Britain's murder capital revealed in survey

[Geezah]

The clearest picture yet of crime in urban England and Wales shows that Nottingham is the "most dangerous" city, with the highest rates of murder and car crime and some of the worst levels of violence, burglary and gun offences.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/05/23/ncrime23big.gif

Leeds and Bradford and areas of Greater Manchester also feature close to the top of a league table of the most crime-ridden towns and cities, based on rates of seven serious offences recorded by police last year.

The thinktank Reform, which obtained detailed crime rates per head of population through Freedom of Information, said last night its "simplified" interpretation of the figures should be used to help the public understand the reality of crime.

Most police chiefs oppose performance league tables and the Reform figures show why, illustrating the reality that some big urban forces are performing poorly compared to others of comparable size.

The disparities in performance will be seized on by opponents of the "big is best" philosophy underlying the Government drive to amalgamate forces.

Nottingham's position at the top of the table places it among the most crime-troubled cities in western Europe, as international comparisons show that England and Wales has one of the worst crime records in the developed world.

The figures will put pressure on Steve Green, the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire, whose force has been criticised for its failure to handle drugs-related gun crime and alcohol-fuelled violence.

Nottingham, which has a population of 250,000, had four times the rate of recorded serious crime as the safest town, Southend in Essex.

It had the highest rates per 1,000 population for murder and vehicle crime, the second highest robbery rate and was in the top five for the four other offences measured - rape, assault, burglary and gun crime.

The figures also show the extent of Greater Manchester's chronic crime problems.

Stockport, the city of Manchester, Oldham and Bolton - all four policed by the Greater Manchester force - are in the top 10 crime areas.

West Yorkshire also fares badly, with Leeds in second place and Bradford fourth overall. The two cities had the worst gun crime last year.

The study also casts a harsh light on Sir Ian Blair's first year as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

Sixteen inner London areas appeared in the worst 40.

Blair Gibbs, the co-author of the report, said: "The Government's key message that crime has been falling masks a huge variation between the safest and most dangerous urban areas."

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/23/ncrime23.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/23/ixuknews.html)

.................

[cut]

Crime capital not murder capital, nothing new in any case.

[Geezah]

Crime capital not murder capital, nothing new in any case.

So which town is Britain's murder capital?

[Hydro]

So which town is Britain's murder capital?


The one with the most murders p-)

[toki]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/05/23/ncrime23big.gif


I just dug out "our (http://www.n24.de/sport/fussball/wm-2006/?a2006032718305831802)" relating statistic (almost all of our cities rank worse then the towns above):

Number of crimes per 1000 (2005)
Frankfurt 172,13
Berlin 150,02
Bremen 149,66
Hamburg 141,11
Düsseldorf 140,35
Köln 135,95
(...)
München 87,00

But:

First: It is not a murder statistic as cut pointed out and second, it doesn't look so bad for the UK. My town (Düsseldorf) along with Frankfurt was also ranked (http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200604/kt2006041017372010510.htm) very high in the best living standards worldwide (top ten), but the crime is still high. It's the quality of the crime and murder is not a big part of it. These statistics can be misleading.

[theclash]

I've said it before and Ill say it again. Figures alleging that Nottingham is some kind of national crime capital are incorrect.

If anything people in Nottingham are just more honest about reporting crime.
Another gripe - the Notts police always get hammered when these BS third party figures come out and they shouldn't because they do a good job on a thin budget. They are high visibility during both day and night in the city centre and in the suburbs.

I come from Brum and subsequently lived in Nottingham for two years and I won't be giving out prizes to those hazarding guesses as to which of the two is worse.

Unfortunately the UK national press will continue to print these high profile figures - despite the fact that they're cobblers - when crime, especially serious and violent crime, is such a huge issue.

Reading these articles you'd think you need a stab vest just to walk down Vicky St. My advice is to go and see Nottingham for yourself.

[kerfuffled]

Relax, you guys have a long way to go to catch up to Detroit.:)

[Hollis]

Nottingham, No wonder it is that Robin hood and his merry men, they took out the shireff you know.

[Durandal]

Relax, you guys have a long way to go to catch up to Detroit.:)

Nice try noob.

Actually Detroit is a safer place than many of those cities listed...

For ALL crime, violent and property
New York is 3099.6 per 100K or 31 per 1000
Detroit is 8,839.5 per 100K or 88.3 per 1000

Which puts New York City with its population of roughly 18 MILLION people below any of the cities listed and Detroit with a population of 950K between Rotherham and Islington.

[Geezah]

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/461_1143664693_ohsnapcard.jpg

p-)............

[Durandal]

rofl rofl rofl

[joe mama]

Men on crime?

"this mugger scuffed my new prada shoes when he tried to kick me so I scratched him soooo bad!"
"being mugged? hated it!"

[Secret Squirrel]

Nice try noob.

Actually Detroit is a safer place than many of those cities listed...

For ALL crime, violent and property
New York is 3099.6 per 100K or 31 per 1000
Detroit is 8,839.5 per 100K or 88.3 per 1000

Which puts New York City with its population of roughly 18 MILLION people below any of the cities listed and Detroit with a population of 950K between Rotherham and Islington.

Why did Detroit rate the second most dangerous U.S city in 2005 (Good ole Camden won)? Go back and look for stats on violent crimes. ;)

[Durandal]

Why did Detroit rate the second most dangerous U.S city in 2005 (Good ole Camden won)? Go back and look for stats on violent crimes. ;)

The above stats INCLUDE violent crime (as I stated in the post).

Detroit's rate is also one of the highest in the nation...in 2005. That is why it was listed as the 2nd most dangerous.

Neither fact disproves my point smart guy.

[Secret Squirrel]

The above stats INCLUDE violent crime (as I stated in the post).

Detroit's rate is also one of the highest in the nation...in 2005. That is why it was listed as the 2nd most dangerous.

Neither fact disproves my point smart guy.


Yes they include voilent crime but they dont deal with the crimes seperately dumbass (thats the proper response to "smart guy" isnt it?). For example, Detroit had 384 murders in 2004. Nottingham had 9 murders. Even if we divide the number by 4 (the approx. size ratio between the two places), we still have 96 murders to 9. As stated before, Nottingham has a long way to go before it catches up to Detroit. ;) And Detroit sure as hell isnt safer.

[EsoognomEhT]

and Detroit with a population of 950K between Rotherham and Islington.

hahahahaha!

[Durandal]

Yes they include voilent crime but they dont deal with the crimes seperately dumbass (thats the proper response to "smart guy" isnt it?). For example, Detroit had 384 murders in 2004. Nottingham had 9 murders. Even if we divide the number by 4 (the approx. size ratio between the two places), we still have 96 murders to 9. As stated before, Nottingham has a long way to go before it catches up to Detroit. ;) And Detroit sure as hell isnt safer.

The conversation was CRIME...not murders (even the article discusses crime in general). Murders is but ONE of the violent crimes...and call me silly, just because a crime doesn't end up with a death doesn't make the place any less crime-ridden.

My number rank quite fairly against the numbers listed in the rankings.

[Secret Squirrel]

The conversation was CRIME...not murders (even the article discusses crime in general). Murders is but ONE of the violent crimes...and call me silly, just because a crime doesn't end up with a death doesn't make the place any less crime-ridden.

My number rank quite fairly against the numbers listed in the rankings.

"Actually Detroit is a safer place than many of those cities listed..."

That's what you said when someone compared the place to Detroit. We can compare the other violent crimes as well if you want...but you'll only be proven incorrect again.

[Durandal]

"Actually Detroit is a safer place than many of those cities listed..."

That's what you said when someone compared the place to Detroit. We can compare the other violent crimes as well if you want...but you'll only be proven incorrect again.

Go ahead man...

I hardly call a place with more crime safe. Label it what ever you want, yeah,Detroit may have more murders, but these places have MORE crime.

Do they or do they not?

[Secret Squirrel]

Go ahead man...

I hardly call a place with more crime safe. Label it what ever you want, yeah,Detroit may have more murders, but these places have MORE crime.

Do they or do they not?

Again, ""Actually Detroit is a safer place than many of those cities listed..."

Prove it. More crime doesnt automatically equal less safety. It's the types of crime that matter. And in the opening post of this thread, a breakdown of crimes by type was not provided. But do you really want to argue safety when you're 10 times more likely to be murdered in Detroit than Nottingham?

[Hollis]

Yes they include voilent crime but they dont deal with the crimes seperately dumbass (

awwww didn't rodent get his grog ration today?

[Geezah]

Nottingham is the murder capital of Britain, not the world, but as pointed out, the chances of you being a victim of violent crime is allot greater in Nottingham over Detriot.
Again, it was pointed out that not all violent crime ends in you dieing.


The clearest picture yet of crime in urban England and Wales shows that Nottingham is the "most dangerous" city, with the highest rates of murder and car crime and some of the worst levels of violence, burglary and gun offences.

[Secret Squirrel]

Nottingham is the murder capital of Britain, not the world, but as pointed out, the chances of you being a victim of violent crime is allot greater in Nottingham over Detriot.
Again, it was pointed out that not all violent crime ends in you dieing.

Actually, as usual, you're wrong. :) You're more likely to encounter violent crime in Detroit than Nottingham...as it was pointed out already. ;)

[Mastermind]

Crime...pfsnft...that's not crime...try South Central LA....that's crime. Try the hallowed halls of the US congress...that's crime. What you guys have in the UK...that's a kindergarten party by comparison in both quantity and quality.

[Durandal]

Again, ""Actually Detroit is a safer place than many of those cities listed..."

Prove it. More crime doesnt automatically equal less safety. It's the types of crime that matter. And in the opening post of this thread, a breakdown of crimes by type was not provided. But do you really want to argue safety when you're 10 times more likely to be murdered in Detroit than Nottingham?

Ah, see, unlike Nottingham, I know a majority of the murders are black on black, and usually associated with another crime. Thus, I, being white, and not a criminal am not 10 times more likely to be murdered. p-)

However, a person is general is more likely to be raped, have their car stolen, be subject to a break-in, hold up, or other violent or non-violent crime.

The chart supplied above clearly states a wide range of crimes and the article covers everything from murder to car theft. Last time I checked, car theft was a non-violent crime, but I would hardly think I was "safe" is someone stole my car.

[Secret Squirrel]

Ah, see, unlike Nottingham, I know a majority of the murders are black on black, and usually associated with another crime. Thus, I, being white, and not a criminal am not 10 times more likely to be murdered. p-)

However, a person is general is more likely to be raped, have their car stolen, be subject to a break-in, hold up, or other violent or non-violent crime.

The chart supplied above clearly states a wide range of crimes and the article covers everything from murder to car theft. Last time I checked, car theft was a non-violent crime, but I would hardly think I was "safe" is someone stole my car.

Are you sure? Find a break down of the table posted.;) There are 28,837 crimes noted which includes 9 murders and 11 gun related offenses. So, 28,817 crimes left to break down. You're still 10 times more likely to be murdered in Detroit.

Also the population is closer to 275,000, not just under 250,000. I know you'll keep trying to grasp at straws, it's hard sometimes to admit that you're wrong. The only thing I can tell you is to visit both places.

[Durandal]

Are you sure? Find a break down of the table posted.;) There are 28,837 crimes noted which includes 9 murders and 11 gun related offenses. So, 28,817 crimes left to break down. You're still 10 times more likely to be murdered in Detroit.

Also the population is closer to 275,000, not just under 250,000. I know you'll keep trying to grasp at straws, it's hard sometimes to admit that you're wrong. The only thing I can tell you is to visit both places.


Silly lad still trying to argue.

Yes or no.

Detroit has less crime than Rotherham and the rest of the cities listed with higher crime rate?

[Secret Squirrel]

Silly lad still trying to argue.

Yes or no.

Detroit has less crime than Rotherham and the rest of the cities listed with higher crime rate?

So you cant break down the table? Or explain why the wrong population stat. was used? "Silly lad", you cant grasp the concept of less crime does not equal more safety. You're still 10 times more likely to be murdered in detroit.;)

[Durandal]

Asked a simple question and all I get back is braying.

Less Crime = More Safety

Is there more or less crime in Detroit and the cities mentioned, yes or no?

[Secret Squirrel]

Asked a simple question and all I get back is braying.

Less Crime = More Safety

Is there more or less crime in Detroit and the cities mentioned, yes or no?

I made a simple point, less crime doesnt equal more safety. Count the number of pickpockets in Disney Land on any day and compare that to even one murder in Detroit. Would that mean that Disney Land is more dangerous than Detroit? It's not really that complicated and it's fairly basic theory. Why cant you grasp it?

[Geezah]

Actually, as usual, you're wrong. :) You're more likely to encounter violent crime in Detroit than Nottingham...as it was pointed out already. ;)

Where am I wrong, you have a greater chance of being a victim of violent crime in Nottingham over Detroit? You're the one that went off on a murder tangent.

[Secret Squirrel]

Where am I wrong, you have a greater chance of being a victim of violent crime in Nottingham over Detroit? You're the one that went off on a murder tangent.

Find a break down of the table. Also realize that they didnt use the real population and in total 20 crimes involved murder (9) and gun related offenses (11). ;)

[Tim Nice But Dim]

I live in Nottingham - and have done for the past three years

Crime that I have witnessed/heard about from the victim,

1. Some idiot left his car window down, his CD’s got stolen
2. Bike left in garden unlocked over night, bike gone in the morning
3. Patio door left open over night, sound system gone in the morning
4. Guy in a bar hitting on a girl, she told him to **** off. Later that night he grabbed her arse, she bottled him, Kudos to the girl (and yes, she was hot)


Which puts New York City with its population of roughly 18 MILLION people below any of the cities listed and Detroit with a population of 950K between Rotherham and Islington.

No, New York City has a population of 8,168,338 (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/census/popcur.shtml). New York State, including the city of the same name, has a population of 19,227,088 ( http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36000.html)


Nice try noob

Post count is not an indictor of intelligence, just lack of a social life.


Neither fact disproves my point smart guy

Yes they do, because your facts are wrong.


http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/461_1143664693_ohsnapcard.jpg

;-)


Men on crime?

"this mugger scuffed my new prada shoes when he tried to kick me so I scratched him soooo bad!"
"being mugged? hated it!"


You must have a lot of gay friends then.


Nottingham is the murder capital of Britain, not the world, but as pointed out, the chances of you being a victim of violent crime is allot greater in Nottingham over Detriot.
Again, it was pointed out that not all violent crime ends in you dieing.

There were 9 murders in Nottingham in 2005 and a population of 266,988 ( http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/00fy.asp) in the 2001 Census, making for 0.00337 per cent chance of you being murdered. There were 385 ( http://detroit.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm) murders in Detroit in 2004, with a population of 95,1270 ( http://detroit.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm) according to the 2000 US Census which makes for a 0.04047 per cent chance of being murdered. I’ll stay in Nottingham



Less Crime = More Safety

No. Most of the crime in Nottingham is of the type I described above, opportunistic burglary, neither violent nor murderous. As already mentioned, there were only nine murders in Nottingham in 2005.

Here is the rebuke from Nottingham City Council, educate yourselves Reform Crime Report - WRONG, WRONG AND WRONG AGAIN ( http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/noticenottingham.htm)

Edited to add…

On the issue of population, in absolute terms, Nottingham (as in the city) is actually tiny, containing only the centre – shops, bars, restaurants and offices – and a couple of very large estates; Saint Ann’s to the north and the Meadows to the south. Most people who live in Nottingham (as in the low crime suburbs) weren’t counted in the survey.

[Durandal]

I made a simple point, less crime doesnt equal more safety. Count the number of pickpockets in Disney Land on any day and compare that to even one murder in Detroit. Would that mean that Disney Land is more dangerous than Detroit? It's not really that complicated and it's fairly basic theory. Why cant you grasp it?


Yeah, I forgot, in your world, all perps are nice people. Higher crime rate = fun and happiness.

You still have not answered my question.

And I am going to keep asking it.

Was there more crime than Detroit per 1000 people?

[Geezah]

No. Most of the crime in Nottingham is of the type I described above, opportunistic burglary, neither violent nor murderous. As already mentioned, there were only nine murders in Nottingham in 2005.

Actually, the majority of burblaries in the UK are hot, compared to the US where they are cold, there is a higher chance of the victim being injured over there than here.
But as a whole Nottingham is the murder capital of Britan you have a greater chance of being a victim of crime(any crime) in Nottingham than you do Detriot per 1000 people.



Here is the rebuke from Nottingham City Council, educate yourselves Reform Crime Report - WRONG, WRONG AND WRONG AGAIN ( http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/noticenottingham.htm)
.


And you expected them to come out and endorse the finds on page 1;)

[Durandal]

...you have a greater chance of being a victim of crime(any crime) in Nottingham than you do Detriot per 1000 people.

AND that is the ultimate point. Being a victim of a crime is NOT being safe.

Even though the chances of being murdered in Detroit are higher than being murdered in British city "X" the crime rate puts you at even higher risk of being a victim. Based on populations though, being in EITHER city does not put you at a very high risk of being murdered. Being in either city DOES, however, put you at a higher risk to being a victim of a crime.

Being a victim is NOT being safe.

You can argue all you want about who has more murders but regardless of the crime, you are not somehow "safer" because there are less murders.

[toki]

AND that is the ultimate point. Being a victim of a crime is NOT being safe.



You're correct, but still this statistic doesn't point out violent crime (not to speak of murder). As i pointed out in my post before, my town along with almost all of our bigger cities are worse then the british towns in the statistic seen in the first post.

In my place i know something like pocket picking is a major part of that crimes. We can discuss how bad it actually is, but if you'd sepparate the violent crimes from the petty crimes you'd see a difference. I'd like to see a statistic that offers that detail and we could discuss it. Unfortunately i can't find one.

You normally can prevent being victim of petty crime by adapting to a situation, but you can hardly do much about violence. If it happens, it happens, you can maybe react, but a hole in the head is a hole in the head. Feeling safe for me has to do with avoiding bodily harm, but that's just my opinion. So i guess i feel safer here then in most places in the world even though our crime statistic exceeds Nottingham for example.

[Tim Nice But Dim]

No, because the report is flawed. It counted all crime committed in Nottingham - both the city and the suburbs - but only used the population for the city, excluding the suburbs whose crime they included.


And you expected them to come out and endorse the finds on page 1

As opposed to you who believe what you read in the internet?

The Report used,

Crime rate = (Crimes committed in the city and the suburbs) / Population of the city

to get its figures, where as it should have used,

Crime rate = (crimes committed in the city and the suburbs) / (Population of the city and the suburbs)

That is the point. Nottingham dose have many problems regarding crime, no one is denying that. But the report ****ed up with its figures, it is as simple as that. This whole argument is pointless.

Nottingham had 194 per 10,000 (with less than 10% of that violent crime) (http://www.theobservatory.org.uk/publications/SofCKeyMessages.pdf) in 2000 whilst Detroit had a crime rate of 10,067 per 100,000 (http://www.cus.wayne.edu/content/publications/Detroit%20Crime%20Barometer%20October%202005.pdf) in 2000.


You still have not answered my question.

And I am going to keep asking it.

Was there more crime than Detroit per 1000 people?

Per 1,000 people that is…

Nottingham 19 crimes

Detroit 101 crimes

Happy now?

[Secret Squirrel]

Yeah, I forgot, in your world, all perps are nice people. Higher crime rate = fun and happiness.

You still have not answered my question.

And I am going to keep asking it.

Was there more crime than Detroit per 1000 people?

You still cant grasp this simple concept can you? More crime does not mean less safe. We, at least normal people, do not use safety as a blanket term. There are varying levels of safety, especially regarding crime. If the worst thing that's likely happen to you in one place is someone stealing your stero as opposed to being murdered in another, then the first place offers highers degrees of safety. It's really not that complicated.;)

[Geezah]

No, because the report is flawed. It counted all crime committed in Nottingham - both the city and the suburbs - but only used the population for the city, excluding the suburbs whose crime they included.

[quote=Geezah]
And you expected them to come out and endorse the finds on page 1

Flawed because Nottingham is not the murder capital of Britain?
You don't work for the reputation office do you, bizarre that they would need an office specifically for it's reputation.


City comes out of its bunker to fight back

For those seeking to improve Nottingham's tarnished reputation, yesterday was another bad day at the office as the Reform report hit their desks.

In recent years a siege mentality has infected the city's image makers and law enforcers, but there are signs that the tide is beginning to turn.

Crime is falling slowly and, instead of hiding from headlines such as "Shottingham" and "Gun capital of Britain", Nottingham is beginning to fight its corner.

Gun crime has fallen dramatically in the past 18 months. In 2002, with the police force apparently in chaos, it was investigating a shooting every week.

Two years ago there were 66 gun offences, but only 11 last year and three so far this year - one of them the shooting of Rachael Bown, a police officer.

Crime overall has fallen in the last year by five per cent. But the Home Office statistics show that in many categories, and in overall crime, Nottingham is still twice the national average.

From April 2004 to March 2005 all crime was up by 762 offences. A report this month by the insurer Endsleigh said the city had the highest rate of household theft in the country.

Home Office statistics show that in the quarter leading up to March 2005 car thefts were twice the national average.

Chief Supt Marcus Beale, Divisional Commander for Nottingham City, said the Reform research was based on flawed figures.

"It was based on a Nottingham population of 250,000, when in fact the proper population is 275,000. When you're dividing crimes by these two numbers there's quite a difference. If you had used the same crime figures based on a population of 275,000, we'd be better off than Leeds."

The other problem, say those involved in promoting the city, is the Victorian boundaries that classify Nottingham as the inner city areas and do not include any leafy suburbs.

Graham Allen, MP for Nottingham North and chairman of One Nottingham, Nottingham's Local Strategic Partnership, said: "When compiling, for example, statistics for Leicester, they include suburban areas, so of course they'll come out looking better.

"These people are not comparing like with like. I'm sick and tired of sloppy, errorriddled research stereotyping our city."

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=VQAA3CODABSTXQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/05/23/ncrime123.xml)

It looks like overall crime is doing quite well in Nottingham.



As opposed to you who believe what you read in the internet?

Even though you choose to supply links to sources on teh internet, Hi Kettle.



The Report used,

Crime rate = (Crimes committed in the city and the suburbs) / Population of the city

to get its figures, where as it should have used,

Crime rate = (crimes committed in the city and the suburbs) / (Population of the city and the suburbs)

That is the point. Nottingham dose have many problems regarding crime, no one is denying that. But the report ****ed up with its figures, it is as simple as that. This whole argument is pointless.

Ok the think tanks report might well be flawed but the problem is still there, Nottingham has a big problem with crime, but as you dig deeper it seems like it's a p!ssing match between Leiscester and Nottingham over whop is worse.



Nottingham had 194 per 10,000 (with less than 10% of that violent crime) (http://www.theobservatory.org.uk/publications/SofCKeyMessages.pdf) in 2000 whilst Detroit had a crime rate of 10,067 per 100,000 (http://www.cus.wayne.edu/content/publications/Detroit%20Crime%20Barometer%20October%202005.pdf) in 2000.



Per 1,000 people that is…

Nottingham 19 crimes

Detroit 101 crimes

Happy now?

I'm glad you supplied those links, while I cannot see previous levels of crime for Nottingham(over the years), it seems that crime in Detriot for 05 is has dropped since 00. It looks like crime levels now are what they were in 1970.
Bloody good job if you ask me, any chance we could compare apples for oranges?
So comparing Nottingham to Detriot may have been a bad idea but there is still a problem there.


However, recent evidence does provide support for the city council's view that the perception of Nottingham's gun crime is now much worse than the reality.

Figures show the city has managed to turn around a trend that in 2002 saw the it nearing the top of national gun crime statistics, with the eighth highest number of gun crimes in England and Wales.

The latest crime figures showed a 16.5% fall in gun crime in Nottinghamshire, making it one of 13 force areas to record a fall.

There were 11 gun-related injuries in Nottingham in the last 12 months compared to 43 in the preceding 12 month period and 77 in the year before that.

Since 2002 Nottinghamshire Police have seized more than 350 firearms, recovered around 3,500 rounds of ammunition and detained more than 600 offenders.

'Misrepresentation' claim

In addition, the force has seized £1m of class A drugs, achieved the highest arrest-to-charge rate in the country and achieved more than 1,000 years of prison sentences.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/4713306.stm)

I found this amusing.


Gun crime figures This report places Nottingham fourth in the country for gun crime. If the figures for the population were accurate or the conurbation figures were used, this would place Nottingham even further down this league table.This debunks once and for all earlier claims that Nottingham is ‘Gun Crime Capital of the UK’. Gun crime in the city is at its lowest since 1999, with a reduction of 16.5% in Notts (62% in the City of Nottingham) in 2005.

Link (http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/noticenottingham.htm)

Since 1999, good job........not