STV next on the sectarianism bandwagon

[andrew_2010 0]

undoubtedly, but then you have to ask the definition of "Roman Catholic". As I am sure there were plenty in the 2001 census that were not practicing RC's, but from what I know, it actually makes it worse that there are more sectarian convictions against RCs than non RCs from the whole "population" of "sectarian convictions" considering they make up 16% of "people who could receive sectarian abuse".

 

But again, it comes down to what is "sectarian abuse". Also the subjective manor in which these are prosecuted, and cases where charges are dropped/not included.

 

Stats, especially in such a contentious issue, is a can of worms!!

 

EDIT:

 

good article above! And just goes to show that you can look at it from another angle! if you think of the people who can sectarianly abuse a catholic as being a non-catholic, then the proportion of people from that population who actually do sectarian crime is tiny! Also, what about multiple charges for one individual? If one person committed 5 sectarian offences, there is a big difference between 1 man being very bigoted, and inferring that people are bigoted because there were 5 sectarian convictions.

 

Like I said, can of worms, and depending on what you are trying to say, there are many different slants you can take. The key is to compare like with like and the problem is most studies don't! I think the numbers of convictions as a whole should have been the focus, and well done for putting that into context. 0.077%

 

the p-value of a crime being sectarian given that there was a crime? p=0.0007

 

Common practice is to use p=0.05 as significant, and 0.01 if you're being cautious. Therefore sectarian crime is not statistically significant in the context of crime in Scotland...

Edited July 26, 2011 by andrew_2010

[Guest Weedoddie]

Why do we never see Prof Steve Bruce rolled out in these debates??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hope you all realise that the question is retorical only.

[Frankie 8,150]

Why do we never see Prof Steve Bruce rolled out in these debates?

 

 

I hope you all realise that the question is retorical only.

 

I've asked that very question of STV today.

[Frankie 8,150]

John McKay has promised to pass on our constructive criticism of BP's contribution. Hopefully he'll accept this in the spirit intended.

[biggordy 0]

Where do I fit in ?

If I, an Athiest but Rangers' supporter, were to punch a sellik supporter on the nose, would that be recorded as a crime against a Catholic ?

Where would that appear in the statistics ?

 

If a Rangers supporting Protestant were to punch a sellik supporting Protestant (and there must be many), where does that fit into the stats ?

Who counts the Protestants and who counts the Catholics ?

In all these crime statistics, was anti Catholic/Protestant/Sikh/Muslim etc. etc. the cause of the crime or was it just another demographic added for the pure hell of it ?

Do gangs of Protestants go roaming the streets looking for Catholics to assault or is it just another box ticked when the charge sheet is filled in, for stistical purposes of course ?

I suppose you could go on forever picking holes in these BIG statements that the Catholic Church likes to wheel out every couple of years.

 

Why does no-one grasp the nettle once and for all and announce the fact that segregated schooling is merely a secure way, condoned by the Government, in which the Catholic Church can have access to 100% of young pupils who have no option but to become indoctrinated ?

How many of those children actually go on to practise their religion ? There's a statistic I'd like to know.

[Guest Dutchy]

I get a bit sick of this selective history rolled out everytime this subject comes up. Yes, bigotry exists, but it exsists on both sides of the arguement, everywhere in the world practically. Previous to 1560 it's very rarely reported that the church of the day was burning people at the stake in the streets of Edinburgh, for being heritics. I alway thought god was the one to punish you for being a non-believer, but the church seems to think diffirently.

 

Without going into long, and boring texts of opinionated historical 'facts', why don't we just deal with the present and the future?

 

I'm still sickened by lemon claiming that cathlics don't get a fair deal in Scottish society. This is clearly untrue as the report was presented by a well known adn prominant catholic, Ponsanby. And there's many, many more that are well up in Scottish society. How lemon can get away with such blatant lies is probably more to do with the problem than some bam banging another on the head after boozing. It's obviously a campaign designed to create 'friction', and attention away from their own priests practises.

 

As long as you're arguing about a subject, it can't be ignored.

 

I prefer to ignore ALL religion, but they don't like that. Secularism is far worse to these people than sectarism.