Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
elrond

Interpretation Of Statistics

5 posts in this topic

A while ago, an anti sex work organisation (Lilith, a reseach group for Eaves Project) published some research equating Lap Dancing clubs to increase in rape. The research stated that after lap dancing clubs opended in Camden, reported rape increased by 50%. A few years later the Guardian published an update, there was a mathamatical error and the rape rate had increased by 30%,

Brooke L Magnanti, PhD.(Belle de Jour) has revisited this research with a different finding. This is important, because I expect Lilith's findings were used to pursuade Hackney council to go for a nil policy for sex work establishments.

Brooke in her article states this:-

If a cause-and-effect relationship between the number of lap dancing clubs and the occurrence of rape existed, we would expect Lambeth to be lowest of the three because it has no clubs. By the same assumption we would expect Islington to be higher because it has a couple, and Camden highest because it has more than those other boroughs. The analysis however shows that Camden is consistently the lowest of the three. The results do not support a causal link between the number of lap dancing clubs in a borough and the risk of rape.

The trend for the three London boroughs shows that Lambeth (with no lap dancing) and Islington (with only 2 clubs) both have rates that are higher than Camden’s. It also demonstrates that all three have decreased over time, while the trend in England and Wales over the same time period has been for a rise. Apart from the early 2000s peak, Camden’s numbers are similar to the overall rate for England and Wales, and are sometimes below it. In the original report it was claimed that Camden’s rapes were “three times the national average,” and this has been reported elsewhere. This new analysis shows that statement is not true at any point within the studied time period.

The article in full

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47185652/Green-Paper-Camden-Lilith-rape-stats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A while ago, an anti sex work organisation (Lilith, a reseach group for Eaves Project) published some research equating Lap Dancing clubs to increase in rape. The research stated that after lap dancing clubs opended in Camden, reported rape increased by 50%. A few years later the Guardian published an update, there was a mathamatical error and the rape rate had increased by 30%,

Brooke L Magnanti, PhD.(Belle de Jour) has revisited this research with a different finding. This is important, because I expect Lilith's findings were used to pursuade Hackney council to go for a nil policy for sex work establishments.

Brooke in her article states this:-

The article in full

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47185652/Green-Paper-Camden-Lilith-rape-stats

Good old Brooke

Not for the first time has an Eaves 'research' paper been demolished by a proper academic.

What is sad is that labour politicians chose to act on 'research' which was plainly flawed, rather than listen to the serious academics, because that 'research' supported what they wanted to do as opposed to what they should have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good old Brooke

Not for the first time has an Eaves 'research' paper been demolished by a proper academic.

What is sad is that labour politicians chose to act on 'research' which was plainly flawed, rather than listen to the serious academics, because that 'research' supported what they wanted to do as opposed to what they should have done.

Perhaps they acted on it as they had funded it as part H. Harpersons crusade. They were hardly likely to turn round and say 'This large amount of money we have given to Eaves has been wasted as the research they do is fundamentally flawed'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good old Brooke

Not for the first time has an Eaves 'research' paper been demolished by a proper academic.

What is sad is that labour politicians chose to act on 'research' which was plainly flawed, rather than listen to the serious academics, because that 'research' supported what they wanted to do as opposed to what they should have done.

The contrast in academic rigour between the two papers is very eye opening to say the least. Dr Magnanti's paper does a very good job in exposing the flaws in the original research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The contrast in academic rigour between the two papers is very eye opening to say the least. Dr Magnanti's paper does a very good job in exposing the flaws in the original research.

What is so objectionable is this research, including the original 50% figure is still being quoted in press and campaign packs by Object, the Fawcett Society and Eaves! This figure was questioned in 2008 and an apology was written in the Guardian.

I personally could not possible bring myself to quote figures and facts that are totally discredited. I presume I live to higher moral code then these abolitionists. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0