Skip to main content

Is no stats worse than bad stats?

There's nothing easier than attacking the media for misusing statistics - but I am puzzled at the moment by a major story in which the news media are avoiding statistics altogether. This may be an even worse reality, because the misuse of statistics is usually accidental, where this suppression may be deliberate.

Yesterday's news was full of the outcome of the Oxford trial where seven men were found guilty of grooming and abusing young girls in a terrible fashion. It is notable that the BBC report says nothing about whether the culture of the seven might have influenced this behaviour, not even in a piece headlined 'Who were the abusers?' Last night, though, Channel 4 News bit the bullet that most are dancing around and asked if race, religion or culture could have had an influence. Here Jon Snow asks the Deputy Children's Commissioner the straight question (and this is why I love Channel 4 News) 'Is it race?' Here's the interview:

She responds equally bluntly 'No.' She tells us this is taking place across all parts of our community and in all ethnic groups. The suggestion is that the reason we only see primarily muslim offenders, mostly with Pakistan as a place of origin, is down to the way the media reports the stories, and the way cases have been brought to trial. There was, for example, she tells us, the Derby group, which was primarily white (I wanted to put a link to that, but the only Derby trial I can find details of is clearly not the one she is referring to.) That's useful. But it isn't enough. The question that needs to be asked, but wasn't, is what the statistics are.

The UK population is currently around 62 million of whom maybe 20 million fit into the broad sex/age bracket giving them the potential to commit these crimes. The equivalent numbers for UK muslims is around 2.7 million, giving around 900,000 potential perpetrators, and for those of Pakistani origin 1.2 million in total with maybe 400,000 in the right bracket.

Given these figures, if there is no influence from these factors, we would expect around 4.5% of perpetrators to be muslims and around 2% to be of Pakistani ethnicity. If the actual percentages are significantly more than these,  and with the proviso that to do the stats properly we would have to look at other factors to make sure there is not another hidden dominant influence that needs to be controlled for, we can reasonably draw the conclusion that there is influence from race, religion or culture. If, on the other hand, these percentages are roughly comparable with the distribution of actual offenders, there should be an outcry because the media and the police/courts are grossly distorting the facts.

Let's be clear - I don't have these statistics, so I can't say which is the case. But either way this would be an important fact that needed acting upon. By not giving any statistics, we are being deprived of the key element of this news story. Statistics matter.


Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou