The mean streets of Lincoln

Some poor sod who got beaten up by a gang of blokes, and another lad who has had two motorbikes stolen, are both being used by the Lincolnshire Echo for a bit of sensationalism.

In the first story, which has the headline ‘Attack victim says city is no longer safe’,  the angle is based around the victim’s claim:

You can’t really walk around Lincoln town centre at night on your own nowadays…

…It’s even getting bad in the day time now

Whilst undoubtedly this guy has suffered at the hands of some mindless oiks, he’s making a completely anecdotal-based assumption about Lincoln. Lincolnshire Police said:

Whilst it is one of the safest places in the country we do still have some problems from time to time, and this is an example of it.

If the Lincolnshire Echo were being sensible about it, they’d have gone with the angle of Lincoln being a safe place to live, in spite of a recent attack. But I suppose that doesn’t sell papers. But let’s not let truth get in the way of revenue.

Then there’s the second article, which is again led with an unsupported claim from a victim:

A college student has warned that bike thieves are out of control in Lincoln after two of his motorbikes were stolen.

Firstly, is he really saying that ‘bike thieves are out of control in Lincoln’? I mean, has he explicitly said this? Because his other comments on the article don’t say that. I’ll concede that the full story can only be read if you buy the Echo, which isn’t really looking like it’s worth bothering to do, but surely they’d have placed the relevant comments supporting the angle in the web version? Maybe bike theft is spiraling out of control in Lincoln, but I suspect not.

Sensationalising crime in Lincoln is a bit OTT – it’s not exactly LA. Cheap tricks to sell papers and cause a fuss are a part of the reason no-one trusts journalists.

Don’t use the internet or you will definitely (probably, maybe) get burgled

According to ‘experts at Legal and General’ in the Mail today, users of social networking sites could face higher insurance premiums as, apparently, burglars ‘shop for victims’.

The report commissioned by Legal and General was headed by ex-theif Michael Fraser, who now works at the BBC for their Beat the Burglar series. Mr Fraser said:

‘There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that burglars are using social networks to identify likely targets.

‘They gain confidence by learning more about them, what they are likely to own and when they are likely to be out of the house.

‘I call it “internet shopping for burglars”. It is incredibly easy to use social networking sites to target people, and then scope out more information on their actual home using other internet sites like Google Street View, all from the comfort of the sofa.’

Where’s the evidence? Is this just a hunch, or even a tip off, by Mr Fraser, or are there actual statistics or court cases specifically mentioning a link between burglaries and social networking sites? In the second part of the Mail’s article they cite a woman who went to Glastonbury festival, posted about it on Facebook and then came home to find she had been burgled:

She now believes the burglars used information and pictures on Facebook and Twitter – which she also used during the festival – in order to target her flat while she was away.

‘Whilst I am careful about who I accept as a friend, some of my friends have up to 600 friends on their sites who could potentially access my page,’ she said.

‘And because I was sending messages to a festival “group”, I did think afterwards that strangers could have seen and known we were out of the house.’

Right, but that’s not definitely true. She’s making a link between her social netoworking and her burglary – but there’s no actual proof that this is why she was burgled. However, the Mail is presenting this as a concrete example to back up Legal and General’s report. If this is the best evidence they could find then they’re on pretty shakey ground.

The article is also claiming that many users post their addresses on Facebook – I know no-one who does this. Whilst I’m wary of using my own anecdotal evidence, I have just looked through many of my Facebook friends profiles and not found a single address. Besides, even if you do put your address on there (which is stupid), if you are sensible enough to edit your privacy settings then only your friends will be able to view your profile. Further still, if you don’t accept anyone’s friend requests on a whim and keep it to people you are still in contact with then this will limit the chance of a tech-savvy burglar finding your details.

The Mail then shows us how little they understand about Twitter:

In an experiment, 100 friend requests were issued to strangers selected at random.

On Twitter, 92 per cent accepted the stranger as a friend, as did 13 per cent of Facebook users, potentially allowing the stranger to learn about that person’s interests, location and movements.

First of all the 13% on Facebook are idiots. However, is the report seriously suggesting that burglars will trawl Facebook trying to add people just on the off chance that they might find some useful information? I’d like to know whether the friend requests were all sent to people in one town or city as that should have been what they did – after all, a burglar in Manchester will hardly be interested in someone from London. On top of this, of that 13%, how many actually put their address details on there? Because this will surely also affect the chances of a burglar using information on the site, potentially diminishing their attempted details-harvest even further. But now, what are they saying about Twitter?

Friend requests? They mean ‘followers’, of course. You can’t put your address details in your profile on Twitter, so the potential burglar would already have to know where you live. If they don’t then it’s highly unlikely you’ll use your 140 character limit to reveal your address. Furthermore, the would-be burglar would have to wait until you updated revealing that you were going away, when you were going, how long for and potentially, where you live. I don’t know any people who block followers they don’t know unless they’re spammers. This is because, unlike Facebook, you aren’t giving away a wealth of personal information.

So, how many people have been burgled because of Twitter? None, of course. Hey, shoot me down if I’m making an unreasonable assumption.

Lastly, are burglars really going to trawl the internet for victims? Will they really use Google street view to plot their crimes, having reaped information from Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, Bebo – whatever? I very much doubt it. Surely, house burglaries are committed by the opportunistic, who may have scouted the property for weaknesses – not the internet for personal information. I could be wrong, but unless I see solid evidence of this happening frequently then I won’t start to worry just yet.

Maybe I’m being cynical, but this whole article rings alarm bells, especially here:

Plans being considered by Legal & General include questioning customers about whether any of their family members belong to any social networking sites.

Hmmm, fleecing people for more money or genuine concern reflected by a rise in premium….

Stop ‘balancing’ articles when the evidence on either side doesn’t match up

Plans to switch off street lights over night by Essex County Council have met fierce opposition in the form of Charles March, a pensioner from Pitsea. He’s started a campaign against it on the basis that:

the plans…would be a nightmare and violent crime would inevitably rocket.

the move would not save much taxpayers’ money and would have little effect on the environment.

They’re talking nonsense about the environment. It won’t have the slightest effect in the overall picture.

When the council has to deal with billions of pounds, it’s hardly going to save that much money either.

What Mr March fails to do is qualify his claims with any tangible evidence. In actual fact, the switching off of street lights has already happened in suburban Essex, with:

a police report [showed] that crime in the two districts which trialled the scheme has actually fallen

Another report, this time by Greater Manchester Police, pointed out that lighting can actually be the catalyst for criminal activity:

In certain situations, lighting may aid or encourage congregation, crime and disorder.

I’m not saying that the concerns about criminal activity increasing shouldn’t be aired or addressed, my argument is that with a little bit of research on the part of the journalist, they can make an informed judgement on how to present the article. The Council does get a chance to reply to Mr March, whereby they highlight that there isn’t a correlation between an increase in criminal activity and street lights being switched off, as well as them saving a third on energy costs if they do partake in the scheme – blowing Mr March’s arguments out of the water:

The council said that in areas where the scheme was trialled, the number of crimes fell, while costs were saved because electricity usage fell by a third, which was better for the environment.

Scott Wilson, county council spokesman, said a safer communities committee was looking at whether the scheme could be applied countywide, but had not made a decision yet.

He said: “There are all sorts of exceptions. It’s only areas that are least used.

Main roads, town centre lights and lights around the town centre would not be turned off.”

The weight that the original Echo story gave to Mr March’s criticisms was far too much. They led with the headline:

Street lights switch off ‘will cause more crime’

It implies that the assertion of a definite increase in crime is given by a credible authority, when in reality it’s just an ordinary member of the public who is basing their arguments on no statistics or factual evidence. The Echo also publishes Mr March’s claim that crime would “inevitably sky-rocket”. Why would it? What is he basing this on? The Echo should have challenged him on this, and if he provided nothing to substantiate what he is saying then write it into the article.

By giving a ‘fair’ representation of both sides you over legitimise arguments that aren’t very well founded. By giving equal weight, or even more weight towards Mr March as it appears, you do the public an injustice by allowing them to make a poorly informed judgement.

Sorry Evening Echo, you got it wrong.