Letter writer doesn't understand Provost Marshal stats

[The Bread Guy]

9 Aug 11:  Letter to the editor mentions Provost Marshal's annual report stats:

.... there is disturbing evidence that Canada's military police are becoming increasingly brutal.

The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal's annual report shows 784 complaints of physical and sexual assault, death and other incidents causing physical harm in 2010, a marked increase over previous years.

10 Aug 11:  Letter to the editor from CF Provost Marshal saying what appears to be the obvious about annual report stats of reported crime:

.... These are complaints investigated by or reported to Military Police; the way the letter is written would suggest that these complaints were against the Military Police. This is clearly wrong ....

11 Aug 11:  Letter to the editor not getting it yet:

.... I am still unclear though as to who committed more than 700 alleged crimes, in 2010, that Grubb stated in the press that he himself was concerned about.

My impression, admittedly gained from Hollywood movies, is that MPs police the soldiers, and take them off to the brig when they commit offences? So it is the soldiers, not the MP's who are the culprits? ....

:facepalm:

 

[Teflon]

Sadly - You can't cure stupid

 

[Dissident]

Good gods.

Statistically speaking, 784 complains for MPs only would mean half the trade or so would be the subject of a complaint.

Sigh.

 

[Strike]

Milnews -- I've been shaking my head over this one as well.

Teflon -- Wholeheartedly agree.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I also have to give credit where due:  this was also one of the clearer CF Info-Machine letters to the editor I've read - not too many ways to misread this:

.... These are complaints investigated by or reported to Military Police; the way the letter is written would suggest that these complaints were against the Military Police. This is clearly wrong ....

and she STILL didn't get it.

 

[Teeps74]

A wonderful example of how easily stats can be abused for propaganda purposes. Remove from context, sprinkle some charged rhetoric, and voila! Suddenly all MPs are murdering, raping monsters...

I really wish there was a rule somewhere that anytime a stat is employed in published works (newspapers et al) that said stat is published in whole (i.e. the entire document to provide the necessary context). 

I know, I know... Highly impractical, expensive and cumbersome.

 

[The Bread Guy]

A wonderful example of how easily stats can be abused for propaganda purposes. Remove from context, sprinkle some charged rhetoric, and voila! Suddenly all MPs are murdering, raping monsters...

I really wish there was a rule somewhere that anytime a stat is employed in published works (newspapers et al) that said stat is published in whole (i.e. the entire document to provide the necessary context). 

I know, I know... Highly impractical, expensive and cumbersome.

I'm still waiting to hear from reporters about why, when they write about a document obtained under ATIP, they don't make the whole document available for those who want to read the whole thing.*

* - Yeah, I know once a document is released, it's public information, but how many folks are going to go to the ATIP co-ordinator of whatever department/agency and ask for a copy?

 

[garb811]

Good gods.

Statistically speaking, 784 complains for MPs only would mean half the trade or so would be the subject of a complaint.

Sigh.

I agree, "Good gods!"  I was aiming for at least 87.32432% of the trade being the subject of one of these complaints when I kicked off Op UNLEASHED WATCHDOG.  Sadly, now that she is on to us, I'm going to have to call it off early.

 

[opp550]

Part of me wants to laugh at such stupidity (More like extreme bias/propaganda) and part wants to cry that a letter writers bias against the military police is so extreme that they must use smoke and mirrors in order to make them appear look as bad as possible. Sadly, even with the rebuke, many of the uninformed who read that will still believe that the MPs are the worst people around.