: I am not going into the details
Human Criminal conspiracy
In my determination to prove all manner of conspiracies by the simple use of statistical evidence I reckon I’m onto something.
Yesterday, the Ministry of Justice announced the last 3 months reoffending rates for convicted criminals - national average just under 10% (Oxfordshire just above the national average, by the way). Projection for reoffending rates are all upwards. Later on the same day the MoJ announced that it was proposing to cut the legal aid payable to those representing defendants (ie, lawyers) because they think we get paid to much for pouring through copious amounts of documentation, researching complex areas of legislation (which is always being updated and changing), explaining this in words that people understand, spending sleepless nights wondering if you have forgotten anything, defending essential rights that have been with us since the 12th century - blah, blah, blah … Connection? Well, obviously, if you take lawyers out of the equation you get more convictions as there is no-one to defend them, but you reduce the legal aid spend leaving you with more money to build prisons to re-house all the criminals that are reoffending. Clever. I reckon I got this whole public policy thing sussed. Posted via email from LawZoo | Comment » Give me the numbers
For some reasons I have started to get interested in statistics and what they may or may not reveal about public policy. Here is an interesting bit of information on school exclusions:
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000860/SFR18_2009.pdf Of the 8000 odd permanent exclusions in 07/08 (which represented 0.11% of the school population), 86% were from secondary schools. This represents a fall from the previous year. There were over 300,000 fixed period exclusions (with the average lasting 3 days) - representing over a 10% decrease on the previous year. You are most likely to be excluded if you are a boy and aged around 13/14 and/or you have special needs and/or you come from an ethnic minority. The most common reason for exclusion: persistent disruptive behaviour - with over 10% of permanent (and over 4% of fixed term) exclusions for assault. There was a 25% decrease in the number of appeals to the Independant Appeal Panel with over 25% determined in parents’ favour. - discuss. Posted via email from LawZoo | Comment » Never new enough.
1 of 13
Older Posts »
|
Following:
|
