Politicians, accountability and money, a pretty gruesome mix of a nefarious nature. When you are contracted to the Government you have a good idea of what they want, its in your self-interest to not stray from the yellow brick road.
As you say, CSEW has chosen to ignore Internet Crime up to now, this was a conscious decision to exclude it, a crime is a crime, excluding sections of crime gives a misleading result - do you know what other sections of crime they are excluding? Court records are not available for some crimes, are those crimes included? Are all digital bank frauds linked under "Internet" and ignored even ones that are not Internet related (eg Intranet fraud)?
Its easy to manipulate results even if the figures are "honest", look at the new parliamentary boundaries for the Wirral. We currently have four Labour MP's but the new boundaries mean we will probably have at least one Conservative, at least one Labour and I'm not sure on the other, maybe Labour. That is a heck of a swing in representation, at best it is halfing the Wirral labour representation in parliament (0.6% to 0.3% but if you take the one conservative MP as cancelling out a labour MP it goes from 0.6% to 0.2%) but the numbers (votes) are the same and correct.
So you expect us to believe that the politicians pay these people to fiddle the results!
I think this is a bizarre claim. There are thousands of people involved in this, and it is inconceivable that some of them would know about the fiddling, and not go to the press. It is almost certain that someone would, given that large payoffs are available. It is a ludicrous claim and is utterly unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. I believe you have invented it to support your own preference for believing that crime is getting worse. You also fail to comment on the fact that in 1997 the CSEW was reporting figures three or fourttimes as high as the police, and are
still reporting more crimes than those from the police. And you ignore that fact that the CSEWs findings are similar to those in similar countries to ours.
As to police figures, they - at best - reflect a subset of crime that occurs too. Much crime goes unreported for a variety of reasons, and offences such as someone refusing to pay rent are not actionable by the police. The CSEW does at least strive to improve its coverage of crime - it didn't 'choose' to ignore computer crime. It didn't exist when the CSEWs brief was originally set and it and will soon include computer crime as it has now becom significant. The police cannot be expected to compile statistics on crimes it cannot act upon or is unaware of. As a matter of interest, many people have bought things on the internet which have either not arrived or have been defective in some way. These are not generally reported to the police as the victims tend to use PayPal or something similar and get a refund. The police cannot cover such figures, but the CSEW can and will.
The fact is that police figures are known to be so unreliable that the government refuses to accept them as good enough to base government policy on. Yet every news bulletin I heard yesterday reported them as if they were 100% accurate. Where the CSEW figures were mentioned (they mostly weren't) they were accompanied by a dismissive comment of some sort.
If you wish to look for corruption, I suggest you look no further than this heavily skewed reporting for it.
Your claims about the boundary changes are equally bizarre. As a lifelong labour voter myself, I regret losing MPs, but I have also to admit that they are fair. The existing boundaries give an unfair advantage to my party, and the changes have been defined and agreed by a cross-party group which contains labour representatives as well as conservative ones.
Movement of people from the country to the big cities confers a growing advantage to labour. In order to get roughly equal numbers of voters in each constituency, you have to make periodic adjustments. The last thing I want is to see more conservative constituencies, but I am not so biased as to see the boundary changes as 'government fiddling'. Presenting boundary changes as evidence of alleged government fiddling is as ludicrous as your claims about CSEW 'fiddling' and does your argument no good whatsoever.