BBC shows 80% homicide victims are male. Tries to spin it around by giving it the title "Women are much more likely to be killed by someone close to them"

TheSpaceDuck · 2018-12-27T17:19:43+00:00

SCANDAL! 64% OF MURDERS VICTIMS FROM INTIMATE PARTNERS AND FAMILY ARE WOMEN!!!

^{Ah also 80% of all murder victims are men or something like that}

tenchineuro · 2018-12-27T20:18:56+00:00

When percentages are used it's usually to hide the real numbers. For example in another thread a (presumably) female poster was claiming that in Australia one woman was killed by a partner every week. I asked about the number of men, she had to look it up, there were 12 (no doubt these numbers are off), so that comes to 12 men and 52 women in a country of 24 million, Both numbers are so small as to be statistically insignificant.

So let's look at the numbers here. These numbers are for England and Wales BTW,

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017

Main points

There were 709 homicides in the year ending March 2017, 141 more (25% increase) than in the previous year, this includes the 96 cases of manslaughter that resulted from events at Hillsborough in 1989; excluding these the number of homicides increased by 8%.
The number of male victims has increased at a faster rate than females in recent years with male victims of homicide increasing by 33% to 433 (excluding Hillsborough victims) from 325 in the year ending March 2015, ending a generally downward trend.
The number of female homicide victims has remained broadly flat over the last five years (fewer than 200).
There were 12 offences of homicide per million population in the year ending March 2017 (10 homicides per million population excluding Hillsborough victims).
Excluding Hillsborough victims, the homicide rate for males (15 per million population) was more than twice that for females (6 per million population).
Women were far more likely to be killed by partners or ex-partners (50% of female victims aged 16 and over compared with 3% of male victims aged 16 and over), whereas men were more likely to be killed by friends or acquaintances (32% of male victims aged 16 and over compared with 10% of female victims aged 16 and over).
The most common method of killing was by knife or other sharp instrument with 215 victims killed in this way, accounting for 30% of homicides.

The raw numbers are 433 male murder victims and oddly they don't give a number for women and say "fewer than 200". Let's see, they say 709 homicides, so 709 - 433 is 276, that can't be it, so they must be excluding Hillsborough for some reason, SO that would leave 276 - 96 = 180 women, why can't they just say so?

The murder rate for men is twice that of women. I'd expected it to be a lot less, so this is a surprise.

Regarding the Hillsborough victims, near as I can tell there were 89 males and 7 females (so my number above is slightly off). I don't even see why they are mentioned Hillsborough in homicides, it was a stadium collapse and no one was found liable. Oh wait..

the 96 deaths that occurred at Hillsborough in 1989 were recorded as manslaughters in the year ending March 2017 following the verdict of the Hillsborough Inquest in April 2016

So that's why the 1989 disaster is showing in the 2017 statistics.

EDIT:

OK, reading down a bit further...

Sex

The majority of homicide victims were male in the year ending March 2017 (71%, 433 victims) and 29% were female (180 victims).

But it occurred to me that I did not find the actual number of men and women murdered by their partners.

How are victims and suspects related?

Adult victims

There were large differences in the victim-suspect relationship between men and women. Half of female adult victims aged 16 and over were killed by their partner or ex-partner1 (82 homicides) in the year ending March 2017. In contrast, only 3% of male victims aged 16 and over were killed by their partner or ex-partner (13 offences, see Appendix Table 9 and Figure 4).
Male adults were most likely to be killed by a friend or acquaintance, with around one-quarter (24%, 112 victims) killed by such people in the year ending March 2017. Female victims were less likely to be killed by a friend or acquaintance (10%, 16 offences).

I just realized that they say "partner" throughout, They never say the sex of the partner, so for all we know a majority of these murders were to same-sex couples. The way things are worded you kind of assume opposite-sex partners, but that is not spelled out in the report at all. I have read to the end and nowhere do they say that partner murders were opposite sex. And as in Australia, these numbers are so small as to be statistically insignificant. As dogkindrepresent says, you stand a better chance of being killed crossing the street without looking both ways first.

victorfiction · 2018-12-27T19:34:09+00:00

Women are way more likely to kill someone close than men. And make 80% of child murders. So?

PaulMurrayCbr · 2018-12-28T01:47:00+00:00

In similar news, more homeless women are homeless as a result of drug abuse or mental illness than men.

Yah - that's because women, in general, don't wind up homeless as a consequence of simply running out of money.

algepaul · 2018-12-27T17:55:47+00:00

Men kill -> Men are criminals // Men get killed -> 😴 zzz

WiseMonkeyGoodMonkey · 2018-12-27T19:19:11+00:00

The only way to stop this insane shit is to vote with your dollars. Stop allowing your money to go to places that report or behave this way. Eventually they'll catch a clue or go out of business.

xNOM · 2018-12-27T20:18:19+00:00

Actually this graph doesn't show that at all. The fraction of all murderers who are partners or family members is not given. Is there a link to the full article?

DWSchultz · 2018-12-28T03:17:33+00:00

Reminds me of President Hillary Clinton’s famous statement : “Women have always been the primary victims of war”

kavanaughstraw · 2018-12-28T05:07:19+00:00

Very cunning of the BBC to show bias towards one gender over the other. See how male is grey, but this grey is usually akin to 'being greyed out' as in 'not available' or 'not applicable' type of thing. Why didn't they make 'male' blue or green or something more visible? And then they don't explicitly mention '80%' on the right side. They mentioned it for the '20%' but why not for the 80%? The way their graphs and headlines are presented they only care about women.

azazelcrowley · 2018-12-28T00:15:18+00:00

Women are less likely to be killed my friends, family members, and acquaintances actually. So it's a spooky fear mongering title that misleads just to fuck with womens heads anyway. But besides that;

Around 83 women per year in the UK are killed (Through murder or manslaughter or homicide in general in the case of self-defense) by partners per year. To put that in perspective;

45 accidentally hang themselves somehow, and 103 die from choking to death on food. 61 die from "Exposure to forces of nature" (Wind, lightning, etc.), and 58 drink to the point of immediate overdose.

764 of them kill themselves through self-harm, and 215 die as a result of medical complications after treatment.

The total number of deaths per year is 598,694.

DV Funding for women in the UK is 19 million per year. (Much of it spent on lobbying, paying exorbitant salaries to professional feminists, and campaigning to misinform the public, but let's ignore that and note that feminists are going apeshit over this in order to get more funding for their issue, despite the fact they already have far too much as they are housing abusers as well as the abused, and to demonize men further to lower empathy for them, and make women paranoid and pro-feminist in their mindset.)

The salary of Sandra Holey (One such professional DV Feminist) is around £220,000 a year (Around 0.1% of the total budget, just for one.)

To put that in perspective the NHS in total has 127 billion pounds per year dedicated to it.

We spend billions winding women up to convince them they are under attack and men are dangerous. It's probably fairly straightforwardly true that these feminist hate campaigns are more deadly to women in the public in terms of wasting societies time and attention than men are. That's before you get into the negative consequences their hate campaign has for men.

It's also intuitively true that you're going to have to spend more money to convince an abuser to seek shelter than the abused, and that's what we're doing basically. The majority of domestic violence is initiated by women, and the overwhelming majority of unilateral abuse is perpetrated by women. This also has consequences in terms of waste when it comes to public campaigns to alter "attitudes" to curb the phenomena, throwing more and more money at the problem because it won't resolve itself due to how idiotic, dogmatic, and self-defeating the feminist movement is. That is, they're dogmatic morons if you're being charitable to them. If you're being uncharitable you can interpret this as the deliberate dynamic they've set up to ensure a steady supply of cash for themselves and for their media campaign to demonize men, knowing full well that it won't actually impact domestic violence figures for them to receive more money because the problem that remains overwhelmingly isn't male perpetrated.

Galaxine · 2018-12-28T01:25:55+00:00

I think both sets of numbers are important to know and to understand. Men make up the majority of the victims and that is critically important. But if it is true that women are more likely to be killed by partners or acquaintances then it is important to make your sisters, nieces, etc aware of that fact.

Knowing how men and women become victims, to me, leads to the answers of how best to protect them. If a group is disproportionately likely to be kidnapped or killed or what have you you'd protect them in different ways.

But this looks like an attempt to downplay murder rates for men by tugging at heartstrings. It is awful that women are more likely to be killed by their partners. But it is awful that men face higher murder rates all around and we're not solving it.

SurturOfMuspelheim · 2018-12-28T01:34:14+00:00

I mean if the point of the article was to point out the disparity between who kills the victim then there is nothing wrong with this graph/post. Yes it ignored that the vast majority of homicide victims are men? Yes. But that doesn't inherently make looking at why women are mostly killed by a loved one bad.

None_of_your_Beezwax · 2018-12-27T23:52:29+00:00

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of males killing males and females killing females. We know, for example, that most child killing are committed by females (someone said 80% in the thread but I don't have a source at hand). We also know that females are more likely to commit unreciprocated violence and that lesbian relationships are the most violent type (gay men being by far the least).

Add that to the fact that female murderers are much more likely to get the same incident classed as self-defence or accidental, and it seem not entirely implausible the the real rate is close to 50%.

I would have expected the headline number to be much larger than 64% given what we know about the treatment of women by law-enforcement.

jaheiner · 2018-12-28T02:31:53+00:00

Amazing, people who get to know them best are more likely to kill them.

heard_enough_crap · 2018-12-28T03:15:56+00:00

where is the social equality. We need equal homicide rates for women.

gsbiz · 2018-12-28T07:47:47+00:00

Can we please get a link to the original article, otherwise it is just hearsay. Thanks.

p0rnpop · 2018-12-28T10:43:17+00:00

If you really dig into the data, if it is the same one I looked up long ago, you'll see it is because police don't investigate relationships men had with their killers so the vast majority are marked unknown. If you read the real report, it should have something in the fine print saying "where the relationship was known" or such which will then be left off by most websites quoting the information.

dogkindrepresent · 2018-12-27T20:57:50+00:00

This is the second time I've seen the BBC do this so I'm assuming it always does it. There's always a yeh but... The Little Britain Broadcasting Company?

andejoh · 2018-12-27T20:53:57+00:00

Women are actually a lot more likely to kill someone close to them as well.

--Edog-- · 2018-12-28T01:06:39+00:00

Women are far less likely to be involved in violent crimes, brawls, armed robberies, drug dealing, gang activity, and all other situations in the public sphere where men are likely killed.

DocsDelorean · 2018-12-27T22:21:47+00:00

So men are more likely to be killed randomly

CplGrammar · 2018-12-28T06:21:10+00:00

Anyone else reading this as “of the 20% of women that are homicide victims, 67% are from someone close to them”? 2/3 is a staggering statistic regardless of what you’re looking at.

TruthGetsBanned · 2018-12-27T21:09:26+00:00

I love how the quoted statement tacitly admits that the better someone knows a woman, the more likely they are to kill her.

summonblood · 2018-12-27T23:00:31+00:00

64% of X% of 20% of homocides are women. This is a serious problem!

raffu280 · 2018-12-27T20:57:40+00:00

Like all "victim groups" now, they constantly have to portray themselves as martyrs and heroes by distorting, exaggerating and censoring everything now.

peanutbutterjams · 2018-12-28T00:46:05+00:00

2 out of 10 women are homeless.

Weeeelums · 2018-12-27T21:39:05+00:00

Wait what the f-

LizardIsLove · 2018-12-28T03:37:06+00:00

Is it 64% of the initial 20%?

crooney36 · 2018-12-28T03:41:52+00:00

I wonder what percentage of killings by family are of all homicides :thinking:

galtthedestroyer · 2018-12-28T04:06:25+00:00

Your title should have focused on how they said something to the effect of, "women are the gender most affected by homicides." Sorry, is bean a while and I don't want to read it again.

Fllamber · 2018-12-28T08:21:05+00:00

Just delete bbc already

SOwED · 2018-12-28T08:22:55+00:00

All this means is that women's parking lot fear is less valid than men's.

nzalex · 2018-12-28T10:43:04+00:00

I've been visiting family in England recently, and I've also noticed another thing.

In the build up to Christmas, they were pumping out news stories about the homeless, and out of all of the news stories I don't think I even saw 1 female homeless person either interviewed or in any of their candid shots.

I said to my partner, "I bet you'll never hear about how homeless are a majority of men"

To which she asked why...

I said I couldn't tell you for certain, but I googled UK homeless statistics and came across this just a quick glance you'll see that a majority of the thumbnails are pictures of women and one infographic illudes that 3/8 of women are homeless, however it buried on page 6 of this (PDF) you'll find the gender statistics. Men are overwhelmingly represented in homeless! But the document still seems to paint it as a women's issue...

(Taken from the document, and I've copied everything it say so I'm not just cutting out the the bits I want, and sorry for formatting, I'm on mobile)

Demographics (gender)

• Of the 4,751 individuals counted or estimated to be sleeping rough in England in 2017, a total of 3,965 were male, 653 were female and 133 were gender unknown.

• 14% of total number of rough sleepers were women.

• South East England reported the largest number of women sleeping rough (183) (Graph 7).

• Other regions that have high numbers of women sleeping rough includes London (133) and East England (97).

• Camden is the local authority with the largest number of women sleeping rough (Table 3).

Edit: attempt at formatting

ProblemKaese · 2018-12-28T13:20:41+00:00

Ever took a look at who actually kills them in the global statistics? It's 94% men, which is more than the 80% of victims being male from the article. So in general, men get involved in homicide with a higher probability, may it be as the victim or as the one responsible, and when women get involved in one, they have a higher probability of being the one getting killed.

So the BBC source about all homicides doesn't give you any valuable information if you don't have context, and with the context they give it just shows exactly what they wrote in the title. If you give other context to the statistic, as I did, you don't get anything to "spin around", because what you get already makes women look better.

Besides that, what they actually wrote in the title doesn't have to do with spinning anything around, as the claim is neutral and would still work if for example 25% of Killings by partner or family member had female victims, in which case anybody would think that women are suppressing men.

(source of 94% of homicide perpetrators being male)

Edit: I just noticed the people who wrote the article have no clue how to deduct a conclusion from a statistic. According to this source, only 28.9% of murders were committed by partner or family. If you multiply that percentage by the 64% from the BBC statistic, you get 18.5%. If you divide that by the 20% from the statistic, you get 92.3%. That is the probability of a woman being killed by a partner or family member rather than by anyone else. But you don't seem to be able to find that number anywhere.

ProblemKaese · 2018-12-28T20:15:31+00:00

Cool they just proved that womens paranoia of going running at night is exactly that paranoia. Men should be the afraid of it apparently.

Rethgil · 2018-12-28T21:42:59+00:00

BBC is staffed by feminists and man haters. Simples.

rayan2002 · 2018-12-29T06:24:05+00:00

Reminds of statistic I saw once, Something like "1:4 woman were assaulted" my first reaction was how to hell did 3/4 not get assaulted? I genuinely thought it was a normal life occurrence for all adults to be assaulted, I mean come on, You piss off someone in school and he brings his friends, You get in a fight with a gang member in a pub, Any of the gagillion reasons someone might beat you up, It's like 1:1 of all adult men get assaulted at least once in their lifetime

chambertlo · 2018-12-28T04:58:04+00:00

It’s sad that the only way feminism has any clout it’s when it lies and twists information in their favor.

shitpostsuzy · 2018-12-28T02:51:22+00:00

Were the perpetrators overwhelmingly male? I see what you’re saying here, but all I’m getting is that the majority of shooters are male and they tend to kill more men than women.

ProblemKaese · 2018-12-28T21:01:48+00:00

That's a difficult way of saying 12.8% of all murders are domestic violence against women, but I guess the truth doesn't sound as good without it being convoluted. 64% is bigger than 12.8% when you're an idiot and don't understand they are the same.

Edit: this is wrong see my comment below for the correction.

HovisTMM · 2018-12-27T20:03:59+00:00

64% of 20% is 12.8%

What is the breakdown of men killed by the same category and is it more than 12.8% of all murders?

masterdebator300 · 2018-12-28T04:48:00+00:00

If these stats are true. I wouldnt say that 64% is MUCH more. Its just more. 75 85 would be much more but thats just me being nitpicky.

Title	BBC shows 80% homicide victims are male. Tries to spin it around by giving it the title "Women are much more likely to be killed by someone close to them"
Author	TheSpaceDuck
Upvotes	2394
Comments	115
Date	December 27, 2018 5:18 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	/r/MensRights
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/bbc-shows-80-homicide-victims-are-male-tries-to.887621 https://theredarchive.com/post/887621
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/aa12c2/bbc_shows_80_homicide_victims_are_male_tries_to/

	male	female
by acquaintance	10.4%	18.5%	28.9%
by stranger	69.6%	1.5%	71.1%
	80%	20%	100%

	male	female
by acquaintance	10.4%	18.5%	28.9%
by stranger	69.6%	1.5%	71.1%
	80%	20%	100%