This ad comes from a Ministerial Press Release https://beehive.govt.nz/release/violent-crime-drops-first-time-2018. It states "Police data shows that violent crime has fallen". In the footnotes it then says "Violent crime is not a category of data that Police tracks". Both these things can't be true.
The data actually comes from https://x.com/Charteddaily/status/1885143695667978298. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of charteddaily - I don't know them. But its not clear what is meant by violent crime, there are just numbers not categories. And it's not the police saying violent crime has fallen.
FWIW I was now musing on the difference between this and when people like @drayeshaverrall.bsky.social and Ashley Bloomfield were retweeting my covid data graphs:
- I'm not anonymous
- I was publicly interacting with (listening to) subject matter experts (not inventing own categories)
Yes, though there have been media stories written based on my tweets, and I do appear by name in cabinet covid briefing papers (which boggled me). So to me the how validity of the contents (including the strength of the claims which is where I think this most falls over) is more important.
And when, over the years, my stuff has broken out into the wider media, it has often had supporting comment and context from subject matter people, or comment from @tslumley.bsky.social in the Statschat blog. Rather than me being a sole source of truth.
The Ministerial PR states “There were 24,000 fewer victims over the year ending October 2024, compared to June 2024”. Is this a typo, as the year in question would include 8 months under both ‘years’? Is the release saying that in four months the number of crimes fell by 24,000?
Using the ANZSOC Division classifications for violent crime against persons the following data is generated for the calendar year (i.e. Jan to Dec). That shows a tiny fall in victimisations for 2023 to 2024 (-0.7%) and a 9.6% increase from 2022 to 2024
Craig, can you explain more about how you get this table? I can't replicate it. When I use those ANZSOC divisions I get close to the claims by ChartedDaily (and I understand the discrepancies). Just serious assault (resulting/not resulting) adds to more than you have
National show a real talent for manipulating stats or changing definitions that then provide favourable stats. I would never take anything they comment on at face value.
Comments
- I'm not anonymous
- I was publicly interacting with (listening to) subject matter experts (not inventing own categories)