You havent a clue about London estates Jonnythan. You dont need to study it in a little college. Most of us knew the people who was doing it. Or you at least heard the stories. First hand, not from a text book.
I think that I understand what you are trying to say but can hearing stories be considered first hand or accurate information?
When it comes to statistical information, you need to start somewhere. For example, I know that the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) job is to collect, analyze, publish, and disseminate information on crime, criminal offenders, victims of crime, and the operation of justice systems at all levels of government. Their data is critical to federal, state, and local policymakers in combating crime and ensuring that justice is both efficient and evenhanded.
The BJS not only keeps track of the people who were arrested but they also keep track of the people who were prosecuted, convicted, and then sentenced. I have looked at the data and was surprised to see the differences between who was arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced.
Could the BJS fudge their numbers or even make them up? Sure, but why would they? How would they benefit from lying about their statistical data? Even if they did, invariably the truth would emerge.
So if you wanted to have a better understanding of crime that is being committed in your country, where would you start? Would you ask your friends? Would you assume that crimes you had personally witnessed were statistically the same nation wide? Would you believe that the crime being committed in your local neighborhood was the national standard?
I'm not trying to offend you, I'm just trying to better understand your rationale.