"More or Less" seemed fairly unconvinced by the claim - although the stats aren't there to disprove it.
I wonder how we find a jury if 25% of men are convicted criminals.
That 18,000 figure was guns being handed in Kiev, population 2.8m.
That's 2.8 before all this kicked off, so less anyone in the military or reservists who have been called up and are either elsewhere and/or already have a weapon, less minors, the infirm, etc, etc.
That's still only 18,000 weapons between, what, 1/2m people?
If the queue I saw on the new was typical then it's about a 90/10 split male/female, predominantly men in their 40s and 50s by the look of it, I guess those a bit old to have been called up but young enough to join in
1 in 4 men have a criminal record for crimes that required a trial at crown court
Or are there enough convictions to equate to 1 in 4 men, cos looking around my circle of friends, someone somewhere has more than their fair share!
Assuming we are representative of the population as a whole (🤣) how many of us have one?
I've got one for some animal rights activities but it will become spent later this year
1 in 4 men have a criminal record for crimes that required a trial at crown court (i.e. not just a FPN for speeding and a trip to the magistrate). For women, that’s less than 1 in 20.
Do you really believe that figure? Because even without looking it up, if you spend any time thinking about it you realise that it's patently absurd. It has to be otherwise how would societies remain stable over time?
However, it is absolutely true that men commit the overwhelming majority of all crimes, serious or otherwise, but the total percentage of the male population accounting for this is more like 4%. Ifg you're likely to commit one transgression, then you're almost certainly going to commit many more because the behaviour is to a large extent pathological (to men).
There is a very simple (personality) explanation for this - men are generally less agreeable than women, by about two standard deviations. We’ve measured this across populations all over the world and it holds stable for all cultures and contexts (I work as a business psychologist BTW, testing and measuring people for senior job applications usually at senior level, so know this subject reasonably well. yes I know it's fraught with error and very high confidence intervals but so is life 😆).
The most disagreeable people in any population are overwhelmingly male and they overwhelmingly account for all the crime committed in a given society. The reason that very low levels of agreeableness is so strongly with crime is because that personality trait results in a disregard as to what other people think of you. A lot of our behaviour is moderated by the social pressure of what others think of us and the need/desire to be accepted; the higher your experience of that phenomenon, the higher your agreeableness (and the more your behaviour will be seen as something that is pleasing to others). When you do not experience this pressure, it’s much easier to be quite the nasty SOB.
BTW this lack of agreeableness (you could also call it empathy) in men compared to women is also the cause of a whole lot of other problems and challenges that have been exposed more recently, not least war, violence, harrassment, nuisance like behaviour etc.
I've not heard anyone on here hang quite so much on the idea of agreeableness for quite some time!
I disagree.
Do you really believe that figure? Because even without looking it up, if you spend any time thinking about it you realise that it’s patently absurd. It has to be otherwise how would societies remain stable over time?
Initially no, just like the presenter didn't. But when you dig into it a bit and ask the obvious questions (like; is this actually number of convictions divided by population rather than the proportion of the population), and they looked at how it was arrived at (it's based on a sample because it wasn't possible to find the overall figure*). The conclusion seems to be it stands up to enough scrutiny to be believable even if there is a margin for error that isn't given.
*Which doesn't help either argument, you can't argue with any validity that it makes it higher or lower because that's a 50/50 chance.
Assuming we are representative of the population as a whole (🤣) how many of us have one?
I’ve got one for some animal rights activities but it will become spent later this year
Presumably outside our demographic bubble the stats lean more the other way?
I was thinking the same when I was listening to it, then remembered one of my colleagues (in an office of 3 people) has a convictivtion (Afray, ABH, something allong those lines). So it seemed less far fetched.
Just because civilians have gone through national service doesn't mean they are effective infantrymen. They might know enough not to slam the lever down fully on their AKs if they need to fire full auto. They might even remember what to do.
National service is generally good for a country, as it idiologicially brainwashes those taking part thus lowering social issues when they rejoin society.
National service is seen as generally bad for a volunteer professional army.
It's lucky in a way here so far, that the home forces, whose moral is high, are fighting inadequately trained and equipped troops who were lied to on this deployment. Also, I think they're getting some outside advice on where and when to use those generously donated javelins/manpads.
I'm not sure if you know what people get up to on National Service, but I work with people who've done it (colleagues and one of my kids is going in) seem pretty clued up and know how to use a gun effectively. Also how to drive vehicles, tanks, provide intel, use comms equipment etc.
National service is good because people come out with a realistic opinion of the army, and reduces the hero worship of it that seems common in the UK.
