In 2005, Munich was the safest city in Germany.
There were 8,700 crimes recorded per 100,000 inhabitants. Like no one knew already. Only Stuttgart (9,175) can boast (?) a similarly low crime-rate.
Shameful, crime-ridden cesspits in descending order:
Frankfurt - 17,213
Berlin - 15,002
Bremen - 14,966
Hamburg - 14,111
Düsseldorf - 14,035
Köln - 13,595
All these numbers come from the German government, which is also claiming that 2005 witnessed an overall 5.7% fall in recorded criminal acts.
See this article: In München ist es am sichersten at www.merkur_online.de for more.
You are viewing a low-graphics version of this page. Click the headline to view full version:
Munich is the safest city in Germany
It's official - crime report 2005 just in
Wish they had thrown in an Eastern town like Leipzig for comparison too.
I had a look at Google News, but none of the articles seem to refer to any east German cities other than Berlin.
An extra item of information is that not only is Munich's crime rate the lowest of the major cities, but it also represents a decrease of 4.3% on 2004. The number of crimes that year was 9,090 per 100,000 inhabitants, compared to 8,700 in 2005. (Frankfurt also registered a decrease.) Of course, these figures say nothing about the seriousness of the respective crimes.
An extra item of information is that not only is Munich's crime rate the lowest of the major cities, but it also represents a decrease of 4.3% on 2004. The number of crimes that year was 9,090 per 100,000 inhabitants, compared to 8,700 in 2005. (Frankfurt also registered a decrease.) Of course, these figures say nothing about the seriousness of the respective crimes.
Sure, Munich has a low reported crime rate.
And yet people are getting assaulted by hotel doormen right and left and not reporting it to police!
And yet people are getting assaulted by hotel doormen right and left and not reporting it to police!
All of the offices in our building were broken into this month and there was hardly a trace. The policeman who came by to check the security standards said that crime in Munich has doubled this year in comparison to the same period of last year. Let's see what the statistic says next year.
I am deeply suspicious of official crime figures. The UK has the cunning trick of changing the crimes that are included in the stats, so massive swings in the figures can be made with the stroke of a pen.
What is more important to me is the type of crime. The UK trend is less crime overall, but a larger percentage of violent crime. While no crime is very pleasant for the victim, it is the risk of muggings etc that quickly erode your 'feel good' factor and are most likely to change your lifestyle.
What is more important to me is the type of crime. The UK trend is less crime overall, but a larger percentage of violent crime. While no crime is very pleasant for the victim, it is the risk of muggings etc that quickly erode your 'feel good' factor and are most likely to change your lifestyle.
Sadly nickjbutt you're right. But they're even more cunning - usually the fiddling is done so there appears to be a continual but gradual decline in crime that makes everyone feel good. A huge step change would be a bit obvious. Same deal for unemployment. Create some useless training scheme, and bingo - fewer unemployed.
It works the other way too. If a government wishes to introduce headline-grabbing anti-crime measures, and thus gain votes / distract the electorate, then it might feel an upward tweak of crime figures might be in order.
You could argue that ASBOs (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders), heralded by the Labour party as something "that is required to protect communities" and introduced on the back of "increasing cases of low-level criminal behaviour", is an example of this. The UK government regularly releases statistics revealing increases to the number of ASBOs issued. Shame that a number of these (see wikipedia) are being issued for rather petty 'crimes': a thirteen year old banned from using the word "Grass", a seventeen year old forbidden to use his front door and an eighty-seven year old man ordered not to make "sarcastic remarks"
You could argue that ASBOs (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders), heralded by the Labour party as something "that is required to protect communities" and introduced on the back of "increasing cases of low-level criminal behaviour", is an example of this. The UK government regularly releases statistics revealing increases to the number of ASBOs issued. Shame that a number of these (see wikipedia) are being issued for rather petty 'crimes': a thirteen year old banned from using the word "Grass", a seventeen year old forbidden to use his front door and an eighty-seven year old man ordered not to make "sarcastic remarks"
See BBC News' ASBOWatch for more ridiculous examples.
QUOTE
It was when the 15-year-old miscreant was hauled into court that the problem was first noticed.
Angered by his unruly, boozed-up behaviour, police had hoped magistrates would punish the youth for breaching his Asbo. He hadn't.
Closer examination revealed that he had mistakenly been ordered not to be in public "without" alcohol and that he was also duty bound to act in a threatening manner likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress to others.
After the boy escaped punishment as a result of the misprint, the officials behind the mistake were asked to deliver a new Asbo with more appropriate wording, the Daily Mirror reported
Angered by his unruly, boozed-up behaviour, police had hoped magistrates would punish the youth for breaching his Asbo. He hadn't.
Closer examination revealed that he had mistakenly been ordered not to be in public "without" alcohol and that he was also duty bound to act in a threatening manner likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress to others.
After the boy escaped punishment as a result of the misprint, the officials behind the mistake were asked to deliver a new Asbo with more appropriate wording, the Daily Mirror reported
You are viewing a low fidelity version of this page. Click to view the full page.