The UK family: In statistics, and pictures http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7071611.stm
Families are changing shape and facing up to new lifestyle challenges. The facts and figures below give an idea of what the typical UK family looks like in the early 21st century.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7071611.stm

I can confidently say that I don't fall into any of the 'average' or majority groups identified in this report.

Unfortunately, I have to say that that applies to what may be described as the 'good' ones as well as the 'bad'. Oh well...

You know what they say, " There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics".

The statistics that interested me today were in the statement that only 10% of policemen/women are out on the street at any one time - the rest being tied up with paperwork and attending courte etc..  

This seems to be a meaningless statement as it was presented by the BBC news.  Given that all police forces operate on a shift basis they must have a minimum of 3 shifts or reliefs to cover the hours 24/7.  Possibly even 4.

On the basis of three shifts then only 33.33% are available for duty at any one time.  

Does the BBC  statement mean that only 10% of the 33.33% are available in which case it is 3.333% of the total force or does it mean 10% of the total force are available in which case only 23.3% are not available.  This is bad enough but nowhere near the 90% suggested by the bald statement.

This one's simple, without even referring to the article...

100% of those employed are available for work. Assuming a simple three-shift pattern to provide 24-hour coverage, then one third is notionally asleep while off-duty, one third is off-duty and awake, leaving one third on duty and actually available for work, so the figure applies to one third of the total number employed.

Alternatively, regard it as 10% of those available, which comes down to the same as they can only be called on to appear in court, do office work, or patrol the street at the times they are being paid, which again is during a shift, or one third of the day.

Like any other business, only those on the active shift are are productive and/or available for work. The total workforce is irrelevant, as can be seen if one projected 3, 4 or even 12 or 24 shifts in the working day. More shifts would increase the total number of employees accordingly, rendering any analyses meaningless, but would still only have the same number of staff working on any given shift, meaning a per/shift analysis is the only consistent data.

This of course leads us into the question of the most efficient number of shifts per day. Two, three, four even? Each increases the total number employed, yet only provides the same number of bodies within a shift (think of a factory with a set number of machines requiring operators - the shift pattern allows more operating hours per day, but once all machines have an operator, calling more in is pointless). This thought gets very complicated, especially in a service industry.

(Polls quoted by institutions such as the BBC are subject to independent audit, so unless they want to end up in court, they generally don't get caught out by things like invalid data selection - but the conclusions drawn by some of their reporters? Well, anyone can express an opinion - according to 99.999% of the population)

Statistics are neutral, and tell no lies, but watch the hands and sleeves of those presenting them.