I was interested by Ghis' observation that crime in the area north-west of Honor Oak Park was below average in contrast to the surrounding areas. I wondered why that was.

My first thought was that maybe like wasn't being compared with like, and that the inclusion of One Tree Hill and Brenchley Gardens in that sub-ward meant that the population density was lower than surrounding areas. But then shouldn't the boundaries of wards and sub-wards be designed to reflect roughly equivalent population densities?

Maybe some bits of suburban topography are more or less crime-friendly than others? Maybe, if you're a burglar, you might face lower risks - but also lower rewards - in blocks of appartments than in a street of semis with Neighbourhood Watch stickers in the windows?Maybe, if you're a street-robber, then you'd want to waylay your victim somewhere remote or quiet, but not so remote or quiet that no-one ever passed by? In both cases, you'd probably want to disppear quickly into an area that the police would find it hard to follow you.

If I had to guess off the top of my head, I'd imagine that the bits of the 'burbs where crime was most likely to occur might be those parts where relatively affluent blocks of streets sit right next to large council estates. (But I ought to qualify that by saying that I spent many years living on a council estate myself, and I'm fully aware that most council tenants are completely honest and law-abiding.)

I suppose there might be something to the idea that the culture of reporting crime might vary between neighbourhoods. That would be difficult to prove.

Anyone else got any ideas about the below average crime incidence in that area north-west of Honor Oak Park? Is it just dumb luck? Or do you think that there's even the remotest possibilty that they're doing something right that the rest of us could learn from? Probably not!