Leeds Crime Zones Named... (YEP)

Chrism · Post by **Chrism** » Mon 04 Jul, 2011 11:22 am

All the usual suspects then.http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... _1_3541496

BLAKEY · Post by **BLAKEY** » Mon 04 Jul, 2011 8:01 pm

Chrism wrote: All the usual suspects then.http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... _1_3541496 I suppose that I should admit to starting the decline of Chestnut Avenue from a decent inner suburban road to its present distinction of being the most burgled street in Leeds - I was born there in May 1936 and when all's said and done a kid had to find the brass for milk and rusks somewhere !!

dogduke · Post by **dogduke** » Fri 08 Jul, 2011 6:46 pm

Its the turn of LS9 tonight.The neighbourhood police inspector thinks people grieving for their loved ones in Becket St cemetery will be disturbed by the druggies and boozers,no one has been buried there for donkeys yonks.I've never seen any flowers on graves.Brussels Street - 18 crimes in 4 weeks !Does anybody live there ?This probably the fallout from the night club and the 'patrons'of the St. Anns centre.

Post by **chameleon** » Fri 08 Jul, 2011 8:28 pm

Can't hrlp thinking the YEP are simply jumping onto the nationally available crime maps and adding a little something by pulling off simple satistics for one area of the city each night to attract interest with nothing much of a story.Thought we already had this in a thread but don't see it - you can have a look at your area of interest here -http://www.police.uk/

dogduke · Post by **dogduke** » Fri 08 Jul, 2011 10:43 pm

Just read through the article a second time.LS9 post code includes part of Temple Newsam - LS9 ends through Selby Road Rail Bridge by the Dunhills/Whitebrdge,hardly Temple Newsam.Report on Seacroft includes -for the sprawling estate whose centre was opened by the Queen in 1966.Its being knocked down and rebuilt since Lizzie was last here.It is so common for these 'reporters' to quote locations in the wrong area.Must try harder Ms Bellamy or at least get out of the office more and find out the true facts.

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Sat 09 Jul, 2011 8:51 am

The whole series has been a shoddy set of articles, not just the lack of local knowledge but the findings as well.Crime is high in parts of East End Park and parts of Seacroft (for example)? Well, who'd have thought that? I didn't need an expensive government survey and website to tell me that.I'm struggling to see the point of the whole exercise, unless it's to ensure that granny doesn't sleep quite so safely in her bed tonight....

LS1 · Post by **LS1** » Mon 11 Jul, 2011 8:48 am

I think it's the fact that the information is available to the police in more or less the same format, and in the interests of keeping the public informed its out there in the public domain. As for the YEP article, it's a bit of a waste of time I think...

Post by **chameleon** » Mon 11 Jul, 2011 11:17 am

LS1 wrote: I think it's the fact that the information is available to the police in more or less the same format, and in the interests of keeping the public informed its out there in the public domain. As for the YEP article, it's a bit of a waste of time I think... Don't you have too many words in that last phrase Lee, one of them is surely superfluous

LS1 · Post by **LS1** » Wed 13 Jul, 2011 8:47 am

chameleon wrote: LS1 wrote: I think it's the fact that the information is available to the police in more or less the same format, and in the interests of keeping the public informed its out there in the public domain. As for the YEP article, it's a bit of a waste of time I think... Don't you have too many words in that last phrase Lee, one of them is surely superfluous Probably just the wrong one.. total might have been better!

Post by **chameleon** » Wed 13 Jul, 2011 9:34 am

LS1 wrote: chameleon wrote: LS1 wrote: I think it's the fact that the information is available to the police in more or less the same format, and in the interests of keeping the public informed its out there in the public domain. As for the YEP article, it's a bit of a waste of time I think... Don't you have too many words in that last phrase Lee, one of them is surely superfluous Probably just the wrong one.. total might have been better!