In reply to Murderous_Crow:
> Yes. The reporting data is available. The conviction data post-Brexit is not.
And note that I had already pointed out that the time periods do not match. But *you* were the one that posted that CPS data as though it refuted that I'd said about the OP's link. You accompanied that with aggressive and sarcastic comments at me. Yet you now seem to be admitting that the link you posted doesn't help you.
> How can you not understand that these convictions either do not yet exist, as the cases will be going through the courts, or have not yet been subject to review and report?
Ah yes, more sarcastic and nasty wording: "How can you not understand that ...". Excuse me, but *you* were the one who posted a link to that data and made claims about it.
> To which I point out that we have one of the best criminal justice systems in the world, which despite extensive cuts is doing its damnedest to dispense justice based upon truth.
And for the sixth time, I've not quibbled with any of the court-based data, have I? Please, please try to accept that my skepticism related to the OP's complaint-based data, not any court-based data.
> Other things happen to derail convictions, accidents of circumstance, which mean that very often justice is not done. This doesn't mean the crime never happened.
Did I ever say it did? Your complaints seem to bear little resemblance to anything I've actually said.
> Sorry to point out such patently obvious facts, but your denial of the truth of this situation is prevaricated on shoddy thinking such as this.
"Denial of the truth of this ..." You're just getting nastier aren't you? My central point is this: there is reason to be skeptical about the stats in the OP; that's more or less my only point. It is a valid point despite your bluster.
> I said you poo-pood the 1.9% increase in convictions, which means you dismissed the figure lightly, ...
Not at all. All I've said is that a 1.9% increase is a lot less than the 23% increase in the OP. ***You*** posted the link to the 1.9% increase as though it supported the claimed increase in the OP. I've just pointed out that it doesn't.
> And as I keep trying to make you and others understand, the 1.9% increase is based on figures only to the end of 2016, i.e. covering only 6 months following Brexit, and including a period prior to the Referendum being enabled in law!
More tendentious wording: "And as I keep trying to make you and others understand, ...". Now, tell me, in which comment did you previously make that point?
Well, let's see, *I* had previously made that point, hadn't I? In my very first reply about that link I said: "Your links report a 1.9% increase in racially and religiously aggravated hate crime. That's not in line with the "soared at an unprecedented rate" language of the OP (though it's not the same time period)."
Note that end phrase: "though it's not the same time period"? Just maybe I do understand that it's not the same time period!