estimated, mine was from a FOI request. You probably should have kept quiet. You look a bit silly now. Sorry about that.

 

[IT Minion]

Your data is estimated, mine was from a FOI request. You probably should have kept quiet. You look a bit silly now. Sorry about that.

What data is that? Post it. Also estimated is more correct than exact numbers as the data quality is not good enough to give precise numbers. Using precise numbers gives you false confidence.

Based on the different data you presented:
42.95M people (in your data set) and 12.6M on the PNC (of the same set).

You're so full of ****.

If you're going to quote the numbers In the document I provided then actually quote them correctly. I've attached a screen grab, it's there for everyone to see.

You used the numerator from one data set and the denominator from another.

 

[IT Minion]

How are you defining incarceration rate. Do you mean that, in some countries, 10% of the population will go to prison at some time in their lives.

Incidentally this is not what incarnation rate is, incarceration rate is the number in prison at that time. If you've previously been in prison and have now been released you're not incarcerated and don't count to the figure, obviously.

Our actual incarceration rate is around 0.15%. El Salvador has the highest at 1.6% The US might have the most prisoners despite only having a 0.5% rate.

 

[King Billy]

Get a life!! Wow

Thank goodness you're here to save the forum We can all sleep safely tonight.

What well-informed contributions to the debate!
I'm surprised there's no 'OMG', 'I Know', etc.

 

[motorbiking]

What data is that? Post it. Also estimated is more correct than exact numbers as the data quality is not good enough to give precise numbers. Using precise numbers gives you false confidence.

You're so full of ****.

If you're going to quote the numbers In the document I provided then actually quote them correctly. I've attached a screen grab, it's there for everyone to see.

You used the numerator from one data set and the denominator from another.

As I have already stated, these estimates are not the source of information used. There has been a FoI request on the subject and it’s widely reported.

2024. 12,591,780 adults with records. Population of adults in 2024. 42.95 million
Sorry you didn’t know about it.

Not that it’s even relevant to the discussion

 

[Dec27]

As I have already stated, these estimates are not the source of information used. There has been a FoI request on the subject and it’s widely reported.

2024. 12,591,780 adults with records. Population of adults in 2024. 42.95 million
Sorry you didn’t know about it.

He’s such a petulant child when he’s shown to be wrong.