# "Assaulted" girl hanging by the cash machine at Tesco



## T & P (Nov 16, 2005)

I meant to post this last night but didn't have a chance at the end.

Yesterday evening I went into Tesco (yeah I now...) and on my way out I took out some cash from the cash machine kiosk just outside the entrance. As I put my card in a woman approached me. I heard the expected "excuse me" and prepared to hear the subsequent "can you help, I'm so and so". 

Only she said "I've been assaulted and robbed and need money for a travelcard". I looked up and saw she had dried blood over her nose (or what looked like dried blood anyway- it was smeared over the nose rather than coming from inside it) and one of her hands was very dirty and had a bit of what looked like dried blood as well.

My instant reaction was to ask 'are you alright' and she said yes but she needed to get home and could she have some money. I immediately reached in my pocket and gave her all the loose change I had- about £1.70 or so. She took it but didn't even look at it and was clearly after a banknote. "I need at least £4.40 please, I'll give you my name and address". At that juncture I felt really bad but my gut feeling told me something was quite not right so I told her the money I was taking out was not mine, (which happened to be the truth anyway, and in any case I could not afford to hand out £10 at the moment) and that loose change is all I could afford. She then become rather insistent that I gave her more money please, at which point I said 'I'm sorry I can't' and walked off.

As I walked to the bike I was a bit shaken and feeling like a right bastard. Had I just rejected to help someone who had just been beaten and mugged? But then as I rode past on my way out I saw her patiently hanging by the cash machine again, and not looking in any kind of distress. When I told my girlfriend of the incident she said she's seen a woman who fits her description- mid 20s, slightly 'hippy looking' clothes- doing a similar thing at the Barclays cash machine in the past.

I'm now 95% sure she just told me a fancy story and that she was just a con artist, but I still feel really bad that I might have refused help to a genuine victim. Then again I should have thought more clearly and offer to walk her inside and ask the security guards to call the police. Surely someone who's been beaten and mugged would be calling an ambulance or the police rather than hanging around by cash machines in a supermarket?

If she's indeed a con artist I don't particularly mind losing some loose change to her, but I'd fucking hate being manipulated like that and handing over a tenner- of which I wouldn't have expected to ask change back from the £4.40 or so she needed to be honest- and then feel like a muppet for months afterwards. And yet I can't stop thinking she might have been genuine after all- though the more I think of it the unlikely it appears.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 16, 2005)

That definitely sounds like a scam, yeah; quite apart from the "didn't you call the police? what are you still doing here?" aspect, the insisting on more money is very suspect.

Not a nice decision to make though, you do always think "but what if...".


----------



## dogmatique (Nov 16, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> Surely someone who's been beaten and mugged would be calling an ambulance or the police rather than hanging around by cash machines in a supermarket?



You got it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2005)

scam.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Nov 16, 2005)

met her before  same story   something like blood   on her hand  and needing 4.40  for the tube 

aparently   the police don't give you a ride home when you've been mugged   because you havn't got id ....  it's a scam   that being said  she looked compleatly fucked up so i gave her summin like £2


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 16, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> she said she's seen a woman who fits her description- mid 20s, slightly 'hippy looking' clothes- doing a similar thing at the Barclays cash machine in the past.


Blonde hair? Thin? Very grubby?

If so, she is a junkie and real pest. She really hassles people and has always got some kind of scam going on. I noticed recently that she had what looked like some kind of scab on her nose. She may very well have been assaulted at some point but if it was her, she was using it to get scag money. The weirdest line she used on me was "Can you spare some money -- I'm not homeless!" She definitely does the old "I need money to get home" line on people. 

Call me cold-hearted if you like but she is always hanging around my block/street/neighbourhood and she is a pain in the butt. Like you say, it's not about making an informed choice as to whether to give someone moeny they may wellspend on drugs. It's being scammed -- or people trying to scam you -- that is fucking annoying.


----------



## brix (Nov 16, 2005)

The same girl, I'm sure, approached me outside the tube station months ago.  She had some dried blood on her and told me that she'd been assaulted and needed money to get home.  Again, I felt that something wasn't right and I said no.  Afterwards I felt awful about saying no.  Then, about a week later, the same girl (obviously not recognising me) gave me the same spiel about having been assaulted and needing to get home.  I gave her a right mouthful.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 16, 2005)

I'm pretty sure we are talking about the same person here.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Nov 16, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Blonde hair? Thin? Very grubby?



thats the one i think   she  had   a hood  on at the time so i can't be certian of the  hair  but  yeah  to  the genral description and MO

don't see her that much though  is she fairly new?


----------



## T & P (Nov 16, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Blonde hair? Thin? Very grubby?
> 
> If so, she is a junkie and real pest. She really hassles people and has always got some kind of scam going on. I noticed recently that she had what looked like some kind of scab on her nose. She may very well have been assaulted at some point but if it was her, she was using it to get scag money. The weirdest line she used on me was "Can you spare some money -- I'm not homeless!" She definitely does the old "I need money to get home" line on people.
> 
> Call me cold-hearted if you like but she is always hanging around my block/street/neighbourhood and she is a pain in the butt. Like you say, it's not about making an informed choice as to whether to give someone moeny they may wellspend on drugs. It's being scammed -- or people trying to scam you -- that is fucking annoying.


 Yes that sounds like her. Couldn't tell her hair colour for sure as she was wearing some kind of hat, but she was thin and scrubby for sure.

I feel a bit better about walking away now. As it happens I don't mind if someone with a drug addition uses my money for a fix, or whatever they want- but I hate being put into the position I was put.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Nov 16, 2005)

Where I used to live there was often a junkie begging for money - his line was "can you give me a tenner so I can buy some smack please".  I admired his honesty (but never gave him a tenner).


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 16, 2005)

I've seen her before - she's very good and quite affecting the first time you see her - I've seen her do a similar thing on the tube too - making a speech in a tiny frightened tearful voice and making people feel terribly guilty. I guess that's one good thing about it, cos she does prick people's consciousness whether she is scamming or not


----------



## joffy (Nov 16, 2005)

She's tried the same story on me 3 times between the tube and the ritzy, once in tesco's car park and once at Victoria station, never recognizing me!! i fell for it the first time (about two years ago). Pretend not to see her when she tries now.


----------



## kea (Nov 16, 2005)

we had a very similar-sounding woman around when i lived in camden. about once every 3 months she'd ring our doorbell and when we came to answer it, gave it the whole 'sick child in hospital, need to get there' routine. she'd never remember she'd done us before and we never pointed it out, just said firmly 'no, sorry, we don't have any cash in the house'. i think she did it pretty regularly to all the neighbours too ...
it would have been scary if she wasn't so tiny and pathetically grubby-looking


----------



## brix (Nov 16, 2005)

I guess that's one good thing about it, cos she does prick people's consciousness whether she is scamming or not[/QUOTE]

You're not serious?  If anyone else tries this routine on me I will now automatically assume that it's a scam.  And they might be for real!  This woman is crying wolf and making us all less likely to help someone genuinely in need!


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 16, 2005)

I suppose so - I guess I was thinking of those awfully uncomfortable expressions commuters have on their faces when listening to a sob story on the tube. It gives me a perverse thrill for some reason


----------



## richtea (Nov 16, 2005)

sounds like girl i saw nr tube ages ago - gave her some money, wasn't til i got home that i thought it were dodgy. mug  she was very convincing though.


----------



## gaijingirl (Nov 16, 2005)

I've met her before as well... same story and she did look like she'd been beaten up - but after being scammed in Brixton several times before I knew she was on the make.  I gave her all I had.. about 20p and she asked "Can't you give me a bit more?"


----------



## marty21 (Nov 16, 2005)

i saw a bloke in hackney a few years ago with a similar tale of woe, claimed he had to get to a hospital in newham to see his daugher and and needed a tenner for the taxi, he asked me at two different places, and asked mrs21, finally struck gold with my sister and her boyfriend, they gave him a tenner, he said they could call at an address in their street,to get the tenner back, which they did, that evening, to discover they had been had...


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 16, 2005)

Anyone had the 'just got out of prison' story coupled with vaguely threatening behaviour? They say if they don't get the money they'll have to fuck someone up and then look at you - like a sort of half-arsed attempted mugging


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Nov 16, 2005)

yeah, I have been approached by that one. I genuinely didn;t have any change on me. Went past the TUbe later that night and she tried a differnet tale on me.
Scam


----------



## Isambard (Nov 16, 2005)

brix said:
			
		

> Then, about a week later, the same girl (obviously not recognising me) gave me the same spiell.



It's the repeated bullshit and in this case the insistence on £4.50 that get to me. Just ask for any spare change eh?


----------



## gaijingirl (Nov 16, 2005)

marty21 said:
			
		

> i saw a bloke in hackney a few years ago with a similar tale of woe, claimed he had to get to a hospital in newham to see his daugher and and needed a tenner for the taxi, he asked me at two different places, and asked mrs21, finally struck gold with my sister and her boyfriend, they gave him a tenner, he said they could call at an address in their street,to get the tenner back, which they did, that evening, to discover they had been had...



I had a similar story at Waterloo.. man needing money for a taxi to see his wife in hospital.

Also had the man knocking on my front door needed £4 to get some part for his car at the garage down the road - he'd bring it straight back of course.

Also the woman whose gas had run out and she needed £5 to buy a new gas card and her baby was at home without heating (this was in winter).


----------



## Dan U (Nov 16, 2005)

yup i seen her. really grubby

i thought the blood on her arms/hands might have been from jacking up, hadnt heard the scam side of it. 

doesnt suprise me, you know full well where the money is likely to be going, straight back into the local 'economy'.

theres a guy who begs on the overground train quite often who is in a similar state


----------



## agricola (Nov 16, 2005)

LUL always used to provide tickets for people who had been genuine victims of crime, like everyone else it sounds as if this is a scam.


----------



## tarannau (Nov 16, 2005)

Gawd, too many of these stories and characters sound too familiar. If you're not bumping into them in the streets, they're knocking on the door.

Only one scammer's really got money out of me. A 13 year old(ish) 'normal teen' girl came knocking on my door distraught, claiming that she had been locked out of her parents' house (a neighbour apparently) and first asked to use our phone to see if she could call her mum. She got an answerphone, followed by her looking even more distressed, then asking if she could borrow some money to get to her aunt's by taxi. I felt so sorry for her at the time that I ended up giving her a fiver.

Better half of me was screaming out that I was being scammed, but she was seriously convincing for someone so young. Beware...


----------



## Cadmus (Nov 16, 2005)

Considering how many people have seen the same person, i believe she needs a name now. 

Suggestions?


----------



## WasGeri (Nov 16, 2005)

I know it's really bad but you do get cynical after a while. Last time I fell for the old 'Do you have any spare change, we need some money for whatever' I got my purse out and the bastard just grabbed it and took all the money. 

I will not give money to anyone who approaches me - it's different if they are sitting on the ground and I can give them whatever I want to, but you can't risk getting your cash out in front of them when you are at a disadvantage.


----------



## silentNate (Nov 16, 2005)

Cadmus said:
			
		

> Considering how many people have seen the same person, i believe she needs a name now.
> 
> Suggestions?


 Dunno her name but she hangs round the night buses on Friday night around Trafalger Sq.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 16, 2005)

When I lived in Mile End a young kid came up to me all disstressed putting on a really good act saying that his mum was in trouble and he needed 20p for the phone. Of course I cave him the 20p and he stopped crying and ran off only stoppng to turn to me and shout 'i'm not really going to use the phone, I'm going to spend it on sweets'. I thought 'so what, that's 20p big shot.'

Ha you can only get about 10 mojos for that these days., he has no chance of getting a real chocolate bar or anything.


----------



## brixtonvilla (Nov 16, 2005)

Yeah, seen her around Brixton enough times. Ususally courteous enough to tell me to "Fuck off then" when I tell her I've seen it before, too...


----------



## silentNate (Nov 16, 2005)

brixtonvilla said:
			
		

> Yeah, seen her around Brixton enough times. Ususally courteous enough to tell me to "Fuck off then" when I tell her I've seen it before, too...


 There used to be a bloke in a torn suit looking for money to Oxford as he had missed his train and needed another ticket. Worked the circuit around Clapham Junction station platforms, ran into him four times in a month


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 16, 2005)

silentNate said:
			
		

> There used to be a bloke in a torn suit looking for money to Oxford as he had missed his train and needed another ticket. Worked the circuit around Clapham Junction station platforms, ran into him four times in a month



Yeah I think I've seen him.


----------



## treefrog (Nov 16, 2005)

Seen her a few times. She's tried the "beaten up and trying to get home" tack on me a few times, and I've seen her shooting up on my street early in the morning several times. Total scam...


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 16, 2005)

Cadmus said:
			
		

> Considering how many people have seen the same person, i believe she needs a name now.
> 
> Suggestions?



Scamella?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 16, 2005)

Cadmus said:
			
		

> Considering how many people have seen the same person, i believe she needs a name now.
> 
> Suggestions?



Blood Smack Hippy Cash Scam Woman.


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 16, 2005)

i know that one.   what is i about south london that attracts these tpes?


----------



## Crispy (Nov 16, 2005)

Sparra got scammed by her a while back. She shoots up in a doorway of an empty (looking) house just down the road. Not sure if that's where her dealer lives...

gah typing with a mouse is painful!


----------



## hendo (Nov 17, 2005)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> Blood Smack Hippy Cash Scam Woman.



I'm sure she has a name. I bet its a real one, and I also bet that somewhere she has a family who have probably bitten their nails to the quick over her.

If you're worried about the people who do these things, then the answer's simple; don't give them any money. They have a drug dependency problem, and your best option in these circumstances is to be polite, but move on.

They're in a dreadful place.

I saw one of them as I came home in sub zero temperatures from East London earlier this evening. Folded up, on the floor in the entrance to the Old Street  Tube, besuited in some dirty combat jacket, head down, hanging on for dear life. These drugs can degrade you to that level.

They'll do anything for their need; every cell in their body is screaming for them to get relief. They'll tell any lie, make any threat, cop any plea, to assuage their problem and the screaming need within.

I don't support it, don't sympathise with the things they've done to arrive there, can't go along with what they do, but my God, as I sit here, well fed, in a lovely warm home, with a functioning relationship, with no dependancies to speak of, I'm bloody glad I'm not them.

What divides me and mine from the blonde girl at the cash point? A few wrong choices, a bit less guidance from the people I love, a little less cash in my family when it mattered. No more.

Believe me, we - or people we love -  could all be her, surprisingly easily. 

And I can't help feeling a slight unease at my favourite 'discussion board' partaking in some sort of virtual pillory exercise. Thought we had a bit more to us than that.

You know her trick now, we all do, so respectfully, let's leave off.

Contradict me if you will.


----------



## kea (Nov 17, 2005)

good post hendo.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 17, 2005)

hendo said:
			
		

> I'm sure she has a name. I bet its a real one


I know her real name (I'm sure we are talking about the same girl). It's a very pretty one too.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 17, 2005)

Brilliant post Hendo.


----------



## potential (Nov 17, 2005)

guy walking about with petrol can , " car ran out of  petrol
can you borrow me some cash so i can get home"
 hes asked me about 9 times now.

hanging around car park " can you give me some money
as i need to get my car out of car park, just found out
ive got no money"

" i need money to get bus home "
" ive just been robbed, need money to get home"
heard sooooooooo many , has turned me into a cynical
old man.
gave one guy burger just bought in mc donalds [ he asked
for cash for food ] he looked at burger swore threw burger
on floor...  its when they knock at your front door when its
particualy not nice...


----------



## shakespearegirl (Nov 17, 2005)

I no longer answer my door if I am not expecting anyone due to a spate of scammers last year trying to get money using various excuses (no gas, need to take child to hospital as really ill - got sworn at when I offered to call an ambulance). 
When the girl in Brixton tried the mugged story on me last year, I offered to take her to the police station or call the police and got very strongly verbally assulted when I wouldn't had over cash, following me to the tube and shouting at me


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 17, 2005)

I thoroughly agree with hendo's post, but as he himself acknowledges, it probably WAS necessary to draw this scam to peoples' attention.


----------



## poster342002 (Nov 17, 2005)

If this is the same woman I think it is, I first saw her in Brixton back as far as 1998. Back then her "pitch" was not that she needed money, but that she'd just been beaten up and "just needed someone to talk to". Needless to say, I declined and walked on.

There used to be another pair who'd hang around the Tesco carpark, claiming their boss had abondoned them there and they needed money to get home. Imagine my surprise when, two weeks later, they apporached me again (not recognising me form last time) at the exact same spot with the exact same story. They're boss seemed to have abandoned them there yet again.  

BTW, there's a new-ish bloke that hangs around Brixton, flailing and swinging his armas around to make it hard to get past him as he "asks" for cash. If you decline his request, he starts swearing shouting after you.

I have reched the stage now where I just won't talk to anyone who approaches me on the street (the times I've had to zigzag my way through Brixton high street is absurd). The subject of the conversation - however it starts out - invariably turns to the topic of a transfer of cash from you to them and I've heard it all before. Which is sad, because anyone in need will now most likely be ignored thanks to scams like these.


----------



## girasol (Nov 17, 2005)

I like your post a lot Hendo, while I was reading the thread I kept thinking: _but she does need help!!!_

Is it really a scam when people have to go around making up stories to get a bit of cash so they can shoot up?  No, it's not, it's just really sad.    

The fact that she doesn't even remember who she's asked for money before just indicates how terrible her situation is and how badly she needs help.

At the end of the day we all have a choice on whether we give someone money or not...  (apart from muggings, but that's a different story)


----------



## Giles (Nov 17, 2005)

A few months back I had this guy knock on my door and tell me this story about how his mother was in hospital somewhere just out of London (Watford?) and he is desperate to go to see her (she might die!) and he can't afford the cab fare, and could he borrow some money.

I nearly gave him some, he was so convincing, but then I thought, I'm feeling like doing a REAL good deed for the day, my car is right here, so I say, no problem mate, that's such a sad story, I shall drive you right to the hospital myself.

And you know what, he backed off at this point and started wibbling on about how would he get back!

I didn't point out the inconsistency in his position (how would he have got back if I gave him the dosh?) but told him to do one, and shut the door.

I hate people who pull shit like this, because you know that due to their antics, one day you are more likely to fail to help someone who IS genuine.

Giles..


----------



## Crispy (Nov 17, 2005)

hendo said:
			
		

> Sensible stuff



If I hadn't been typing one letter at a time with a mouse, I'd have posted something with a similar sentiment.


----------



## Mr Retro (Nov 17, 2005)

hendo said:
			
		

> I'm sure she has a name. I bet its a real one, and I also bet that somewhere she has a family who have probably bitten their nails to the quick over her.
> 
> If you're worried about the people who do these things, then the answer's simple; don't give them any money. They have a drug dependency problem, and your best option in these circumstances is to be polite, but move on.
> 
> ...




Great post.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 17, 2005)

Hendo speak the truth. He wise man


----------



## Oula (Nov 17, 2005)

I got scammed by this same woman. She wanted £8.80 coz she needed to get to Kent. She told me her boyfriend had beaten her up and she needed to pick her daughter up from school. Certain things did ring alarm bells. She said she had already been to the police station and I was surprized they would let her leave covered in blood. I offered to check out her wounds as a trained first aider but she refused. I didn't push that one too much as I had no gloves on me.

Despite all that she was so convincing and I kind of thought - well even if she is lying something bad has obviously happened to her. She's covered in dried blood. Slightly nasty thing was the reason I found the whole incident so upsetting and why I gave her the money was that a friend of mine had recently been hospitalised due to domestic violence. So it kind of hit home.

After I gave her the money I offered to wait for her bus with her but she declined. I realised I had probably been scammed and actually walked a different way the next couple of times so that I didn't have to see her asking other people, which I kind of knew she would be. Saw her for the first time since then last week outside the tube station asking someone else.

My mate got scammed in Herne Hill at about the same time by a different woman who asked for money coz her car was out of petrol and her bag had been nicked. He gave her a tenner and was totally convinced until she said 'I'm having such a bad day, my bag nicked, no petrol and I was raped last week" Might have been true but would you really tell a stranger. He said she didn't seem upset at all when she mentioned it.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 17, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Anyone had the 'just got out of prison' story coupled with vaguely threatening behaviour? They say if they don't get the money they'll have to fuck someone up and then look at you - like a sort of half-arsed attempted mugging



If this is a mixed race guy with a South American accent be very careful he can be dangerous and it's known as aggressive begging and should be reported.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 17, 2005)

dont give anyone in the street money if you suspect they are using.

those St Mungo's posters on the tube are there for a reason.

re hendos post. he is spot on. these are someones kids, family etc. 

i know from experience within my own family just how low heroin can make you go. its not them, its the drug 

if you want to do something constructive with the money they try and scam off you - give it to organisations like mungos etc


----------



## jonesy (Nov 17, 2005)

Cadmus said:
			
		

> Considering how many people have seen the same person, i believe she needs a name now.
> 
> Suggestions?



She has her own name without you having to give her one. She is also someones daughter not an object of derision.


----------



## WasGeri (Nov 17, 2005)

Oula said:
			
		

> She said she had already been to the police station and I was surprized they would let her leave covered in blood.



They let me leave covered in blood when I got mugged. They said to my friend "She managed to get here alright, I'm sure she can find her way to the hospital."


----------



## Mr Retro (Nov 17, 2005)

It's people can be in such a state from addiction that worries me, not being scammed.

I made friends of a sort with a person who had a drug problem and after advice from a user here would buy her food/mags/baccy rather than give money. 

Twice I was asked for money for a hostel and it was a terrible dilemma wondering if your money would get the person off the street or go on drugs. Was I being scammed? Probably, but who gives a fuck?

Haven't seen the person for a long time now, hope everything is ok.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 17, 2005)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Sparra got scammed by her a while back. She shoots up in a doorway of an empty (looking) house just down the road. Not sure if that's where her dealer lives...!


 Until recently she was buying smack off a bloke in my bloke. Until he got done for raping someone in the flat, that is.  

Found her going cold turkey at the bottom of my stairs one morning.


----------



## iROBOT (Nov 17, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Anyone had the 'just got out of prison' story coupled with vaguely threatening behaviour? They say if they don't get the money they'll have to fuck someone up and then look at you - like a sort of half-arsed attempted mugging


This happened to me a few years back on Cold Harbour Lane...didnt have any money to give, but he was proper scary.


----------



## Epona (Nov 17, 2005)

Fantastic post hendo, you said what I was thinking.

I did give her some money once.  It was pointed out to me afterwards that she wasn't being honest about her situation, and my reaction was pretty much that while I wouldn't want to be knowingly supporting anyone's drug habit, I didn't feel too bad about it - if she needed a fix that badly she'd get the money somehow, and I'd rather she scammed the cash off me than some of the worse alternatives that come to mind...


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 17, 2005)

Geri said:
			
		

> They let me leave covered in blood when I got mugged. They said to my friend "She managed to get here alright, I'm sure she can find her way to the hospital."


CHRIST!!!!  
Bastards!


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 17, 2005)

posterseveralnumbers said:
			
		

> I have reached the stage now where I just won't talk to anyone who approaches me on the street (the times I've had to zigzag my way through Brixton high street is absurd). The subject of the conversation - however it starts out - invariably turns to the topic of a transfer of cash from you to them and I've heard it all before. Which is sad, because anyone in need will now most likely be ignored thanks to scams like these.







			
				Giles said:
			
		

> I hate people who pull shit like this, because you know that due to their antics, one day you are more likely to fail to help someone who IS genuine.
> 
> Giles..



While I do very much agree with hendo's post, it IS worth remembering that the above two posts do identify one big problem -- the more frequent the scams, the more deterred people get from giving to people who might genuinely (honestly) be in need ...

I mean I know the scammers are very much in need (of a kind) as well, but you know what I -- and they -- are getting at ...


----------



## suzee blue cheese (Nov 17, 2005)

Raging dependency is a terrible thing for sure, however, the destructive impact isn't confined soley to the sufferer.  It's not unreasonable imo for people to express frustration at being scammed or robbed.  We're all human beings, subject to human responses.  

It's a lose, lose situation all round.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 17, 2005)

suzee blue cheese said:
			
		

> Raging dependency is a terrible thing for sure, however, the destructive impact isn't confined soley to the sufferer.  It's not unreasonable imo for people to express frustration at being scammed or robbed.  We're all human beings, subject to human responses.
> 
> It's a lose, lose situation all round.


 Yeah, if I didn't give a shit it wouldn't make me so angry. My heart goes out to her but I'm helpless to do anything. She won't get help for herself and if you give her money you can GUARANTEE it's going on heroin. A compassionate response is simply not possible and I find that incredibly frustrating. She doesn't _want_ clothes/food etc. She just wants scag money.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 17, 2005)

It is unfortunate and very sad - I'm not averse to buying travel cards off addicts. I tell myself that even though they are spending it on drugs, at least they're getting throught the day and not having to committ violent crime to do it.


----------



## Red Faction (Nov 18, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Anyone had the 'just got out of prison' story coupled with vaguely threatening behaviour? They say if they don't get the money they'll have to fuck someone up and then look at you - like a sort of half-arsed attempted mugging



ive heard the 'just got out of prison' story once
and i gave him a fiver- cos he had a big bag with him saying H.M. Brixton Prison
and i figured he was telling the truth

do any of you see the fellow outside corpus christi church on brixton hill
opposite brixton water lane?
theres a bloke there who wears a green white + orange jacket

i remember about a year ago he was selling the big issue
and he was telling me how he changed his life around
he's stopped using heroin + he's stopped eating food off the street that people throw at him

i see him again from time to time
but he's too off his face to know whats going on  
poor fellow


----------



## nicebutdim (Nov 19, 2005)

Isn't the main problem that, as far as I know, Brixton has no injectable heroin service for the treatment of opiate dependence? Result: a vulnerable women such as this one is driven into the hands of the dealers where she must scam and whore and steal and cheat to furnish the dealer with his income.

Advantages of a heroin prescribing service:



> attracting people who are not attracted by other treatments (such as methadone), and retaining them in treatment for longer;
> 
> helping people to stop or reduce their illicit heroin use, thereby undercutting the illicit market and ensuring that people dependent on heroin can use a drug of known quality and strength;
> 
> ...


Given the absence of a Brixton heroin prescribing service I don't see what's wrong with giving this woman money to buy heroin. Isn't it better for her to accept drug money from a generous stranger than to sell her body down a dark ally?


----------



## Dan U (Nov 19, 2005)

i accept the arguement but i just dont agree with that.

i am well aware of the pull of heroin, however i'd hate to be the one that gave her the money for a hit that killed her.

bit simplistic, but surely getting off heroin would be better than having it prescribed? 

have you seen her btw? i dont mean to be harsh but a career in prostitution, back street or otherwise, surely does not await this poor woman?


----------



## academia (Nov 19, 2005)

First time she approached me I just offered to take her to the police station, she then said she had to get home to get her insulin because she was diabetic, I then offered to take her to my diabetic friend's house and have some of his. She was pretty reluctant to take up either offer.

These days I just dodge anyone trying to accost me on the street be they nuns or junkies.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 21, 2005)

Dan U said:
			
		

> have you seen her btw? i dont mean to be harsh but a career in prostitution, back street or otherwise, surely does not await this poor woman?


You suggesting that she's too ugly to be a prostitute? How ignorant.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 21, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> You suggesting that she's too ugly to be a prostitute? How ignorant.



no, that her general state and demanour (filthly clothes, dried blood smeared on her) would surely preclude her from that line of work


----------



## Ms T (Nov 21, 2005)

Dan U said:
			
		

> no, that her general state and demanour (filthly clothes, dried blood smeared on her) would surely preclude her from that line of work



Have you ever seen some of the crack whores in King's Cross?


----------



## Dan U (Nov 21, 2005)

yeah, fair point when i think about it.

its the congealed blood that gets me, maybe i am just squemish


----------



## flimsier (Nov 21, 2005)

I know someone who has been done the same way in Central London - for £50.

They saw the same woman (I don't know if it's this one) a week later, and just told her how disgusted they were. They didn't really care about the money, just that they probably wouldn't help someone else in a similar situation if it happened again.

I'd been asked in Central London about 8 years ago, but gave nothing as I had nothing at the time.


----------



## billythefish (Jan 5, 2006)

Sorry for late post: only just found the thread.

I've been approached by the girl (see original post) once at Barclays cashpoint, second outside the Ritzy.

First time, I had my car just around the corner, called her bluff and offered to drive her to Kent. She made excuses and ran away.

Second time, I was heavily drunk, but offered to buy her the travel card rather than give cash. She started to follow me to the station but had mysteriously peeled off into the crowd around the entrance to the market.

I would never give money, but always buy what it is they want it for (within reason  )

P.S. - All released convicts from HMP Brixton are given money to pay for the fare to their required address (most are compelled to live in a hostel or agreed address for the remains of their sentence).


----------



## rennie (Jan 5, 2006)

Red Faction said:
			
		

> do any of you see the fellow outside corpus christi church on brixton hill
> opposite brixton water lane?
> theres a bloke there who wears a green white + orange jacket
> 
> ...



he used to live outside my bloke! I saw him round the offie the other day for the first time in a while (i moved) and he did look worse for wear. n didn't have a big issue.


----------



## suzee blue cheese (Jan 5, 2006)

There's a tendency sometimes when reading threads on this topic, to bung every addict into the category of someone who's long since abandoned any sense of dignity or shame.  So I think the point needs to be made that there are many others who manage to keep it together, go to work and pay their way just like anyone else.  Or clean up.  They just don't tend to be quite so visible.


----------



## Manmasi (Jan 5, 2006)

Hmm. I recognise all these people described above, the one that concerns me the most is the waving arms new guy, he is quite scary... He looks pretty normal, kind of like an art student but I saw him scare the shit out this Asian guy on Brixton high st, looked like he was fitting actually...
I saw the 'assaulted' girl once and crossed the road predicting what was coming. I feel sorry for the orange and green bomber jacket junkie, he's quite polite and looks really sad, one sunday morning saw him in a corner shop, he was buying lighter gas... There's one woman who's really annoying me at the moment, she's on a crutch and wobbles up and down Brixton hill begging, she's really persistent and I saw her being quite aggressive with an old lady the other day, not nice.
I don't know, it's very depressing and sad, to be honest it makes me want to move to somewhere with less of an aggressive begging issue, I get pretty nervous when I get hassled.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Jan 5, 2006)

It's a tragedy - whoever it happens to, to see someone reduced to that.  

If you feel bad about not giving her (or others like her) money, save it and donate it to a drugs or homeless charity.  Then it will be used properly to help this girl as opposed to keeping her pushed down there in hell.


----------



## Nickster (Jan 5, 2006)

the girl in question's name is Dawn. I kicked her (and I mean kicked her!) off my doorstep a few months back for shooting up in my door way. I'm sorry if that offends some people, but I bet you'd think differently if you found used needles in your front yard and have to put up with addicts and dealers right outside your front window every day.
There are so many junkies now in Brixton I have given up even giving small change to ANYONE. If they say they're stranded in Brixton without any cash point them to the police station...they'll help them out if they have been robbed.


----------



## treefrog (Jan 5, 2006)

Nickster said:
			
		

> the girl in question's name is Dawn. I kicked her (and I mean kicked her!) off my doorstep a few months back for shooting up in my door way. I'm sorry if that offends some people, but I bet you'd think differently if you found used needles in your front yard and have to put up with addicts and dealers right outside your front window every day.
> There are so many junkies now in Brixton I have given up even giving small change to ANYONE. If they say they're stranded in Brixton without any cash point them to the police station...they'll help them out if they have been robbed.


 you don't live on Kellett road do you?


----------



## netbob (Jan 5, 2006)

Nickster said:
			
		

> the girl in question's name is Dawn. I kicked her (and I mean kicked her!) off my doorstep a few months back for shooting up in my door way. I'm sorry if that offends some people, but I bet you'd think differently if you found used needles in your front yard and have to put up with addicts and dealers right outside your front window every day.



I dont and I do.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 6, 2006)

Manmasi said:
			
		

> Hmm. I recognise all these people described above, the one that concerns me the most is the waving arms new guy, he is quite scary...


Is that the one who stands in the way, waving his arms around (as you say) and asking for cash - and then hurling abuse and swearing at those who don't give him any?


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 6, 2006)

Has anyone had "I am a Brazilian just out of jail today. I have no money, I am not a junkie" one recently?
He grabbed my arm to stop me walking away the oher day and was really aggressive when I ignored him.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 6, 2006)

Don't know about that, but there used to be a guy who used to hang around the tesco carpark before they closed off the pedestrian entrance/exit to it in Porden Road. He once got in front of me asking for money and saying "it's no problem"  and kept barring my way whichever way I tried to step to get around him.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 6, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> Has anyone had "I am a Brazilian just out of jail today. I have no money, I am not a junkie" one recently?
> He grabbed my arm to stop me walking away the oher day and was really aggressive when I ignored him.


This man has been mentioned already by someone who works with the vulnerable/homeless/addicts


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3825515&postcount=53


----------



## Aitch (Jan 6, 2006)

Everytime come onto the Brixton board  I read the thread title as    Assaulted!!! Girl Hanged by cashpoint

it gives me a   kinda feeling

as you were.....


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 6, 2006)

Aitch said:
			
		

> Everytime come onto the Brixton board  I read the thread title as    Assaulted!!! Girl Hanged by cashpoint
> 
> it gives me a   kinda feeling
> 
> as you were.....


----------



## Aitch (Jan 6, 2006)

Okay okay... on topic I once had a chat with the girl talked about she was crying and saying she needed to get to Uxbridge to a hostel and needed money for travel and toiletries (she was outside boots) I know Uxbridge quite well ( unfortunately ) and after talking about it it became clear she didnt.  I offered to take her into boots and get her what it was she wanted but she didnt want to know. So i told her i knew she was lying gave her a quid for her effort and moved on.

Better Bigga?


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 6, 2006)

Aitch said:
			
		

> So i told her i knew she was lying gave her a quid for her effort and moved on.
> 
> Better Bigga?


As long as the final reward is a fair reflection of the scammers efforts I think that's


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 6, 2006)

DJ Bigga said:
			
		

> As long as the final reward is a fair reflection of the scammers efforts I think that's


So if you're mugged - but it's done so skillfully that you can't help but admire the dedicated professionalism of the mugger - will you then offer them a tip?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 6, 2006)

I hold Aitch in high regard...she's the only person I know to be robbed of a phone who rang her phone and managed by wit and persuasion to get the thief to return it!


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 6, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> So if you're mugged - but it's done so skillfully that you can't help but admire the dedicated professionalism of the mugger - will you then offer them a tip?


I don't think being robbed and being scammed are the same thing. If someone tries to scam me and they do it skillfully, thn even though I've rumbled them then yeah I might drop them something.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 6, 2006)

DJ Bigga said:
			
		

> I don't think being robbed and being scammed are the same thing. If someone tries to scam me and they do it skillfully, thn even though I've rumbled them then yeah I might drop them something.


I wouldn't, personally. For everyone such as yourself who's seen through the scam, there maybe a dozen others who gave away money they couldn't really afford in the belief they were doing a good turn. Not something I'd be keen to encourage.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 6, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> This man has been mentioned already by someone who works with the vulnerable/homeless/addicts
> 
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3825515&postcount=53



Thank you for pointing this out. I will be careful if I encounter him again.


----------



## Aitch (Jan 6, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I wouldn't, personally. For everyone such as yourself who's seen through the scam, there maybe a dozen others who gave away money they couldn't really afford in the belief they were doing a good turn. Not something I'd be keen to encourage.



Well I spose it does encourage them to keep going with the scam.  The way I saw it was that she was worse off than me and I could afford a quid. I let her know I knew she was lying & therefore wasn't scamming me. At the end of the day people have to make their own decisions on giving/not giving which no doubt has been said already.  

Thanks for your high regard Mrs M.. same back at ya


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 6, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> Thank you for pointing this out. I will be careful if I encounter him again.


What's the best way to deal with him?
I've always been as forceful as him to show I'm not intimidated and he's always backed down


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 6, 2006)

.


----------



## top_biller (Jan 6, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> Has anyone had "I am a Brazilian just out of jail today. I have no money, I am not a junkie" one recently?
> He grabbed my arm to stop me walking away the oher day and was really aggressive when I ignored him.



I was drinking in the Brixtonian a few months ago and popped out to use the cash point where I was hit with the "can you spare a quid, I just got out of jail" line. I was a bit pissed up so I said I wouldn't give the guy a quid but I'd buy him a drink. Ended up getting drunk with him all evening. 

So I guess there's a moral there somewhere.


----------



## big toe crying (Jan 9, 2006)

In Oxford Street there was a regular guy near a cash point, lovely man, I always gave him money when I could. A second man took over his 'patch', and the first time I encountered him, he told me a story about having Hepatitis and needed medication but couldn’t afford it, I told him he would be treated free at hospital but he insisted that went to the hospital and they turned him away because he was homeless. Well I was ‘Miss Outraged from Bixton Hill’ I called the hospital in question and asked if they treated homeless people and they said ‘of course’. I explained the situation and they said tell him to come to the hospital and of course they will treat him, I relayed this message to the guy and his message to me was 'Go fuck yourself, and give me a tenner'.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 9, 2006)

top_biller said:
			
		

> I was drinking in the Brixtonian a few months ago and popped out to use the cash point where I was hit with the "can you spare a quid, I just got out of jail" line. I was a bit pissed up so I said I wouldn't give the guy a quid but I'd buy him a drink. Ended up getting drunk with him all evening.
> 
> So I guess there's a moral there somewhere.




Well done that person, top top top.


----------



## BrixiSteve (Jan 12, 2006)

Just before Christmas ran towards me as I was opening my front door, he looked totally cool and not in the least short of money he was calling me 'Bro' though which is always a bad sign.  Anyway, of course he did want money but when I said I didn't have any (unable to close the door because his foot was there), he started to feel my pockets saying that he knew I had some.  He never got agressive and was quite easy to push away and close the door.  His line was that he could be robbing people or breaking into houses but that he was going straight.... 

Well, great.  He knows where I live and he assumes I have money.  Can't leave the house not without a severe paranoia attack.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 12, 2006)

BrixiSteve said:
			
		

> Just before Christmas ran towards me as I was opening my front door, he looked totally cool and not in the least short of money he was calling me 'Bro' though which is always a bad sign.  Anyway, of course he did want money but when I said I didn't have any (unable to close the door because his foot was there), he started to feel my pockets saying that he knew I had some.  He never got agressive and was quite easy to push away and close the door.  His line was that he could be robbing people or breaking into houses but that he was going straight....
> 
> Well, great.  He knows where I live and he assumes I have money.  Can't leave the house not without a severe paranoia attack.




Try not to worry about it. I would be surprised if he remembered you by the next day.


----------



## suzee blue cheese (Jan 12, 2006)

I needed to use the cashpoint one day several years ago and noticing one of the regulars hanging about by the Natwest, wandered up to HSBC instead cause I just didn't want the hassle.  

Moments later as I was sorting myself out, I heard a woman shouting and this particular regular come tearing up the street past me with a fist full of cash.  As I knew I could identify him, I finished up my transaction and went off to look for the woman.  She was well shaken up.  Really distraught.  

To cut a long story short, I told her if she wanted to press charges I would come down the copshop with her.  She did and we did.  He was well known and had been done several times before.  So he ended up off the streets for a while.  

Nice part of the story is that she left a card for me with the cops to say that having someone help out and being able to press charges had helped restore the balance of her faith in people.

Another time I had to call an ambulance for someone who'd been bashed on the head across the road at Barclays.  Blood streaming down his face. 

So now I have a real thing about people hanging out by the cashpoints, especially when I'm on my own and I've got my card in the machine and I got someone right in my face asking for a handout.  Got no compunction whatsoever about telling them to back off - forcefully if necessary.  I hate having to do it.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 15, 2006)

some times i really do wish for a personal space force feild ....  it's bad enouh havin to point out  the holes in their story but  when your getting  flecks of spit in your face as they talk  ....  ~eyebrow starts to twich~ 

oh  and do they really think  calling me bro and playfully rubbing my tummy will help?

mind you  it was kinda funny    when the  compleatly gone nutter in the old kfc  thought i was a pregnant woman  ...


----------



## Isambard (Jan 15, 2006)

Banks should be re-building their branches so the ATMs are in a foyer you need your card to get into. So once you are in it is relatively safe, you can spot anyone who might be about to ply you a sob story / try and grab your cash.

One branch near my house had a problem with addicts in the foyer so they play classical music in there, apparently they can't stand it and leave.


----------



## brixtonvilla (Jan 15, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> they play classical music in there, apparently they [addicts] can't stand it and leave.



Also being trialled (with some effect) at Brixton tube right now.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 16, 2006)

T & P said:
			
		

> I meant to post this last night but didn't have a chance at the end.
> 
> Yesterday evening I went into Tesco (yeah I now...) and on my way out I took out some cash from the cash machine kiosk just outside the entrance. As I put my card in a woman approached me. I heard the expected "excuse me" and prepared to hear the subsequent "can you help, I'm so and so".
> 
> ...



So it's a scam. 

If she's that desperate, and that inventive, why not just give her some  money and don't worry about it?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 16, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Blonde hair? Thin? Very grubby?
> 
> If so, she is a junkie and real pest. She really hassles people and has always got some kind of scam going on. I noticed recently that she had what looked like some kind of scab on her nose. She may very well have been assaulted at some point but if it was her, she was using it to get scag money. The weirdest line she used on me was "Can you spare some money -- I'm not homeless!" She definitely does the old "I need money to get home" line on people.
> 
> Call me cold-hearted if you like but she is always hanging around my block/street/neighbourhood and she is a pain in the butt. Like you say, it's not about making an informed choice as to whether to give someone moeny they may wellspend on drugs. It's being scammed -- or people trying to scam you -- that is fucking annoying.



So it's ok to be a drug user so long as it's the right drugs, like E, etc, but not if you're a poor drug addict addicted to crack, meth, junk etc?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 16, 2006)

hendo said:
			
		

> I'm sure she has a name. I bet its a real one, and I also bet that somewhere she has a family who have probably bitten their nails to the quick over her.
> 
> If you're worried about the people who do these things, then the answer's simple; don't give them any money. They have a drug dependency problem, and your best option in these circumstances is to be polite, but move on.
> 
> ...



I'm glad to see your post. I was beginning to think that everyone on the thread was a smug member of the clucking, self satisfied middle class.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 16, 2006)

is there a problem in not liking being scamed?  are we at fault for not likin out personal space invaded  by people  after cash ... i get this sort of thing happen to me every few days  and  it is unplesent (and i don't have enough money to give to others either) does this dislike of bein scammed make me  "a smug member of the clucking, self satisfied middle class"  a bit of the pot callin the kettle black


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 16, 2006)

As someone on benefits and without my own place to live I don't like being blagged for money by people on the street. I know that they are entitled to just as much money as me (if they are a UK resident) and that there are hostels and food available if people are desperate - plus proper benefits further down the line if they fill in the forms and ask for it. Of course this isn't really enough to sort out people with addictions to smack or alcohol or who have various other problems, but the kind of help they need isn't really people giving them money for "a bus ticket". In fact being able to blag money can mean they don't access services that could really help them until their health gets so bad they end up in hospital or until the police take them in. My attitude is that they should go and blag the government for money not me.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 16, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I'm glad to see your post. I was beginning to think that everyone on the thread was a smug member of the clucking, self satisfied middle class.



I think the point is, Mr Canadian who doesn't live in Brixton and knows nothing about it, that getting hassled for money everyday gets a little wearing.  There's not a lot that we, as individuals, can actually do for these people.  Until there is a big change in our society with equal access to housing, social services, mental health services, more money for drugs services and a redistribution of wealth and power, these things are going to carry on and get worse.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 16, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> As someone on benefits and without my own place to live I don't like being blagged for money by people on the street. I know that they are entitled to just as much money as me (if they are a UK resident) and that there are hostels and food available if people are desperate - plus proper benefits further down the line if they fill in the forms and ask for it. Of course this isn't really enough to sort out people with addictions to smack or alcohol or who have various other problems, but the kind of help they need isn't really people giving them money for "a bus ticket". In fact being able to blag money can mean they don't access services that could really help them until their health gets so bad they end up in hospital or until the police take them in. My attitude is that they should go and blag the government for money not me.



The point is that often there aren't hostels, benefits or food available.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 16, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> So it's ok to be a drug user so long as it's the right drugs, like E, etc, but not if you're a poor drug addict addicted to crack, meth, junk etc?



Well done Johnny you have hit the nail on the head. 

There is a heirachy of acceptability when it comes to drugs. 

Heroin is bad, crack is bad, coke is ok, ex is brilliant, weed is for every day, beggars should be locked up with all those pesky blokes who invade the new brixtonites space by evilly saying "skunk" .


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 16, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> all those pesky blokes who invade the new brixtonites space by evilly saying "skunk" .


To be fair, it's not just "new brixtonites" who are tired of this phenomenon. Some of the most exasperated critics of it are people who have lived in Brixton for years - decades even - and don't go near any sort of drugs at all.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 16, 2006)

Have a look at people on urban who bang on about killing crack dealers and so on. These are often the same people who admit to taking and selling pills.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 16, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Have a look at people on urban who bang on about killing crack dealers and so on. These are often the same people who admit to taking and selling pills.


That is, indeed, hypocritical (sp?). However, there are a large number of people (in Brixton and the wider world) who are now pretty much fed up of the whole drugs phenomenon (and all it's attendant problems), full stop. This, natuarally, leads into the debate over legalisation and control, but doesn't really tackle what ought to be done in the meantime.


----------



## MysteryGuest (Jan 16, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> That is, indeed, hypocritical (sp?).




Do you think that pills cause the same damage to society, or individuals, as crack or heroin?  The reason there is a hierarchy of acceptability of drugs is that they vary massively in their effects/dangers/addictiveness.  Something I suspect cherrybaby knows, but is pretending not to in favour of a wind-up tbh.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 16, 2006)

MysteryGuest said:
			
		

> Do you think that pills cause the same damage to society, or individuals, as crack or heroin?  The reason there is a hierarchy of acceptability of drugs is that they vary massively in their effects/dangers/addictiveness.  Something I suspect cherrybaby knows, but is pretending not to in favour of a wind-up tbh.


I realise I'm possibly opening myslef up to a flaming here (I hope not, though), but I think the whole "culture of seediness" (caused by the illegaility of drugs) around the whole drugs scene has had a very negative impact on society in general. Yes, I know there are a multitude of factors involved, but I think the explosion of the drugs thing over the last 10 years or so has contributed to a certain degree to the whole selfish "fuck you - all that matters is me and what I want" attitude so prevelant in society at the moment.


----------



## Giles (Jan 16, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Well done Johnny you have hit the nail on the head.
> 
> There is a heirachy of acceptability when it comes to drugs.
> 
> Heroin is bad, crack is bad, coke is ok, ex is brilliant, weed is for every day, beggars should be locked up with all those pesky blokes who invade the new brixtonites space by evilly saying "skunk" .



I think that most people on here, apart from a few well-known very anti-drugs individuals, would rather that they could legally buy their recreational chemicals in proper shops. 

Then, there would be NO NEED for in-yer-face weed sellers by the station, or anywhere else, and everyone would know exactly what they were buying, the police would have far more time to deal with crimes that actually have victims, and hopefully, if they did it right, there wouldn't be much in the way of nasty crack dealers around either.

Giles..


----------



## Isambard (Jan 16, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> That is, indeed, hypocritical (sp?). However, there are a large number of people (in Brixton and the wider world) who are now pretty much fed up of the whole drugs phenomenon (and all it's attendant problems), full stop.



Possibly people who have "had their fun" and now want to deny it to the new "kids" ?


----------



## MysteryGuest (Jan 16, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I realise I'm possibly opening myslef up to a flaming here (I hope not, though), but I think the whole "culture of seediness" around the whole drugs scene has had a very negative impact on society in general. Yes, I know there are a multitude of factors involved, but I think the explosion of the drugs thing over the last 10 years or so has contributed to a certain degree to the whole selfish "fuck you - all that matters is me and what I want" attitude so prevelant in society at the moment.




Well tbh I'd be largely inclined to agree with you about the seediness thing, but to me that's more of an argument for decriminalisation, which I don't fancy getting into right now at work on a Monday morning.    Don't agree with the second part of your post, though, at all, though, soz.  Should point out here I don't think any drugs are "harmless" though.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 16, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> I think that most people on here, apart from a few well-known very anti-drugs individuals, would rather that they could legally buy their recreational chemicals in proper shops.
> 
> Then, there would be NO NEED for in-yer-face weed sellers by the station, or anywhere else, and everyone would know exactly what they were buying, the police would have far more time to deal with crimes that actually have victims, and hopefully, if they did it right, there wouldn't be much in the way of nasty crack dealers around either.
> 
> Giles..


I also suspect that if drugs _were_ legalised, a lot of drug-fans would give them up in droves. I get the feeling that, for a certain type of drug user, the seediness and illegality is a large part of the attraction.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 16, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> Possibly people who have "had their fun" and now want to deny it to the new "kids" ?


More likely people who have never had anything to do with drugs, full stop, and are getting tired of the current saturation levels.


----------



## Giles (Jan 16, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Have a look at people on urban who bang on about killing crack dealers and so on. These are often the same people who admit to taking and selling pills.



Are they? Really? Got an example? 

I can't remember seeing anyone posting on here who was at the same time virulently against crack etc, AND who is happy to say that they take pills, or anything else.

Giles..


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 16, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> Are they? Really? Got an example?
> 
> I can't remember seeing anyone posting on here who was at the same time virulently against crack etc, AND who is happy to say that they take pills, or anything else.
> 
> Giles..




Oh I can think of a few, straight up! I am not going to name them as given the dealing bit it would be unfair.


----------



## magneze (Jan 16, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Oh I can think of a few, straight up! I am not going to name them as given the dealing bit it would be unfair.


For someone who has only been on here 2 weeks that's quite an accusation. Can you back it up at all?


----------



## snadge (Jan 16, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Oh I can think of a few, straight up! I am not going to name them as given the dealing bit it would be unfair.



why not, I'm sure if what you say is true the quotes would be damning  evidence of this?

personally I think you're full of twaddle


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 16, 2006)

Magneze said:
			
		

> For someone who has only been on here 2 weeks that's quite an accusation. Can you back it up at all?



I have known posters here for years, from unsound.


----------



## snadge (Jan 16, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> I have known posters here for years, from unsound.



and are these posters that you know from unsound the guilty ones?


or are the guilty ones posters you don't know from unsound?


----------



## Crispy (Jan 16, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I realise I'm possibly opening myslef up to a flaming here (I hope not, though), but I think the whole "culture of seediness" (caused by the illegaility of drugs) around the whole drugs scene has had a very negative impact on society in general. Yes, I know there are a multitude of factors involved, but I think the explosion of the drugs thing over the last 10 years or so has contributed to a certain degree to the whole selfish "fuck you - all that matters is me and what I want" attitude so prevelant in society at the moment.



Agree 100% with the first bit.
As for the "fuck you - all that matters is me and what I want" attitude, I'd be more inclined to say that the rampant consumerism and individualism that was launched in the thatcher years has had a bigger effect.


----------



## magneze (Jan 16, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> I have known posters here for years, from unsound.


Ah, gotcha.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 16, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> As for the "fuck you - all that matters is me and what I want" attitude, I'd be more inclined to say that the rampant consumerism and individualism that was launched in the thatcher years has had a bigger effect.


I think the drugs phenomenon and attendant selfishness is a symptom of the thatcher-era consumerism/individualism in lots of ways. It's in line with the whole "I don't care what impact my actions have on wider society" way of thinking we've been lumbered with since that era.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 16, 2006)

Well, Lambeth Council have been banging on about yielding to Market Forces for a long time now. Unfortunately the Market Forces we've ended up with are for crack and smack


----------



## suzee blue cheese (Jan 16, 2006)

> but I think the explosion of the drugs thing over the last 10 years or so has contributed to a certain degree to the whole selfish "fuck you - all that matters is me and what I want" attitude so prevelant in society at the moment



I think the selfish 'fuck you' etc thing has got to be partly the result of the change in parenting style beginning @ 20 years or so ago as far as I can work out.  Around the time some of my mates were beginning to have kids.  You know that style where kids are brought up as the centre of the universe, entirely unaccountable for their own actions with little or no sense of awareness of how those actions may impact on other people.  Bad recipe for good people.

You might as well go all the way back to the 60s for the beginnings of the 'me' generations.  I think Maggie simply harnessed and manipulated a trend that was already rearing its ugly head.  

Hell what would I know..  I'm just having random thoughts.  No joined-upness here.  

Move along now people..


----------



## snadge (Jan 16, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> I have known posters here for years, from unsound.



I see you still haven't justified your shite yet........


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 16, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> I see you still haven't justified your shite yet........



Not shite at all, I have no intention of grassing anyone but what  I said is true and will ring true to many here dearie.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 16, 2006)

suzee blue cheese said:
			
		

> You might as well go all the way back to the 60s for the beginnings of the 'me' generations.  I think Maggie simply harnessed and manipulated a trend that was already rearing its ugly head.



I was going to expand onto this. At first, the whole idea of individualism was new. If you can find a copy, watch 'the century of the self' - made by Adam 'power of nightmares' Curtis. It tells the whole story of C20th individualism from its birth in psychoanalysis, through its adoption by coorporations as an advertising tool to sell people things they didn't need. Express yourself with this commodity!

Individualism can mean 'fuck the man!' but it can quite easily lead to 'fuck the lot of you!' and I think you're right - maybe western society has ballooned too far in this direction.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 16, 2006)

suzee blue cheese said:
			
		

> You might as well go all the way back to the 60s for the beginnings of the 'me' generations. .


I would suggest it went back even farther than that - to the 1950s and the advent of the teenager.

Bloody young people! 
 

You're right about Thatchler manipulating people's baser instincts, IMV.


----------



## snadge (Jan 16, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Not shite at all, I have no intention of grassing anyone but what  I said is true and will ring true to many here dearie.




is there any evidence on these forums? from your initial accusation it seemed you were directing it towards posters on this thread....


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 16, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> I was going to expand onto this. At first, the whole idea of individualism was new. If you can find a copy, watch 'the century of the self' - made by Adam 'power of nightmares' Curtis. It tells the whole story of C20th individualism from its birth in psychoanalysis, through its adoption by coorporations as an advertising tool to sell people things they didn't need. Express yourself with this commodity!
> 
> Individualism can mean 'fuck the man!' but it can quite easily lead to 'fuck the lot of you!' and I think you're right - maybe western society has ballooned too far in this direction.


 The 'me' ideology  is arguably a product of capitalism: "because I'm worth it";  'greed is good'.  Selfless, responsible people don't spend enough money on things they don't need so selfishness is encouraged.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 16, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> The 'me' ideology  is arguably a product of capitalism: "because I'm worth it";  'greed is good'.  Selfless, responsible people don't spend enough money on things they don't need so selfishness is encouraged.



Oh absolutely. But also, the 'free yourself' ideologies of the 60s were an easy way for people to justify a guiltless transistion to such a selfish attitude (or to have it justified for them...) I don't mean to belittle the genuinely good social change of the period - but it's easy to subvert someone's newfound "ain't nobody gonna tell me what to do" attitude into a "so I'm gonna do whatever the hell I want" attitude, with the right influences...


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 16, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> is there any evidence on these forums? from your initial accusation it seemed you were directing it towards posters on this thread....




Well if anyone thought I was referring to posters on this thread then I apologise unreservedly. But I have been sold pills by posters on U75 who lurve to bang on about crack head scum, junky scum etc etc .....

Not dissing the dealing, I bought them after all.


----------



## snadge (Jan 16, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Well if anyone thought I was referring to posters on this thread then I apologise unreservedly. But I have been sold pills by posters on U75 who lurve to bang on about crack head scum, junky scum etc etc .....
> 
> Not dissing the dealing, I bought them after all.



thanks for clearing that up   

have a good idea what you are on about now, munted one minute then calling crackheads scum the next


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 16, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Oh absolutely. But also, the 'free yourself' ideologies of the 60s were an easy way for people to justify a guiltless transistion to such a selfish attitude (or to have it justified for them...) I don't mean to belittle the genuinely good social change of the period - but it's easy to subvert someone's newfound "ain't nobody gonna tell me what to do" attitude into a "so I'm gonna do whatever the hell I want" attitude, with the right influences...


 Not all the social changes of the time were arguably all they were cracked up to be: ie the pill, which meant that women found themselves under pressure to put out with anybody who asked, especially among the free love generation. 

You're spot-on about the latter part and I think this is what is causing so many profound social problems now. And it's not just that I'm getting old. The whole antisocial behaviour problem is directly to do with a whole generation that refuses to accept any sort of authority from parents, teachers or anyone else. And the thing is, it doesn't make them happy. Quite the opposite.  Thre have to be boundaries. You cannot have a society in which everyone does exaclty as they please. (Bends ruler ominously).


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 16, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> thanks for clearing that up
> 
> have a good idea what you are on about now, munted one minute then calling crackheads scum the next



Quite funny when the person doing the junky scum bit is totally off their head...


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 16, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Not all the social changes of the time were arguably all they were cracked up to be: ie the pill, which meant that women found themselves under pressure to put out with anybody who asked, especially among the free love generation.
> 
> You're spot-on about the latter part and I think this is what is causing so many profound social problems now. And it's not just that I'm getting old. The whole antisocial behaviour problem is directly to do with a whole generation that refuses to accept any sort of authority from parents, teachers or anyone else. And the thing is, it doesn't make them happy. Quite the opposite.  Thre have to be boundaries. You cannot have a society in which everyone does exaclty as they please. (Bends ruler ominously).




Under pressure from who to "put out"?


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 16, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Under pressure from who to "put out"?


 Blerks. It was widely thought that if you were on the pill then you must be gagging for it with anyone who wanted it.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 16, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Blerks. It was widely thought that if you were on the pill then you must be gagging for it with anyone who wanted it.



Then you say no thank you.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 16, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Then you say no thank you.


That's not actually the point, is it?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 16, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> That's not actually the point, is it?




But the pressure you mention, you come across like you are being oppressed because someone offers/asks to have sex with you? I don't get it.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 16, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> you come across like you are being oppressed because someone offers/asks to have sex with you? I don't get it.




The sexist / mysoginist assumption being that any woman on the pill was sexually available at any time for any man when HE wanted sex.

Along the similar lines of "she was asking for it". 

The pill DID allow women greater control over their fertility in some ways but pushed the responsibility for avoiding punwanted pregnancy onto women alone and has implications in sexual health today (HIV/AIDS and other STDs).


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 16, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> The sexist / mysoginist assumption being that any woman on the pill was sexually available at any time for any man when HE wanted sex.
> 
> Along the similar lines of "she was asking for it".
> 
> The pill DID allow women greater control over their fertility in some ways but pushed the responsibility for avoiding punwanted pregnancy onto women alone and has implications in sexual health today (HIV/AIDS and other STDs).




_All_ the women I know who were part of the sixties pill generation loved it, free from the worries of unwanted pregnancy, free from the worries of abortion, control over their own bodies.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 16, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> The sexist / mysoginist assumption being that any woman on the pill was sexually available at any time for any man when HE wanted sex.
> 
> Along the similar lines of "she was asking for it".
> 
> The pill DID allow women greater control over their fertility in some ways but pushed the responsibility for avoiding punwanted pregnancy onto women alone and has implications in sexual health today (HIV/AIDS and other STDs).


By the time it came to be (almost) fully accepted in society that women on the pill were not necessarily gagging for it 24/7, it was an entirely unsuitable method of contraception for those who were not in long term relationships because of HIV. 

Obviously, I'm not saying it was altogether a bad thing, though many women have objected to the idea of drastically altering one's body chemistry all the time -- and incurring certain health risks, ie thrombosis - in order to be sexually available. 

Anyway, I only used it as a case in point of a suposed social freedom that was somewhat double edged.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> The point is that often there aren't hostels, benefits or food available.


I accept that rough sleepers from Poland or outside the EU  can't access hostels or benefits. Also anyone under 26 faces particular problems in finding a hostel space. There are organisations in London that provide food to people however. I would argue that a figure of under 400 or so rough sleeps in central London, while being a problem, is a massive improvement on the situation in the late 90s. As well as the problems mentioned in the articles below, a ceratin number of rough sleeps have problems/issues/reasons why they don't want to stay in hostels. There is also the factor that new people arrive in London every day.





> One of the longest running independent charities in the homeless sector, The Simon Community, has called for better co-ordination of services for rough sleepers in London after its latest street count found 345 people sleeping rough in the Greater London Boroughs (Notes 1). This represents an increase of just over 50% on a count of 226 for the same period last year and runs contrary to the ODPMs official figures that indicate the incidence of rough sleeping is reducing.
> 
> Ian Lock, director of The Simon Community, said, “Once more we are concerned that a major homeless problem is developing on London’s streets. Our figures confirm that most hostels are full and to make matters worse there is nowhere for those already in hostels to move on to. The Government must take action to re-introduce coordination across the boroughs, relax the rules on local connection criteria for accessing services, make more good quality hostel accommodation available, enable those in hostels to access move-on accommodation and develop appropriate facilities for homeless people ineligible for benefits.
> 
> ...


 http://www.simoncommunity.org.uk/la...0929281&archive=1136819496&start_from=&ucat=&



> On Saturday 2 April 2005 in an independent count 300 people were found to be sleeping rough in central London. (Notes 1) 82 hostels were contacted and 8 bed spaces were available. (Notes 2)
> 
> However no bed spaces at all were available for people without income, those out of work and not eligible for housing benefit. This is a serious cause for concern as the Simon Community, along with other homelessness agencies, are becoming increasingly alarmed at the growing proportion of London’s street homeless population who are ineligible for benefits. The Simon Community streetwork team estimate this to be up to about one third those currently sleeping rough. Finding accommodation for these people is now becoming virtually impossible. (Notes 3)
> 
> ...


 http://www.simoncommunity.org.uk/la...2699486&archive=1136819496&start_from=&ucat=&


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 16, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Well done Johnny you have hit the nail on the head.
> 
> There is a heirachy of acceptability when it comes to drugs.
> 
> Heroin is bad, crack is bad, coke is ok, ex is brilliant, weed is for every day, beggars should be locked up with all those pesky blokes who invade the new brixtonites space by evilly saying "skunk" .


That is not the point: it is people's *behaviour* and how it impacts on people - not the type of drug (or no drug at all) they are taking.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 16, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Have a look at people on urban who bang on about killing crack dealers and so on. These are often the same people who admit to taking and selling pills.



And ain't that the motherloving truth!  Not only that, they are often the same people who bang on about doing *coke* and sharing it with their mates.  Apparently not realizing that in the eyes of the law this makes them *exactly* the same as the "criminals" they want to persecute.  Its straight-up (albeit unconscious) *racism,* as I pointed out at length on another thread recently.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 16, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> I can't remember seeing anyone posting on here who was at the same time virulently against crack etc, AND who is happy to say that they take pills, or anything else.



Check the thread entitled "Is it Left-wing to Tolerate Crack Dealers?"


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 16, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Have a look at people on urban who bang on about killing crack dealers and so on. These are often the same people who admit to taking and selling pills.


Lots of people admit to taking pills but I can't remember many (or any) talking about *selling* pills, especially if they are well known on the boards. I think you are skating on thin ice by talking about people here selling you pills, even if it is true - people could easily have a look at the very small number of people:

a) are long term regular posters
b) who bang on about killing crack dealers (I can only really think of one person) and
c) who go to unsound 

...and put two and two together, making five.

I'd advise you to be a bit more careful about posting comments like that. You could easily have said the same thing in a slightly different way.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And ain't that the motherloving truth!  Not only that, they are often the same people who bang on about doing *coke* and sharing it with their mates.  Apparently not realizing that in the eyes of the law this makes them *exactly* the same as the "criminals" they want to persecute.  Its straight-up (albeit unconscious) *racism,* as I pointed out at length on another thread recently.


It is not to do with the skin colour of street dealers, it is to do with their behaviour. 

It is also not hypocrisy because people are pissed off by the behaviour of some street dealers and other people (often users) blagging them or worse - not simply the fact that people are selling drugs of whatever class.

It is possible to have a problem with the behaviour of some dealers and users, while not having a problem with other dealers and users. The legality or class of the drug and the skin colour or socio-economic background of the dealers and users is irrelevant to people getting annoyed about their behaviour.

Surely as an academic you can do better than come out with this illogical bollocks phildwyer? Or are you just trolling and trying to get a rise, just like in your DON'T-LOOK-AT-ME "designer-sandwiches-for-lunch" magnus opus "I'm-going-to-put-this-in-my-new-book" God-bothering threads?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 16, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> It is not to do with the skin colour of street dealers, it is to do with their behaviour.



I beg to differ.  Perhaps you are unfamiliar with, or skeptical about, the phenomenon of *unconscious* racism?  I am not.  On the "Crack Dealers" thread we saw plenty of evidence that people *enjoy* the opportunity to slag off, abuse, and fantasize about imprisoning, beating and killing a group of people who just *happen* to be 95% black.  I see the same thing every day in the States, where people will go on about how much they hate "criminals" and want to see them suffer, and its so fucking obvious they mean black people.  Except to them.  Oh, and less of the personal abuse, please.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 16, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> It is possible to have a problem with the behaviour of some dealers and users, while not having a problem with other dealers and users. The legality or class of the drug and the skin colour or socio-economic background of the dealers and users is irrelevant to people getting annoyed about their behaviour.



Ha!  So you don't think that many people, including many people on here, are more likely to find certain kinds of behavior threatening and/or annoying if they are performed by a black man rather than by a white man?  Ha!


----------



## Maggot (Jan 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I see the same thing every day in the States, where people will go on about how much they hate "criminals" and want to see them suffer, and its so fucking obvious they mean black people.


So talking about criminals is racist now.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 16, 2006)

Maggot said:
			
		

> So talking about criminals is racist now.



Do you think the treatment of criminals in the USA would be tolerated if they were mostly white?  And just *why* are the "criminals" disproportionately black anyway?  If you think that discourse about crime can be separated from discourse about race, you are sadly deluded and dangerously naive.  There were people like you in Alabama in the 30's claiming "we didn't lynch that boy cos he was a nigra, just cos he was a criminal."  Grow up and read some history.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 16, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> It is also not hypocrisy because people are pissed off by the behaviour of some street dealers and other people (often users) blagging them or worse - not simply the fact that people are selling drugs of whatever class.



Translation: 

U75 poster X scores some coke, calls up his mates, and they all get wired together = fun-loving, countercultural rebellion, very cool and trendy.

Coke dealer Y stands on Coldharbour Lane muttering "coke" under his breath = dangerous, unhealthy, lock him up, call the cops, kill him.

And you're trying to tell me this blatant double standard has *nothing* to do with the fact that Poster X is a middle class white boy, while Dealer Y is a lumpen-class black man?

Hahahaha.  Haha.  Ha.  Except its not really very funny, is it?


----------



## pk (Jan 16, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> thanks for clearing that up
> 
> have a good idea what you are on about now, munted one minute then calling crackheads scum the next



Dunno if any of this is referring to me - but just in case: categorically I've never sold pills at an Unsound, and if you don't know the difference between the anti-social effects of crack/smack abuse, and the odd dizzy spells and bouts of dancing enjoyed by the pill-headed fraternity....

Biggest cunts at any party are always the crackheads... followed by the drunk letchers... then the clumsy dribbling K-heads... the nicest people you'll find are the pilled up ones...


----------



## Maggot (Jan 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Do you think the treatment of criminals in the USA would be tolerated if they were mostly white?  And just *why* are the "criminals" disproportionately black anyway?  If you think that discourse about crime can be separated from discourse about race, you are sadly deluded and dangerously naive.  There were people like you in Alabama in the 30's claiming "we didn't lynch that boy cos he was a nigra, just cos he was a criminal."  Grow up and read some history.


This is the Brixton forum, why you going on about the states?


----------



## snadge (Jan 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Translation:
> 
> U75 poster X scores some coke, calls up his mates, and they all get wired together = fun-loving, countercultural rebellion, very cool and trendy.
> 
> ...



Oh here we go again with your absolute garbage about rascim, you are an obsessed twat and I claim my fiver.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ...a group of people who just *happen* to be 95% black...


Care to say how you worked out that 95% figure? You aren't just using racist stereotypes now are you?

Would these same people be guilty of racism if they banged on about hanging paedophiles and if 95% of these cases were people with pale/white skin?

Sorry but your argument doesn't hold water. You'd have to point to something that showed the hatred of crack dealers was inconsistent and that their skin colour was aggrievating or biasing the outrage. You simply haven't.

All you have done is make up some highly suspect figures about dealers which suggests you are trying to provoke or have some "issues" of your own, to be honest.


----------



## Giles (Jan 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Check the thread entitled "Is it Left-wing to Tolerate Crack Dealers?"



OK, I did, and I still cannot find one poster who both happily advocated the taking and selling of pills, AND who stated that crack dealers should be killed.

Maybe I missed an article. You reckon someone said it. Point us all at the post in question.

Giles..


----------



## pk (Jan 16, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> OK, I did, and I still cannot find one poster who both happily advocated the taking and selling of pills, AND who stated that crack dealers should be killed.
> 
> Maybe I missed an article. You reckon someone said it. Point us all at the post in question.
> 
> Giles..



I have a feeling PhilDwyer is talking poo poo...


----------



## snadge (Jan 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> a group of people who just *happen* to be 95% black.



fucking evidence you daft, daft cunt, I asked you for it on the last thread and you slunk off like the cunt you are, 95% ?

you are are fucking idiot plain and simple.

If *you* think 95% of drug dealers are black that is your stupid perception.

give us proof of that.

but you won't, just like you never back up your fucking agenda loaded bollocks.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 16, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Care to say how you worked out that 95% figure?



Sure.  95% of the people dealing cocaine on the streets of Brixton are black.  Therefore, opposition to and hatred of coke dealers is the perfect vehicle for racists to vent their vile spleen in a socially acceptable manner.  We see many prize examples on this thread.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 16, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> fucking evidence you daft, daft cunt, I asked you for it on the last thread and you slunk off like the cunt you are, 95% ?
> 
> you are are fucking idiot plain and simple.
> 
> ...



I think I'll let you sleep it off first.  But you are among the best examples of what I'm talking about, you drunken burbling slobbering drooling dribbling and drunken berk.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 16, 2006)

Maggot said:
			
		

> This is the Brixton forum, why you going on about the states?



Because I was talking about the States in post 164, when you jumped in with your little comment.  Do try to keep up.


----------



## snadge (Jan 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Sure.  95% of the people dealing cocaine on the streets of Brixton are black.  Therefore, opposition to and hatred of coke dealers is the perfect vehicle for racists to vent their vile spleen in a socially acceptable manner.  We see many prize examples on this thread.



you fucking tool

I've pointed this out to you before....


crack dealing isn't only a Brixton problem or is that too fucking much for your loaded agenda

you could possibly say that 95% of crack dealers in Stoke Newington are chinese....


you are a tool and make no fucking bones about it.


----------



## snadge (Jan 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Because I was talking about the States in post 164, when you jumped in with your little comment.  Do try to keep up.



yes *you* are fucking talking about pish


95%......

it's rascist.......

piss off cunt


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 16, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> you are a tool



And you are drunk.  So you probably won't even think of retorting "but I'll be sober tomorrow" a la Churchill.  Anyway, you probably *won't* be sober tomorrow.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 16, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> you could possibly say that 95% of crack dealers in Stoke Newington are chinese.....



Why would I say that, when it is not true?  But it *is* true that 95% of people selling coke on the streets of Brixton are black.  Or will you now try to deny this, in your drunken rage?


----------



## flimsier (Jan 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Why would I say that, when it is not true?  But it *is* true that 95% of people selling coke on the streets of Brixton are black.  Or will you now try to deny this, in your drunken rage?



Still waiting for evidence.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jan 16, 2006)

When I lived in Brixton, i had a black dealer, two white dealers and a Portuguese dealer - depended on who was about. So thats only 25% of them being black...


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Translation:
> 
> U75 poster X scores some coke, calls up his mates, and they all get wired together = fun-loving, countercultural rebellion, very cool and trendy.
> 
> ...


That isn't a "translation" of what I posted at all, you dribbling fool. For someone who wants to call people racist it is strange that it is *you* that tries to racialise so many discussions and label whole groups of people by race, in this case crack dealers and users.

Is there much point trying to discuss this rationally with you, when you either are unable to understand what people post or deliberately misrepresent it? I get the impression that you aren't really trying to make a serious point about racism - if you weren't being so stupid, over-the-top and sophistic you might actually be raising a valid point rather than characturing and rendering moronic that same point. I have to therefore ask what your motivation is. At the moment I am thinking it is attention seeking and a need to mock and shit-stir, probably through boredom and a lack of suitably witty sparring partners at your faculty.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 16, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> OK, I did, and I still cannot find one poster who both happily advocated the taking and selling of pills, AND who stated that crack dealers should be killed.
> 
> Maybe I missed an article. You reckon someone said it. Point us all at the post in question.
> 
> Giles..



Giles, what's this about "selling" pills and "killing" crack dealers?  *This* is the post of yours, to which I responded by referring you to the crack dealers thread:

Originally Posted by Giles
"I can't remember seeing anyone posting on here who was at the same time virulently against crack etc, AND who is happy to say that they take pills, or anything else."

See the difference?


----------



## flimsier (Jan 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Why would I say that, when it is not true?  But it *is* true that 95% of people selling coke on the streets of Brixton are black.  Or will you now try to deny this, in your drunken rage?




To be honest, this is becoming more and more typical of the U75 acceptable view, and why the whole bulletin board is going down the tubes. No-one (from Brixton) willing to challenge it directly - just lend abuse..


----------



## snadge (Jan 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Why would I say that, when it is not true?  But it *is* true that 95% of people selling coke on the streets of Brixton are black.  Or will you now try to deny this, in your drunken rage?



no but where is your fucking evidence, I've asked on the other thread but you fucked off calling people rascist and you are starting to do it on this thread as well..

evidence or fuck off with your shite


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 16, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Still waiting for evidence.



No need to wait, just take a stroll down Coldharbour Lane.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 16, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> To be honest, this is becoming more and more typical of the U75 acceptable view, and why the whole bulletin board is going down the tubes. No-one (from Brixton) willing to challenge it directly - just lend abuse..



So you're denying that 95% of the people selling coke on the streets of Brixton are black, are you?


----------



## snadge (Jan 16, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> To be honest, this is becoming more and more typical of the U75 acceptable view, and why the whole bulletin board is going down the tubes. No-one (from Brixton) willing to challenge it directly - just lend abuse..



I'm challenging it directly, even though I'm not from Brixton, I know it's shite


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> 95% of the people dealing cocaine on the streets of Brixton are black.


I am asking you how you came up with this figure, not asking you to do an impression of parrot, however impressive.


----------



## snadge (Jan 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> So you're denying that 95% of the people selling coke on the streets of Brixton are black, are you?



*Evidence*


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 16, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> That isn't a "translation" of what I posted at all, you dribbling fool. For someone who wants to call people racist it is strange that it is *you* that tries to racialise so many discussions and label whole groups of people by race, in this case crack dealers and users.



TeeJay, I'm trying *very* hard to keep this civil with you, because I've been told that you are a nice guy in person.  Now look here.  Are you really going to deny that "crime" in general, and drug dealing in particular, are often used as code words by racists in order to get their otherwise unacceptable views into the mainstream?  And are you really going to deny that many people hold racist attitdues witout being conscious of them?  Now, put the two together, and what have you got?  Surely the obvious conclusion is that many people will express their *unconscious* racism in the form of violent tirades against drug dealers?  Anyway, it just *is* obvious that many people on here are unconsciouscly racist, I've met too many of them in my lifetime not to recognize it when I see it.  I won't give examples, but I'm sure you know who I'm talking about.  Obvious it is.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 16, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I am asking you how you came up with this figure,



By observation.  Has your observation told you differently?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 16, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> *Evidence*



PISSHEAD. Go to bed, I'll talk to you when you're sober.  Jesus Christ, that's the problem with logging on at kicking-out time, its only 6.30pm here.


----------



## snadge (Jan 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> PISSHEAD. Go to bed, I'll talk to you when you're sober.  Jesus Christ, that's the problem with logging on at kicking-out time, its only 6.30pm here.



so you're not in Brixton at all?

BTW I'm not pissed, well I am but at your inabilaty to answer a question honestly and also your annoying habit of derailing threads with your unsubstantiated rascist accusing drivel.


----------



## snadge (Jan 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> By observation.  Has your observation told you differently?



yes


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 16, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> yes



OK, now this *is* interesting.  What has your observation told you is the racial profile of people selling coke in the street in Brixton?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 16, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> BTW I'm not pissed



Right.  So this is your "sober" mode, is it?  What are you like when you *are* pissed?


----------



## Emma Herself (Jan 16, 2006)

Funny, of all the variety of words I've heard dealers and other types mutter under their breath in Brixton, I've never, ever, ever heard "coke". Maybe it's just me, but I've never been offered "coke" in Brixton.


----------



## pk (Jan 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Sure.  95% of the people dealing cocaine on the streets of Brixton are black.  Therefore, opposition to and hatred of coke dealers is the perfect vehicle for racists to vent their vile spleen in a socially acceptable manner.  We see many prize examples on this thread.



You really are talking bollocks... taking Lambeth as a whole, and certainly south London, there are just as many white crack dealers as black... not everyone on this site is from Brixton - you certainly ain't... in fact you seem to be displaying the dodgiest attitude by asserting that crack dealers are typically black...



> To be honest, this is becoming more and more typical of the U75 acceptable view, and why the whole bulletin board is going down the tubes. No-one (from Brixton) willing to challenge it directly - just lend abuse.



And what the fuck are you on about, Flimsier?

You don't like this bulletin board, fuck off to another one, you know full well you won't be missed, you greasy little shit.


----------



## snadge (Jan 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Right.  So this is your "sober" mode, is it?  What are you like when you *are* pissed?



fucking worse, especially with agenda loaded twats like yerself.

spit it out philly boy, what are you *really * trying to say here?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 16, 2006)

Zoë Herself said:
			
		

> Funny, of all the variety of words I've heard dealers and other types mutter under their breath in Brixton, I've never, ever, ever heard "coke". Maybe it's just me, but I've never been offered "coke" in Brixton.



Well crack, or "rock," is coke.  As you know.  So crack dealers then.  Look, help me out here will you: are 95% of the people selling crack on the streets of Brixton black or are they not?  I mean, everyone here who lives in Brixton must *know* this to be true.  Why won't anyone say so?  Aaaarrrgh!


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 16, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> You really are talking bollocks... taking Lambeth as a whole, and certainly south London, there are just as many white crack dealers as black... not everyone on this site is from Brixton - you certainly ain't... in fact you seem to be displaying the dodgiest attitude by asserting that crack dealers are typically black....



Brixton, PK, I said fucking Brixton, I was not "taking Lambeth as a whole and certainly south London," I said fucking BRIXTON.  Now didn't I?  Jesus Christ.


----------



## pk (Jan 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well crack, or "rock," is coke.  As you know.  So crack dealers then.  Look, help me out here will you: are 95% of the people selling crack on the streets of Brixton black or are they not?  I mean, everyone here who lives in Brixton must *know* this to be true.  Why won't anyone say so?  Aaaarrrgh!



95%?

Brixton's a big area.

How long did it take you to count all the dealers?

And what is your point?

Sure - there are more black dealers on CHL than white, but this is not the case in other parts of South London.

Why the racism accusations??

Are you just shitstirring?


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Brixton, PK, I said fucking Brixton, I was not "taking Lambeth as a whole and certainly south London," I said fucking BRIXTON.  Now didn't I?  Jesus Christ.



Are you pissed or on crack?

Either way - you are definitely talking hysterical shit.


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> 95%?
> 
> Brixton's a big area.
> 
> ...




that he is doing very well.

he's done this exact same accusation on other threads, destroying them as well.


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Brixton, PK, I said fucking Brixton, I was not "taking Lambeth as a whole and certainly south London," I said fucking BRIXTON.  Now didn't I?  Jesus Christ.



who's the pissed idiot now?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> 95%?
> 
> Brixton's a big area.
> 
> ...



"More black dealers than white" on Coldharbour Lane, eh?  Bit of a bloody understatement, if you're honest, isn't it?  More like 95% black in fact, as I said, non?  My points, which I've made several times before on threads in which you participated, include the fact that this proves that drug dealers are usually forced into their trade by social deprivation (and are thus not deserving of the persecution and harrassment which many on here advocate), and that the racial profile of the Brixton dealers gives people an opportunity to vent their unconscious racist feelings without incurring social opprobrium.  Except when I'm around.  Can you truly deny anything I say here?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> who's the pissed idiot now?



YOU ARE.  Bloody hell.  Read this back in the morning and see what you think.


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> .  Except when I'm around.  Can you truly deny anything I say here?




are you jesus?


you really are a cunt


----------



## netbob (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well crack, or "rock," is coke.  As you know.  So crack dealers then.  Look, help me out here will you: are 95% of the people selling crack on the streets of Brixton black or are they not?  I mean, everyone here who lives in Brixton must *know* this to be true.  Why won't anyone say so?  Aaaarrrgh!



I live in Brixton, right in the middle of the crack market as it happens, and 95% is bollocks. 

Probably a majority ( 70-75%?), but that is still an unuseful figure. Crack dealing (in general terms) in brixton doesn't seem to split along racial lines. National background seems to be more important - e.g. there is a high proportion of jamacian street dealers, but an equally high propotion of black/white english and portugese runners.


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> YOU ARE.  Bloody hell.  Read this back in the morning and see what you think.




I'll think exactly the same as I think now..


you are a cunt....


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I beg to differ.  Perhaps you are unfamiliar with, or skeptical about, the phenomenon of *unconscious* racism?  I am not.



Name ONE unconscious racist on this thread, if you're confident enough to make the accusations, name and shame - if you have the guts.



> On the "Crack Dealers" thread we saw plenty of evidence that people *enjoy* the opportunity to slag off, abuse, and fantasize about imprisoning, beating and killing a group of people who just *happen* to be 95% black.



I don't think anyone contributing to that thread was speaking exclusively about Brixton's dealers, so that's one more point to prove you're extrapolating far more racist shit than is required.
Bullshitting, in other words.



> I see the same thing every day in the States, where people will go on about how much they hate "criminals" and want to see them suffer, and its so fucking obvious they mean black people.  Except to them.



Judging other people by your own shit standards - what do you expect?



> Oh, and less of the personal abuse, please.



Go fuck yourself PhilDwyer, you deluded cunt, and next time leave this topic to people who know what they're taking about.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

memespring said:
			
		

> I live in Brixton, right in the middle of the crack market as it happens, and 95% is bollocks.
> 
> Probably a majority ( 65-70%?), but that is still an unuseful figure. Crack dealing (in general terms) in brixton doesn't seem to split along racial lines. National background seems to be more important - e.g. there is a high proportion of jamacian street dealers, but an equally high propotion of black/white english and portugese runners.



So you're saying the dealers are mostly Jamaican but the runners are a mix of white and black English and (I presume) white and black Portuguese?  Even disregarding the distinction between runners and dealers, that works out as considerably more than 70% black, no?  And remember, I am talking about *street* dealers, not house dealers.


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> that he is doing very well.
> 
> he's done this exact same accusation on other threads, destroying them as well.



Why is he so obsessed with skin colour?

Is it because he's a racist cunt?

I've never taken much notice of his dull wannabe-politico ramblings before - but this is a fucking mental breakdown happening in front of our very own eyes, if you ask me.

He's losing it. Maybe he's been in the States too long.

It's very funny though.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Name ONE unconscious racist on this thread, if you're confident enough to make the accusations, name and shame - if you have the guts.



You.  Since you ask.


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You.  Since you ask.




 


quote an example please?


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You. Since you ask.



Clearly you know nothing about me... my life, friends, or background.

Proof if it were needed that you're mentally ill.

Plus you were throwing these accusations around way before I joined the thread... so who else?

You'd see racism in an episode of Teletubbies, fuckhead.


----------



## netbob (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> So you're saying the dealers are mostly Jamaican but the runners are a mix of white and black English and (I presume) white and black Portuguese?  Even disregarding the distinction between runners and dealers, that works out as considerably more than 70% black, no?  And remember, I am talking about *street* dealers, not house dealers.



I'm saying that race isnt the main issue in Brixton's drugs problems. Why your obsession with the point?


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

memespring said:
			
		

> I'm saying that race isnt the main issue in Brixton's drugs problems. Why your obsession with the point?



because that's his only point


----------



## netbob (Jan 17, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> because that's his only point



foolish troll boy


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Clearly you know nothing about me... my life, friends, or background.



Oh but I do.  I know that you frequently (some would say obsessively) advocate retributive justice against "criminals," without taking into account the role that systematic social deprivation has played in driving them to "crime."  The proof of this lies in the fact that "criminals" are disproportionately black, because black people are systematically socially deprived in the UK.  Therefore your advocacy of retributive justice against them is racist.  Since you are not conscious of this fact, it is *unconsciously* racist.  Any questions?


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

memespring said:
			
		

> foolish troll boy



me or him?

I'm not trolling BTW, I'm only pointing out philly boys obsession with race.

which seems to be the only point he seems to bring into any thread!


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

Hey Phildwyer...

*	
_How Fascist Were Plaid Cymru?_



> Not to suggest that any current members would describe themselves as such, but historically Plaid Cymru has been associated with right-wing nationalism, racism, and even fascism. Saunders Lewis, the Hitler-sympathizer, being the best-known example. This always prevented me from voting for them (before I gave up voting altogether), although I did like Ellis-Thomas and the Marxist wing of the party in the '80's. Anyone got any views or info on how deep the racist and fascist roots lie in PC? My guess would be that they are largely confined to the Gog/Crachach/linguistic fanatics, but how influential is that branch on the party's ideology? Would it even be worth starting a new party, explicitly dedicated to socialism from the outset, to rid Welsh nationalism of its embarrassing historical baggage?



Proof, if it were needed, that you are a completely deluded single-issue twat with no point whatsoever.

Get help.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

memespring said:
			
		

> I'm saying that race isnt the main issue in Brixton's drugs problems. Why your obsession with the point?



Well it is, if not the *most* important, surely *one* very important issue.  What conclusion do you draw from the fact that drug delars in Brixton are disporportionately black?  I draw the conclusion that drug dealers often take to their trade because of systematic social deprivation.  Then, from that, I draw the further conclusion that retributive justice is not the way to address the problem.  Rather, the systematic social deprivation ought to be addressed.  Do you see my point?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Hey Phildwyer....



And now you resort to dredging and searching through unrelated threads in a desperate attempt to reduce the issue to the ad hominem.  Why not address the issues I raise in my last reply to Memespring?


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And now you resort to dredging and searching through unrelated threads in a desperate attempt to reduce the issue to the ad hominem.  Why not address the issues I raise in my last reply to Memespring?



here's another dredging daft deluded fucker




> Criminalizing drug use merely perpetuates the cycle of anti-social behavior you find so objectionable. As well as providing an outlet for authoritarian and racist impulses, as we have amply witnessed on this thread.



on which thread you also refused to back up your claims made


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh but I do.  I know that you frequently (some would say obsessively) advocate retributive justice against "criminals," without taking into account the role that systematic social deprivation has played in driving them to "crime."  The proof of this lies in the fact that "criminals" are disproportionately black, because black people are systematically socially deprived in the UK.  Therefore your advocacy of retributive justice against them is racist.  Since you are not conscious of this fact, it is *unconsciously* racist.  Any questions?



So my anger directed at criminals is because they is black??

Newsflash, cunt - I live out in the country - the criminals I have to contend with are disproportionately white.

The paedophiles I rant against - again, disproportionately white.

Any minute now you'll be campaigning for more black criminals in the country, you deluded cunt.

What colour skin do you think I have?

 

Is it coz I is Phildwyer, innit? You fucking twat.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> here's another dredging daft deluded fucker



As I said to PK, who seems just as pissed as you if that's any comfort, why not try to address the issues I raise in my reply to Memespring (posst 225)?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> What colour skin do you think I have?



Pink.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> What colour skin do you think I have?



Or perhaps purple (presently)?


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well it is, if not the *most* important, surely *one* very important issue.  What conclusion do you draw from the fact that drug delars in Brixton are disporportionately black?  I draw the conclusion that drug dealers often take to their trade because of systematic social deprivation.  Then, from that, I draw the further conclusion that retributive justice is not the way to address the problem.  Rather, the systematic social deprivation ought to be addressed.  Do you see my point?



No sorry I don't, not at all.

how do you explain the lack of black drug dealers in other parts of the country?


or is Brixton a type of enclave, fenced off from the rest of existence?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> What colour skin do you think I have?



Can it be green?


----------



## editor (Jan 17, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> To be honest, this is becoming more and more typical of the U75 acceptable view, and why the whole bulletin board is going down the tubes.


Yes. The whole thing is _simply ruined forever_ because of this one unpleasant thread involving a microscopic fraction of its contributors.


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> As I said to PK, who seems just as pissed as you if that's any comfort, why not try to address the issues I raise in my reply to Memespring (posst 225)?



You don't raise any issues - you only serve to highlight the fact that you are mentally ill, mate.

And I've not had a drink for days... as it happens, proof again if it were needed that you're talking out of your arse.






Get help, Phildwyer, it's pitiful to see a man clearly in need of help rattling away on a public forum...


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> You don't raise any issues - you only serve to highlight the fact that you are mentally ill, mate.



Dude, I'm not going to get nasty with you. Check out post 225, see what you reckon, and post a decent response eh?


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Can it be green?



Yeah that'll be it. You got me.

I'm green with envy.

Phildwyer - you're a champion for black people the world over.

How can I be more like you, Phil?

 

Please tell me!


----------



## editor (Jan 17, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> No-one (from Brixton) willing to challenge it directly - just lend abuse..


Oh, and seeing as you seem to be slurring me with your vast brush, allow me to say that I've seen dealers of all colours in Brixton.

On the  Coldharbour Lane -> tube stretch, the majority are usually black (at least the ones who approach me), while in the clubs and pubs it's often white guys offering coke, Es and weed.

So, based on my experience, I can conclude that people of all colours deal drugs in Brixton.


----------



## editor (Jan 17, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> You don't raise any issues - you only serve to highlight the fact that you are mentally ill, mate.


And this is really out of order.


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Yes. The whole thing is _simply ruined forever_ because of this one unpleasant thread involving a microscopic fraction of its contributors.



I apologise if I'm part of that but I feel that I need to take this further for reasons that are obvious to myself.


FWIW I agree.....


----------



## editor (Jan 17, 2006)

Oh, and can I just dish out a general, all-purpose "CUT IT OUT FOR FUCK'S SAKE" because I can't be arsed to individually tell off people who _must_ know that they're breaking the FAQ in a multitude of ways?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> And this is really out of order.



Nah its not Ed, not as far as I'm concerned at least.  Nothing wrong with a bit of a flame war. But regarding your point above, remember that I was talking about *street* dealers: the guys who approach you on the street and offer to sell you crack, against whom most of the vitriol on this and other threads has been directed.  Aren't they, if not 95%, then certainly *disproportionately* black in Brixton?  And if so, doesn't this reflect systematic social deprivation?  And if so, doesn't this suggest that retributive justice is not the solution?


----------



## editor (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Aren't they, if not 95%, then certainly *disproportionately* black in Brixton?  And if so, doesn't this reflect systematic social deprivation?  And if so, doesn't this suggest that retributive justice is not the solution?


I'm not getting dragged into this.


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Dude, I'm not going to get nasty with you. Check out post 225, see what you reckon, and post a decent response eh?



I'm not your fucking "dude" - you just called me racist on the basis that YOU believe most criminals are black people.

I no longer live in the Brixton area - haven't done for several years now, where I live crimes are _disproportionately_ commited by little pink chav types.

You're just judging people by your own shit standards, and I genuinely believe that if you're actually being serious here, and I think you are, you need help.

Or a yellow tracksuit.


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Nah its not Ed, not as far as I'm concerned at least.  Nothing wrong with a bit of a flame war. But regarding your point above, remember that I was talking about *street* dealers: the guys who approach you on the street and offer to sell you crack, against whom most of the vitriol on this and other threads has been directed.  Aren't they, if not 95%, then certainly *disproportionately* black in Brixton?  And if so, doesn't this reflect systematic social deprivation?  And if so, doesn't this suggest that retributive justice is not the solution?




jeez man philly, Brixton is one area in England, will you please consider that just because there are black dealers on coldharbour lane it doesn't bode the same for the rest of the country, which if taken into account doesn't come anywhere near your mental assertion of 95%


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> And this is really out of order.



Is it?

Anyone with this kind of race-obsessed mentality needs to have a serious word with themselves.

Unless he's just pissing about, like.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> is there a problem in not liking being scamed?  are we at fault for not likin out personal space invaded  by people  after cash ... i get this sort of thing happen to me every few days  and  it is unplesent (and i don't have enough money to give to others either) does this dislike of bein scammed make me  "a smug member of the clucking, self satisfied middle class"  a bit of the pot callin the kettle black



What scam?

Anyone who's lived in a large city for any length of time can identify a street person or addict, whether or not they're telling you that they were just assaulted, or their car has broken down, or their wife is having a baby and they need $ to get their car out of the parking lot.

Since both we and the street people know what's going on, it just boils down to whether or not you want to give them money. I sympathise with women who get approached by males wanting money; I know they can get a little bit aggressive, and that's definitely not on. But that's different from simply having someone come up to you and ask you for money. It's a fact of urban life, and I still consider it unseemly for people with jobs and money to take pride in how they've outwitted desperate street drug addicts asking for a dollar or a pound.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I'm not your fucking "dude"



That's what *you* think.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I think the point is, Mr Canadian who doesn't live in Brixton and knows nothing about it, that getting hassled for money everyday gets a little wearing.  There's not a lot that we, as individuals, can actually do for these people.  Until there is a big change in our society with equal access to housing, social services, mental health services, more money for drugs services and a redistribution of wealth and power, these things are going to carry on and get worse.



What does living in Brixton have to do with it: do you think this problem is somehow unique to your location?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> you just called me racist on the basis that YOU believe most criminals are black people.



Show me where I said that and I will give you a million pounds.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> What colour skin do you think I have?



No, no, hang on, I've nearly got it... oooh... WHITE!  Am I right? Am I?  Like, du-uh.


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> jeez man philly, Brixton is one area in England, will you please consider that just because there are black dealers on coldharbour lane it doesn't bode the same for the rest of the country, which if taken into account doesn't come anywhere near your mental assertion of 95%



I'm amazed that Phildwyer, or anyone else for that matter, actually needs this explained to him.

Apart from the white supremacist types who equate everything that is wrong with this country, all the crime and social problems - it's all the fault of black people according to some people... some fucking ignorant people.

I just didn't think Phildwyer was one of them.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> jeez man philly, Brixton is one area in England, will you please consider that just because there are black dealers on coldharbour lane it doesn't bode the same for the rest of the country, which if taken into account doesn't come anywhere near your mental assertion of 95%



I know.  That is why I limited my assertion to Brixton.  As you must have noticed.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 17, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> ...I still consider it unseemly for people with jobs and money to take pride in how they've outwitted desperate street drug addicts asking for a dollar or a pound.


Not all of us have jobs or (much) money.  I expect I spend far less money each week than someone with a serious drug habit, although luckily for me I probably have more money left at the end each week.


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I know.  That is why I limited my assertion to Brixton.  As you must have noticed.




even though you are far from right with 95% you would still cherry pick an area that will help you argue a half baked theory more than any other area in GB.



why, what are you trying to pull off here?


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I know.  That is why I limited my assertion to Brixton.  As you must have noticed.



I think your "limits" have been noticed by everyone reading.

You're full of shit.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> no but where is your fucking evidence, I've asked on the other thread but you fucked off calling people rascist and you are starting to do it on this thread as well..
> 
> evidence or fuck off with your shite



It must be pretty obvious to Brixton residents if most of the crack dealers they come across are black.

Is it true, or isn't it?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I am asking you how you came up with this figure, not asking you to do an impression of parrot, however impressive.



Are most of the crack dealers you encounter on Coldharbour Lane etc black, or not?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Are most of the crack dealers you encounter on Coldharbour Lane etc black, or not?



Answer!  And what percentage?


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Answer!  And what percentage?




FFS  JC2 is canadian.....


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Not all of us have jobs or (much) money.  I expect I spend far less money each week than someone with a serious drug habit, although luckily for me I probably have more money left at the end each week.



Ok, but how does that change what I said, that I consider it unseemly for people with jobs and money to do this?

As well, it's my assumption that the you're not shabbily dressed etc, so how are the street people supposed to know that you're on benefits, and therefore should leave you alone?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> FFS  JC2 is canadian.....



Answer his question.


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Answer his question.




whose fucking question idiot?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> FFS  JC2 is canadian.....



How is that relevant?

I suspect that if I were to walk five blocks from my present location in any direction, I'd get hit up for money, or offered drugs, more times than you would if you were to do the same thing.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> whose fucking question idiot?



Johnny Canuck's.  Will you now answer him?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> whose fucking question idiot?



This question: when you walk through brixton, are most of the crack dealers you encounter black?

I don't know, because I don't live there.

In the area around my present location, the bulk of them would be hispanic, mostly Honduran.


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> How is that relevant?



because he's on about Brixton, in fact one fucking road in Brixton, and he's asking you what percentage of the drug dealers on this one street are black.

you as a canadian would have no idea of that, or do you?


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> It must be pretty obvious to Brixton residents if most of the crack dealers they come across are black.
> 
> Is it true, or isn't it?



I've walked the length of Coldharbour Lane many, many times, and of the dealers that openly offer drugs sure, the first lot are black, but you get past the Dogstar, I've been offered weed down there by white lads too, so I'd say it was about 75 percent... 

95 percent is bollocks.

Phildwyer calls me a racist for being vocal about criminal activity - he's the one making the supposition that 95 percent of crime is carried out by blacks people, and that I'm supposedly slagging off thieving crack dealing cunts because, secretly I'm just desperate to make it some kind of race war or something - I point out that I live in the country, and that there just aren't the number of black criminals out here - then Phildwyer is unable to say a fucking thing.

You think I'm racist JC2?

Do you go in for this Phildwyer shit, that complaining about crime is hiding a deep-seated racist attitude??

Because I know a few black people, and they moan just as bad as I do, if not worse, about the shit state things are in... and they don't give any more of a fuck about skin colour than I do.


----------



## editor (Jan 17, 2006)

Can't you lot leave my street alone, please?!


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> because he's on about Brixton, in fact one fucking road in Brixton, and he's asking you what percentage of the drug dealers on this one street are black.
> 
> you as a canadian would have no idea of that, or do you?



Why will no-one answer Johnny Canuck's question?  Is it not because this answer must *expose* their attitude towards crack dealers as implicitly racist?


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Johnny Canuck's.  Will you now answer him?



I don't live in that street I'm afraid, it's to small an area to get an *accurate* percentage of black drug dealers compared to other races.

do you get it yet you idiot?


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Why will no-one answer Johnny Canuck's question?  Is it not because this answer must *expose* their attitude towards crack dealers as implicitly racist?




jeez, I'm giving up with this fool....


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I've walked the length of Coldharbour Lane many, many times, and of the dealers that openly offer drugs sure, the first lot are black, but you get past the Dogstar, I've been offered weed down there by white lads too, so I'd say it was about 75 percent....



*Crack,* idiot, we're talking about *crack,* not weed, in Brixton not "Lambeth or south London as a whole," you know what we're talking about, why don't you be honest for once in your life?


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Can't you lot leave my street alone, please?!



tell phill to stop his whining rascist drivel then, he's the one that has degenerated this thread into this farce about one street in Brixton....


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Because I know a few black people



Congratulations mate.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 17, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Are most of the crack dealers you encounter on Coldharbour Lane etc black, or not?


Difficult to say.

Coldharbour Lane stretches all the way from Brixton to Camberwell. It sounds like phildwyer is talking about a 100 yeard strech at the Brixton end, so I will make a comment about that:

I have never been offered crack, only had people saying "weed". This in itself proves nothing.

I have posted a quote on the other from the National Criminal Intelligence Service about the supply of crack in the UK.

I have also asked what percentage of people selling newspapers in Brixton are "black".

Interesting that phildwyer first of all made a comment about what people think about crack users and dealers generally and has now narrowed the whole debate down to one small stretch of road, to try and prove that people who dislike crack dealers, dislike their behaviour because they are racist.

This whole thing stinks of shit.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Phildwyer calls me a racist for being vocal about criminal activity - he's the one making the supposition that 95 percent of crime is carried out by blacks people



If you can show me where I said that, I will give you a million pounds.  You are a *liar,* sir.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> because he's on about Brixton, in fact one fucking road in Brixton, and he's asking you what percentage of the drug dealers on this one street are black.
> 
> you as a canadian would have no idea of that, or do you?



That's right, I have no idea. That's why I'm asking you brixton residents to tell me.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I've walked the length of Coldharbour Lane many, many times, and of the dealers that openly offer drugs sure, the first lot are black, but you get past the Dogstar, I've been offered weed down there by white lads too, so I'd say it was about 75 percent...
> 
> 95 percent is bollocks.
> 
> ...



We're talking crack dealers, not weed dealers.

Knowing you as well as it's possible to know someone via a BB, I feel quite sure that you aren't racist. However, I agree with phil that the makeup of the people commiting a certain act or crime, can affect society's perception of the crime.

It's been said many times on these boards that the death penalty in the US is likely more acceptable there because the usual recipient of it is black.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> I don't live in that street I'm afraid, it's to small an area to get an *accurate* percentage of black drug dealers compared to other races.
> 
> do you get it yet you idiot?



Your refusal to give a straight answer tells me all I need to know.


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> That's right, I have no idea. That's why I'm asking you brixton residents to tell me.




not 95% as stated, that's for sure

added that phills statistics are pulled out of his hat on a ridiculously small area to get an accurate percentage.


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> *Crack,* idiot, we're talking about *crack,* not weed, in Brixton not "Lambeth or south London as a whole," you know what we're talking about, why don't you be honest for once in your life?



You're not being honest here yourself.

I've already pointed out that I no longer live in Brixton.

And dealings I have had, or friends have had, with crack have been on a majority from white people, not black people, the crack dealer that fucked up a friend of mine was white, the friend who lost it all was white... so my rants against the crack trade - based mainly on the experience of watching friends fuck up - were in no way based on skin colour.

Which makes you a lying little cunt.

As for crack dealers - not that common for a dealer to march up and offer crack straight away, you get the "weed, weed, e's" and occasionally "coke" but I can't remember the last time I was offered crack, certainly not recently.

Maybe I'm just not black enough, Phildwyer... how are you finding the crack market in the USA?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> not 95% as stated, that's for sure
> 
> added that phills statistics are pulled out of his hat on a ridiculously small area to get an accurate percentage.



When I read his post, I didn't think that he meant '95%' literally, and it's specious to pretend that he did. We all do things like that, when what we want to imply is: 'the great majority'.


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Your refusal to give a straight answer tells me all I need to know.



and your loaded statements tell me all I need to know.

definitey not 95%, how's that lawyer boy

the actual percentage for that tiny demographic area is meaningless when the whole of London or even the whole of England is taken into account


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> When I read his post, I didn't think that he meant '95%' literally, and it's specious to pretend that he did. We all do things like that, when what we want to imply is: 'the great majority'.



well in that case use the fucking correct terminology


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> and your loaded statements tell me all I need to know.
> 
> definitey not 95%, how's that lawyer boy
> 
> the actual percentage for that tiny demographic area is meaningless when the whole of London or even the whole of England is taken into account



So what? The biggest problem is probably in urban areas, just like it is here.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 17, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> As well, it's my assumption that the you're not shabbily dressed etc, so how are the street people supposed to know that you're on benefits, and therefore should leave you alone?


I make it easy for them - I tell them. They should leave people alone anyway - I'd like them to go and access the services available to them, housing, food, medical care and services aimed at people with drugs problems.

If people are going to ask for money on the street they should sell the Big Issue, busk, try and offer some kind of quid pro quo (in SF I saw people helping motorists park their car into tight spaces, one guy even offered to recite a poem for me  ). At the very least they could sit out of the way with a hat or sign.

What they shouldn't do is tell complete lies (it means that people won't help anyone even people who have had a genuine problem), intimidate, chase and generally harass people, or rob them. There isn't any excuse and they can fuck off.

There isn't an automatic link between this and crack dealing and use in an area, but there is a fairly strong link - the two things tend to be very closely correlated, along with violent attacks.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> well in that case use the fucking correct terminology



I didn't realize we were in English class here.


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> So what? The biggest problem is probably in urban areas, just like it is here.



and the biggest percentage of English drug dealers are white.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I make it easy for them - I tell them. They should leave people alone anyway - I'd like them to go and access the services available to them, housing, food, medical care and services aimed at people with drugs problems.
> 
> If people are going to ask for money on the street they should sell the Big Issue, busk, try and offer some kind of quid pro quo (in SF I saw people helping motorists park their car into tight spaces, one guy even offered to recite a poem for me  ). At the very least they could sit out of the way with a hat or sign.
> 
> ...



When I look at street people, I make the assumption that most of them would rather not be there.

Studies here have shown that lots of them, especially the younger ones, come from bad family situations, with sexual and violent abuse etc, and that to them, living on the street is prefereable. 

They've talked to crystal meth addicts on the street here, and a lot of them say that one of the reasons they like it, is that it's cheap, and it keeps them awake, because falling asleep at night in the kind of places they're forced to hang out, ie  alleys and doorways, is a life-threatening proposition.

I expect that a lot of these people don't have a lot in the way of skills to get money in other ways. It might be a little unfair to pass such harsh judgement on them.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> and the biggest percentage of English drug dealers are white.



Probably. Most of your population is white.


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Probably. Most of your population is white.



agreed, so how does one street in Brixton dictate how a bloke in leeds deals with his local white drug dealers, does that also make him rascist when he's sick of it?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> agreed, so how does one street in Brixton dictate how a bloke in leeds deals with his local white drug dealers, does that also make him rascist when he's sick of it?



When I look back at what phil said, I don't see anything about Leeds.

Anyway, I have to go for beer with friends. On the way, in honour of this thread, I'm going to find the dirtiest, skankiest street person, and give them five dollars.

Nighty night.


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Difficult to say.
> 
> Coldharbour Lane stretches all the way from Brixton to Camberwell. It sounds like phildwyer is talking about a 100 yeard strech at the Brixton end, so I will make a comment about that:
> 
> ...



Totally agree.

In the immediate area between the Brixton tube station and the KFC, a disproportionate percent of the dealers there at night will possibly be black.

Unlikely to be offering crack unless you look like a crackhead.

But this is an area of maybe 50 yards.

Hardly representative of the whole of Brixton.

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.s...=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf

For the benefit of those not familiar with the area, such as Phildwyer, the above map shows the area he is talking about, a tiny area that doesn't even begin to represent Brixton as a whole.

Being a predominantly black area means it will of course have a higher proportion of crime committed by black people, same as Milton Keynes or Tunbridge Wells will have a higher proportion of crime committed by white people.

I don't like crack dealers because I've seen first hand the damage crack can do to people. I don't care what colour your skin is - if you sell crack you're a cunt.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 17, 2006)

We are talking about crack dealers on CHL?

That isn't what this thread is about.

Phildwyer is making a completely bogus argument - that people dislike shitty behaviour because of racism.

A lot of shitty behaviour arises from drug *users* and the majority of them are "white".

The last time someone harassed me on CHL (actually in neighbouring Rushcroft and Saltoun Road which are darker and more tucked away) it was a "white" guy.

In any case, both the general arguement and particular one about CHL are bogus.


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> When I look back at what phil said, I don't see anything about Leeds.



when I look at the thread I also see nothing about a tiny part of Brixton either, let alone any assertions stating that it's rascist to have a problem with drug dealers.

touche but I think you realise what I'm trying to point out.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 17, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I expect that a lot of these people don't have a lot in the way of skills to get money in other ways. It might be a little unfair to pass such harsh judgement on them.


I'm passing harsh judgement on them? 

I said that I have a problem with getting money off people in certain ways, but have a lot less of a problem if they go about getting money in other ways.

For what its worth I have had a homeless person living with me for the past few years (admittedly in a caravan in the garden) so its not like I think that street people are scum. He has finally got a council flat and I recently helped him move in. I have also taken in people at the place I lived before that to the point where the 2 bedromm flat had 6 people living there (and only two of us paying the rent). I have helped friends break squats and me and my friends are always having people crash over, sleeping on floors and sofas.

I don't really like bragging about what a great persopn I am and how charitable I am - my arguments should stand on their own not because I want everyone to believe that I am somehow entitled to claim superiority or whatever, but in this case I'd like to point out that I am not judging people harshly for being homeless or using drugs. A lot of people on u75 have been there and have friends who still are.

I still think that it is fair enough to tell people - of any skin colour - who are behaving in a really shit way to go fuck themselves. Yes they should get help but that doesn't excuse them fucking up other people.


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

For the record - Phil*bonkers*Dwyer didn't mention crack, initially...


Originally Posted by phildwyer



> Sure. 95% of the people dealing cocaine on the streets of Brixton are black. Therefore, opposition to and hatred of coke dealers is the perfect vehicle for racists to vent their vile spleen in a socially acceptable manner. We see many prize examples on this thread.



95% of Brixton cocaine dealers are not black.

All the rest from Phil*duurrr*Dwyer is pathetic backpeddling, strawmen, and bullshit.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 17, 2006)

Notice as well how he moves from talking about "opposition to and hatred of coke dealers is the perfect vehicle for racists" to talking about a small stretch of road?

His arguments are often a load of illogical crap - remember his "rational proof of god's existance" thread? I don't think one single person agree with him that he had proved anything of the sort, yet he continued to tell everyone that he had. 

Completely self deluded or just being a wind-up merchant?


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

I wonder if he actually knows any black people?

He seems to be so convinced that 95 percent of all black people are criminal, maybe he's terrified to leave the house...


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> He seems to be so convinced that 95 percent of all black people are criminal...



If you can show me where I said that I will give you a million pounds, liar.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> He seems to be so convinced that 95 percent of all black people are criminal..



What makes you think you can get away with this statement?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> He seems to be so convinced that 95 percent of all black people are criminal..



And finally, either justify this claim or retract it, with an apology.
Everyone can easily see that it is untrue.  You shame yourself by making it.  You will shame yourself more if you do not retract it.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And finally, either justify this claim or retract it, with an apology.


Since we seem to be making demands how about "dwyer - shut the fuck up unless you have something coherent to say which you can back up with some kind of evidence"? I don't expect you will comply. I don't know why you expect anyone to listen to you after the amount of crap you have posted. You could try starting to use logic and rational argument rather than utter tripe


> Everyone can easily see that it is untrue.  You shame yourself by making it.  You will shame yourself more if you do not retract it.


Funny, this is what everyone was saying about your "proof of god" thread. 

Shame? Dwyer you don't know the meaning of the word.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 17, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> To be honest, this is becoming more and more typical of the U75 acceptable view, and why the whole bulletin board is going down the tubes. No-one (from Brixton) willing to challenge it directly - just lend abuse..


 Happy to.

Plenty of dealers in the Brixton area are white but - durrrrr - not all dealers operate from street corners. Those who do are at the bottom of the food chain.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Happy to.
> 
> Plenty of dealers in the Brixton area are white but - durrrrr - not all dealers operate from street corners. Those who do are at the bottom of the food chain.



And those who do are, in the vast majority, black.  Anyone who says this is "not an issue" is a racist.  Would they say that it is "not an issue" that those in prison are diproportionately black?

We have grown accustomed on these boards to PK's swaggering calls for vigilante justice, his fervant advocacy of torture, his badge-sniffing idolatry of the police and in general the violent swinging of his tiny truncheon.

But this time he has truly shown his colours.  He should apologize immediately for his reactionary outbursts of last night.  Since he is presumably sober this morning, I now give him a final opportunity to do so.


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And those who do are, in the vast majority, black.  Anyone who says this is "not an issue" is a racist.  Would they say that it is "not an issue" that those in prison are diproportionately black?
> 
> We have grown accustomed on these boards to PK's swaggering calls for vigilante justice, his fervant advocacy of torture, his badge-sniffing idolatry of the police and in general the violent swinging of his tiny truncheon.
> 
> But this time he has truly shown his colours.  He should apologize immediately for his reactionary outbursts of last night.  Since he is presumably sober this morning, I now give him a final opportunity to do so.



put it this way Philly, I'm not apologising to you, I think you have an axe to grind somewhere along the line, hence all your non topic shite.

you think that it's rascist to have problems with drug dealers because you *think* 95% of them are black in one tiny demographic area of your choosing, you haven't come out with *any * evidence to back your claim up at all.

so you trot out the rascist card on *anyone* that questions your theory..you are not willing to discuss your tinpot theory with anyone...

you just keep repeating that mantra....does it make you feel smug?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 17, 2006)

oh bollocks, I can't be bothered.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Anyone who says this is "not an issue" is a racist. <blah> <snip>


 Oh do fuck off.


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Oh do fuck off.



impossible ain't he?


----------



## Maggot (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Sure.  95% of the people dealing cocaine on the streets of Brixton are black.  Therefore, opposition to and hatred of coke dealers is the perfect vehicle for racists to vent their vile spleen in a socially acceptable manner.  We see many prize examples on this thread.




I don't think the argument about what percentage of dealers are black is a particularly useful one. I don't care if it's 55%  or 95%, but to say that someone is racist beacuse they are against a group of people of whom the majority belong to a certain race is ridiculous. It's like saying you hate the police, 95% (or whatever) of police are white, therefore you are racist against white people. Also Phildwyer doesn't know the difference between crack and cocaine, which adds to his confusion.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2006)

I've lived in Brixton for 3 years and been out in Brixton for over 10.
No-one's ever offered me crack.
Are the guys who want you to buy skunk also crack dealers or are crack dealers a different creatures altogether?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 17, 2006)

Now I may have got the wrong end of the stick here, but if the sainted phildwyer says that *"Sure. 95% of the people dealing cocaine on the streets of Brixton are black"* Then why oh why is he constantly referring to CHL and CHL only?

Surely he isn't pigshit-thick enough to believe that you can extrapolate the ethnic derivation of *all* of Brixton's cocaine dealers from the small overall sample that CHL provides?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

Just to stop the silliness for a moment, this is actually a fascinating philosophical issue, which I'll briefly summarize for you here.  Let's agree that a disproportionate amount of those convicted of "crime" in Western countries are people of colour.  That's a simple fact, no point denying it. Now, it seems to me that there are three possible modes of response to this fact:

1.  Ignore it, say it "isn't an issue," suggest that the situation is pure chance, an accident without any cause or meaning, shhh we don't say things like that around here etc.  This is the response of most people on this thread.  I call it the "unconsciously racist" response.

2.  Conclude that people of colour an inherently criminal, predatory and dangerous.  I call this the "consciously racist" response.

3.  Conclude that people of colour are systematically oppressed and victimized in Western societies.  I call this the "totalizing" response, because it takes into account the *totality* of the situation.

See?  Interesting!  Its amazing what you can learn off these boards sometimes.  Of course there's much more to it than that, but I have to go for a bit, maybe I will explain later on.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Just to stop the silliness for a moment, this is actually a fascinating philosophical issue, which I'll briefly summarize for you here.  Let's agree that a disproportionate amount of those convicted of "crime" in Western countries are people of colour.  That's a simple fact, no point denying it. Now, it seems to me that there are three possible modes of response to this fact:
> 
> 1.  Ignore it, say it "isn't an issue," suggest that the situation is pure chance, an accident without any cause or meaning, shhh we don't say things like that around here etc.  This is the response of most people on this thread.  I call it the "unconsciously racist" response.
> 
> ...




Don't knock yourself out.


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Now I may have got the wrong end of the stick here, but if the sainted phildwyer says that *"Sure. 95% of the people dealing cocaine on the streets of Brixton are black"*


* 

it'll wreck his loaded agenda, he needs that 95% to call everyone rascist that has a problem with crack dealers anywhere  in the country.

" there was this crack dealing cunt in my face down a back alley in Newcastle"

philly's reply " you're rascist because 95% of crack dealers on CHL are black"*


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Don't knock yourself out.



No problem man. I can do this stuff in my sleep.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 17, 2006)

Certainly in my experience *all* the street dealers I have met (and bought drugs from) in Brixton have been black. Given the constant abuse towards street dealers in Brixton on this site, I tend to conclude that this abuse is a handy mask for some peoples racist attitudes.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Certainly in my experience *all* the street dealers I have met (and bought drugs from) in Brixton have been black. Given the constant abuse towards street dealers in Brixton on this site, I tend to conclude that this abuse is a handy mask for some peoples racist attitudes.



Yes, clearly.  But the word "mask" is a bit misleading, for it implies a deliberate deception.  I don't think these people are *conscious* of their racism, obvious though it may be to others.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No problem man. I can do this stuff in my sleep.



What, talk shite?

I'd noticed!


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Certainly in my experience *all* the street dealers I have met (and bought drugs from) in Brixton have been black. Given the constant abuse towards street dealers in Brixton on this site, I tend to conclude that this abuse is a handy mask for some peoples racist attitudes.




I disagree, you seem to be mistake the distaste of peoples anger over "in yer face", aggresive drug dealing ( whatever their colour) for rascism.


The colour of the perpertrator makes no difference, it's the actions that matter.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes, clearly.  But the word "mask" is a bit misleading, for it implies a deliberate deception.  I don't think these people are *conscious* of their racism, obvious though it may be to others.



I am pretty certain that the same people would regard themselves as non racists. But I think many are wrong in practice and have racist atitudes that they do not recognise.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 17, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> I disagree, you seem to be mistake the distaste of peoples anger over "in yer face", aggresive drug dealing ( whatever their colour) for rascism.
> 
> 
> The colour of the perpertrator makes no difference, it's the actions that matter.



I have never ever had anyone being in your face with me, no more say than a person selling the Evening Blackshirt (aka Standard).


----------



## snadge (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> I have never ever had anyone being in your face with me, no more say than a person selling the Evening Blackshirt (aka Standard).




other people have though, not having a go


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 17, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> it'll wreck his loaded agenda, he needs that 95% to call everyone rascist that has a problem with crack dealers *anywhere*  in the country.
> 
> " there was this crack dealing cunt in my face down a back alley in Newcastle"
> 
> philly's reply " you're rascist because 95% of crack dealers on CHL are black"



Personally I''ve only ever been offered crack (along with smack) *once* on CHL (or anywhere else in Brixton for that matter) and that was by a white bloke.
Have been offered skunk/hash/grass/weed/Thai stick (yep, I'm *that* old!) thousands of times in the last 25 years on CHL, mostly by "black" or Portugese blokes, but nothing worse. 
I used to buy most of my assorted pharmacopeia from a nice Cantonese geezer on Stockwell Park estate, mainly because he was (right up till the mid-nineties) still able to get hold of opium latex.

Maybe Phil just has the sort of raddled phizzog that makes people on CHL  think he wants/needs crack?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 17, 2006)

opium latex.

Dribbles...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> I am pretty certain that the same people would regard themselves as non racists. But I think many are wrong in practice and have racist atitudes that they do not recognise.


If you dig deep enough then that would hold true even of our doubtless-sainted phildwyer.
"Fear of the other" is part of human nature. Even when you strive to wipe that fear from your conscious mind, your subconscious retains it. The trick is to *know* that you're not free of that sort of attitude, and to police yourself accordingly.

It's like the hoary old "all men are rapists" argument. The *potential* to rape is present in all men, just as the *potential* to be "racist" is present in everyone (regardless of skin colour) , that doesn't mean that everybody acts out their impulses, just that a (thankfully) small percentage succumb to them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> opium latex.
> 
> Dribbles...



I used (don't anymore 'cos it's so difficult to get hold of) it to supplement my morphine sulphate prescription (for chronic pain from an injury) as well as to float away on. Much more effective than taking the next step up the analgesia ladder (diamorphine).


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 17, 2006)

Street dealers in predominanlty "white" towns are going to be white. Does this mean people against dealers in those town are anti-white?

Saying that people who are against dealers must be racist is just absurd, imo. Dislike of in-your-face antisocial drug dealing has got absulutely nothing to do with the colour of the dealers.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 17, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Street dealers in predominanlty "white" towns are going to be white. Does this mean people against dealers in those town are anti-white?
> 
> Saying that people who are against dealers must be racist is just absurd, imo. Dislike of in-your-face antisocial drug dealing has got absulutely nothing to do with the colour of the dealers.




The fact remains that the people here banging on endlessly about brixton street dealers are mainly white and the street dealers are mainly black and that many of the former like to take drugs. I get the impression that many will be happier when the continued migration of black people to croydon speeds up with rising housing costs and endless gentrification.


----------



## netbob (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> The fact remains that the people here banging on endlessly about brixton street dealers are mainly white and the street dealers are mainly black and that many of the former like to take drugs. I get the impression that many will be happier when the continued migration of black people to croydon speeds up with rising housing costs and endless gentrification.



I hear what you are saying, and there probably are a minorioty of people who think like that (unconciously or otherwise). But surely you aren't suggesting that white people are not allowed to complain about people dealing crack (black or otherwise)?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 17, 2006)

Not online, but on my estate it's black people who are most vociferous about drugs and dealing at Tenant's meetings.


----------



## netbob (Jan 17, 2006)

The Market Traders Federation, hardly the buldozer of gentrification, are also very vocal about dealing in the market.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 17, 2006)

...and it's a complete myth that the street dealers are mostly black. Perhaps people only see the black dealers because of their own prejudices.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 17, 2006)

memespring said:
			
		

> I hear what you are saying, and there probably are a minorioty of people who think like that (unconciously or otherwise). But surely you aren't suggesting that white people are not allowed to complain about people dealing crack (black or otherwise)?



I think you have the *right* to slagg of anything you don't like. But sometimes people will wonder why you get so upset and so on. I find in Brixton a simple "no thankyou" suffices and I am known as a cusomer too.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 17, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> ...and it's a complete myth that the street dealers are mostly black. Perhaps people only see the black dealers because of their own prejudices.



Never ever had a white stret dealer offer me anything in brixton.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 17, 2006)

I have *plenty* of times. I've been here 25 years. The one time I was really really scared by them (as in threatened with violence if I didn't buy, even though I am not a punter) it was a white guy.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 17, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> on my estate it's black people who are most vociferous about drugs and dealing at Tenant's meetings.


Indeed. What do people have to say to this (accurate) observation?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> The fact remains that the people here banging on endlessly about brixton street dealers are mainly white and the street dealers are mainly black and that many of the former like to take drugs.



I believe the word is "hypocrisy."


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 17, 2006)

anyway, cherrybaby, as your modus operandi since the moment you arrived has been troll,troll, stir-em-up, snigger, snigger, I take every word you say with a bushel of salt, so as far I am concerned anything you say about anything is likely to be said only for effect and probably untrue.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 17, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> What scam?
> 
> Anyone who's lived in a large city for any length of time can identify a street person or addict, whether or not they're telling you that they were just assaulted, or their car has broken down, or their wife is having a baby and they need $ to get their car out of the parking lot.
> 
> Since both we and the street people know what's going on, it just boils down to whether or not you want to give them money.



if you had read the begining of the thread you would have seen people  say things alon the lines of "although it looks like a scam i'm worried that one day i will turn down someone who really does need help"

i have no problem with people  asking for money  i just perfer they didn't spin some scam or  get  overly up close and personal


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 17, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> anyway, cherrybaby, as your modus operandi since the moment you arrived has been troll,troll, stir-em-up, snigger, snigger, I take every word you say with a bushel of salt, so as far I am concerned anything you say about anything is likely to be said only for effect and probably untrue.



Oh go and have a lie down dear.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 17, 2006)

btw, cherrybaby and phildwyer, from what I can make out from their postings, don't even live in Brixton, so their 'Brixton dealing expertise' ain't worth a fly on a dollop of shite as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 17, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Indeed. What do people have to say to this (accurate) observation?



It rings true!


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Indeed. What do people have to say to this (accurate) observation?



In my experience, black people, although indeed vociferously opposed to drug dealing on the street, tend to blame the problem on the *customers.*  Quite right too.  I have previously drawn the analogy between blaming the dealers and the USA blaming Colombia for *its* drug problem.  If there were no demand, there would be no supply.  But what I truly cannot stomach is for the *customers themselves* to complain about the dealers.  And by "customers" I mean those who buy drugs anywhere, since they are fuelling the trade which leads to the street dealing.  Blatant and shameless hypocrisy of the first water.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 17, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> btw, cherrybaby and phildwyer, from what I can make out from their postings, don't even live in Brixton, so their 'Brixton dealing expertise' ain't worth a fly on a dollop of shite as far as I'm concerned.



I don't live in brixton but often buy drugs there.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> btw, cherrybaby and phildwyer, from what I can make out from their postings, don't even live in Brixton, so their 'Brixton dealing expertise' ain't worth a fly on a dollop of shite as far as I'm concerned.



Can't speak for Cherrybaby, but I am often to be found in Brixton.


----------



## netbob (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> I think you have the *right* to slagg of anything you don't like. But sometimes people will wonder why you get so upset and so on. I find in Brixton a simple "no thankyou" suffices and I am known as a cusomer too.



That's what I do too generally when offered weed on the High Street, but the crack dealers/users on Brixton Market and (apparently) Rushcroft  are a different matter and that kind of approach doesn't always work.

As an example it took my other-half 15 minutes to get into her flat the other night because a crackhead barged past her on the way though the gate. He then sat down on the stairs giviving her the try-on, blowing crack smoke in her face and refusing to let her past. He only left after he was done smoking and after a lot of pleading.

As far as white dealers go, there were two white girls dealing (70% sure anyway) on Brixton Market this morning.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 17, 2006)

Well I live in Brixton (have done since the late 1970s), am NOT a drugs customer and am FED UP with all the dealers AND their customers.


----------



## rennie (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> I don't live in brixton but often buy drugs there.




thank you for keeping the dealers in business.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 17, 2006)

reNnIe said:
			
		

> thank you for keeping the dealers in business.



Well if i could go and buy weed or indeed hash from a shop I would do so. I can't so on the occasions when i want some I might go to brixton or sometimes camden.

Perhaps one of the dealers on u75 who ant to string up the street dealers might be able to sort me?   Nah, thought not.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 17, 2006)

i live in brixton and have done so all my life... i have never once been offered crack for a start    and   those who have offered me drugs have been of a variety of  races (certainly not 95% black) but  generally  they don't offer me any drugs because  they  see me often and i don’t buy anything  so they all leave me alone   and  to be honest i'm not bothered by them (but this is probably  because  they  prefer to use more aggressive tactics on other people i'm guessing)

my original point  was not   that i hated  drug dealers   or drug users   just  that i hated people trying to scam me  because   i feel  that one day i might  say no to a person who needs help  ...  and it's probably that feeling that keeps me giving out  a little  money   when i have some (though generally to the people  who look like they really need a meal - it's hard to tell)


----------



## netbob (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> I don't live in brixton but often buy drugs there.



Well would you mind stopping please. Where the fuck do you think your money ends up? Fueling peoples crack habbits maybe?

You are a drugs tourist and I claim my £5


----------



## pooka (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> I don't live in brixton but often buy drugs there.



Could you go and buy them someplace else then, please? We live with the consequences and some poor sods die with them.


----------



## editor (Jan 17, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Perhaps people only see the black dealers because of their own prejudices.


Nah,that's rubbish.

It's not a case of who I "see", it's a simple observation of who's approached me or shouted across the street at me when I'm walking down Coldharbour Lane at night, and the majority of those people have indeed been black, but not exclusively so.

Conversely, the majority of people who have come up to me offering (or asking for) drugs in pubs and clubs have been predominantly white.

Not sure where this is all leading though. The majority of drunk twats I see at night in Brixton are white. A large percentage of street junkies are European.

We could keep breaking down behaviour into our own personally observed ethnic groups but I can't see what point is being made here. Perhaps someone could explain it for me?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 17, 2006)

memespring said:
			
		

> Well would you mind stopping please. Where the fuck do you think your money ends up? Fueling peoples crack habbits maybe?
> 
> You are a drugs tourist and I claim my £5



Well the fella who I usually buy off is out in all weathers and has a family not a crack habit to support, I know this as I see him about with his nippers from time to time.

Perhaps you would prefer him to work in Mcdonalds?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

memespring said:
			
		

> Well would you mind stopping please. Where the fuck do you think your money ends up? Fueling peoples crack habbits maybe?



Unless you oppose *all* drug dealing your argument is inconsistent.  Do you?


----------



## editor (Jan 17, 2006)

pooka said:
			
		

> Could you go and buy them someplace else then, please? We live with the consequences and some poor sods die with them.


I'd go along with that please. 

It's the fucking drug tourists who have created most of the problems, not the dealers.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 17, 2006)

I didn't think it was possible for cherrybaby to sink any lower in my estimation of him/her. Just goes to show, dunnit? 

btw the guy who threatened to smash my face in if I didn't buy smack off him was probably hoping to offload talc (if indeed if any transaction at all) as he was so strung-out it was obvious he was desperate to get money for drugs.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Nah,that's rubbish.
> 
> It's not a case of who I "see", it's a simple observation of who's approached me or shouted across the street at me when I'm walking down Coldharbour Lane at night, and the majority of those people have indeed been black, but not exclusively so.
> 
> ...



See post 314 above.  That's my point anyway.


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 17, 2006)

It is views such as these that get (majority) white folks coming up to me in clubs saying 'got any pills?' What is it about a 6ft black guy that screams drug dealer to these people?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 17, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I'd go along with that please.
> 
> It's the fucking drug tourists who have created most of the problems, not the dealers.




I saw you ripped to the tits on NYE, where did you buy yours eh? Get the approval of local residents of that locality eh?


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 17, 2006)

pooka said:
			
		

> Could you go and buy them someplace else then, please? We live with the consequences and some poor sods die with them.


Indeed.

As memespring said, it's far from unknown for dealers to be white and (gasp) female.  

The street dealers are small fry but it's poxy drug tourists who create the demand, with disastrous consequences for everyone.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> I saw you ripped to the tits on NYE, where did you buy yours eh? Get the approval of local residents of that locality eh?


Greene King. Kent based I believe.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> I saw you ripped to the tits on NYE, where did you buy yours eh? Get the approval of local residents of that locality eh?



How are tricks Hatboy?


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 17, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Greene King. Kent based I believe.


 And we all know who the biggest Greene King dealer in the 'hood is.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 17, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Greene King. Kent based I believe.



alcohol tourist!


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 17, 2006)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> How are tricks Hatboy?


 Nah, I don't think so.  Too reactionary.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> It's the fucking drug tourists who have created most of the problems, not the dealers.



I agree with this, although I don't see them as "problems."  But I don't understand your definition of a "drug tourist."  Is it just someone who buys drugs on the street?  Why is that any more reprehensible than buying them in a house?  Either way you're fuelling the drug trade.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 17, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Nah,that's rubbish.
> 
> It's not a case of who I "see", it's a simple observation of who's approached me or shouted across the street at me when I'm walking down Coldharbour Lane at night, and the majority of those people have indeed been black, but not exclusively so.
> 
> ...


It was intended as a sideswipe at cherrybaby actually. Can't pretend to have read the whole thread...a bit at the beginning and a bit towards the end. Perhaps it's how the dealers perceive possible punters. This probably means I look more like a possible smack buyer


----------



## Mr Retro (Jan 17, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Nah, I don't think so.  Too reactionary.



I suppose ..


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 17, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> alcohol tourist!


----------



## editor (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> I saw you ripped to the tits on NYE, where did you buy yours eh? Get the approval of local residents of that locality eh?


I'm not a 'drug tourist' and I don't buy drugs off the street actually, not that it's any of your fucking business.

Who are you, btw, or are you only prepared to share your 'observations' from the comfort of anonymity?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 17, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> http://www.focusmag.gr/id/files/189113/al capone.jpg



scary... he's probably plannin to open a speakeasy at the dogstar


----------



## editor (Jan 17, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Greene King. Kent based I believe.


There's been cruel shortages of my drug of choice recently.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 17, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> It was intended as a sideswipe at cherrybaby actually. Can't pretend to have read the whole thread...a bit at the beginning and a bit towards the end. Perhaps it's how the dealers perceive possible punters. This probably means I look more like a possible smack buyer




You "moderate" this forum but don't read the thread before wading in with you ill informed nonsense?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 17, 2006)

You reckon I wade through over six thousand posts a day? by the way, dissing the modding is the fastest way to get arse-kicked out of here.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> You "moderate" this forum but don't read the thread before wading in with you ill informed nonsense?


Come on then, which old troll are you?


----------



## Isambard (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> You "moderate" this forum but don't read the thread before wading in with you ill informed nonsense?



Read before you weep huh?




			
				Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> I've been here 25 years.




There was some interesting stuff on here before it got de-railed on supposed racism. I don't think the white Brixton based Urbanites I've ever had the pleasure to meet are racist.


----------



## Aitch (Jan 17, 2006)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> How are tricks Hatboy?



That is sooo not Hatboy and I'll thank you kindly not to say so again


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 17, 2006)

Aitch said:
			
		

> That is sooo not Hatboy and I'll thank you kindly not to say so again


 Hey Aitch! Long time no see.


----------



## Aitch (Jan 17, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Hey Aitch! Long time no see.



Hey Intostella  yeah I've been avoiding Brixton for the past 6 months too many scammers and drug dealers to wade through    Lol


----------



## Mr Retro (Jan 17, 2006)

Aitch said:
			
		

> That is sooo not Hatboy and I'll thank you kindly not to say so again



Yes it is! He was banned from here for a week for doing something similar and thats why I thought it was him.

So I'll thank you to get your facts right.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> Yes it is!



Seriously?  I thought Hatboy lived in Brixton?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 17, 2006)

Yeah, I see where you are coming from on that now Mr Retro, although I did think 'No Way!' but the style is all wrong for hatboy.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 17, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> There was some interesting stuff on here before it got de-railed on supposed racism. I don't think the white Brixton based Urbanites I've ever had the pleasure to meet are racist.


No, they're not. But like everybody else, myself and yourself included, they live in a world of tensions and division which have effects both subtle and profound, and those effects - and the resentments and presumptions which are among their number - are real and affect everybody. In different ways, at different times, and most of them indefinable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 17, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Yeah, I see where you are coming from on that now Mr Retro, although I did think 'No Way!' but the style is all wrong for hatboy.


As in "Hatboy actually *has* style", whereas "cherrybaby"....


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 17, 2006)

That's going in my commonplace book for posterity Donna. 



btw, for those who don't keep a commonplace book, or know what it is, it's a big compliment.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> No, they're not. But like everybody else, myself and yourself included, they live in a world of tensions and division which have effects both subtle and profound, and those effects - and the resentments and presumptions which are among their number - are real and affect everybody. In different ways, at different times, and most of them indefinable.



With you so far.  Can you be more specific?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 17, 2006)

By definition, it would be hard to accomplish that.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 17, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> No, they're not. But like everybody else, myself and yourself included, they live in a world of tensions and division which have effects both subtle and profound, and those effects - and the resentments and presumptions which are among their number - are real and affect everybody. In different ways, at different times, and most of them indefinable.



I don't think we have any overt racists here, but the tone of the Brixton forum with constant complaints about dealers, robbers, beggers and so on does give rise to the suspicion that many carpetbaggers would just prefer the horrible people they don't like to go elsewhere and if necessary swept off the streets by a zero tolerance policy.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 17, 2006)

No, just the drugs tourists will do.


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> We have grown accustomed on these boards to PK's swaggering calls for vigilante justice, his fervant advocacy of torture, his badge-sniffing idolatry of the police and in general the violent swinging of his tiny truncheon.



Who's "we" ?

You attempting to speak for this entire forum now are you?

What a pompous prick. You wouldn't last two minutes in Brixton.



> But this time he has truly shown his colours.  He should apologize immediately for his reactionary outbursts of last night.



Should I?? Really??? After all, the bits you object most to are nowhere near as outrageous as your assertion that all white people living in Brixton are racist, because, erm, 95 percent of drug dealers are black, or whatever wibbling bullshit you were talking last night.

Anyone else think I should apologise "immediately!!" to this deluded dickhead???



> Since he is presumably sober this morning, I now give him a final opportunity to do so.



I told you already - I wasn't drunk last night. 
Not even in the slightest.

Are you unable to read properly?
Does your inability to see the colour black affect your ability to read text?

You want an apology from me?

Sure - when I get an apology from you for calling me racist.

I was laughing at your pathetic attempts to slur people last night, and your triple posts of outrage after I had gone to sleep made me laugh again this morning, so cheers for that.

Like a dog chasing it's tail. A black dog with a white tail, naturally...


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> No, just the drugs tourists will do.



What is a "drugs tourist?"  Someone from outside Brixton who buys drugs there?  Does it matter whether they buy on the street or in a house?  Is anyone who buys on the street a "drugs tourist," even if they live in Brixton?  I don't understand this term.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I told you already - I wasn't drunk last night.
> Not even in the slightest.



Ah, the Kraken wakes.  How exciting.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 17, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> No, just the drugs tourists will do.




Brixton has been a place to score for longer than you have lived there. Untill there is a more sensible sytem of purveying such things it will continue to be a open air market for the same. Even a major crackdown on dealing would have little effect other than to ensure a new generation of dealers come up the ranks possibly along with another riot or three. 

Look what happened to landoor Road? The crackdown on that cafe (caused by newbie yuppies moaning to the police) just moved the market to the centre of Brixton. 

The crackdown on places like Home James put more sellers on the streets. 

More police and more cameras and ASBO' and more searches of possible transgressors is not the solution. 

Proper shops selling decent weed/hash would still bring much cash into the local economy (a lot of locals grow the stuf too) but would reduce a lot of the problems that many find hard to take.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 17, 2006)

I seriously doubt that anyone who wanted to riot in support of drug dealers would receive any kind of sympathetic response from Brixtoners generally - most of whom have had enough of it.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Brixton has been a place to score for longer than you have lived there.



Blimey - are you always this patronising?




> Proper shops selling decent weed/hash would still bring much cash into the local economy (a lot of locals grow the stuf too) but would reduce a lot of the problems that many find hard to take.



That's not very likely to happen though is it. Got any other ideas in the interim or are you just here to criticise residents' perspectives?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 17, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I seriously doubt that anyone who wanted to riot in support of drug dealers would receive any kind of sympathetic response from Brixtoners generally - most of whom have had enough of it.



Wel I am old enough to remember well SWAMP and the effects of this police operation on Brixton.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 17, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Blimey - are you always this patronising?



It's a terrible habit being patronising but given Mrs M's response's it seems a perfectly acceptable and relevant answer.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Wel I am old enough to remember well SWAMP and the effects of this police operation on Brixton.


I don't think anyone's seriously advocating anything like "Operation Swamp". 

On the other hand, few would advocate just letting things go on the way they are, either.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> It's a terrible habit being patronising but given Mrs M's response's it seems a perfectly acceptable and relevant answer.


Let me see...

Pyx?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 17, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone's seriously advocating anything like "Operation Swamp".
> 
> On the other hand, few would advocate just letting things go on the way they are, either.



oh come on, we have had posters advocating killing people selling coke/crack!


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Ah, the Kraken wakes.  How exciting.



Still believe 95 percent of Brixton dealers are black?



You twat.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> oh come on, we have had posters advocating killing people selling coke/crack!



See, what I find interesting is that you've purpotedly been here all of two weeks. And yet you seem to know rather a lot about other posters ... not to mention the fact that you seem to have been stalking the Ed on NYE. 

Curiouser and curiouser ...


----------



## Jessiedog (Jan 17, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Curiouser and curiouser ...



Oh. My. God.

That you Alice?

 

Woof


----------



## editor (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> oh come on, we have had posters advocating killing people selling coke/crack!


So who the fuck are you?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> ...and it's a complete myth that the street dealers are mostly black. Perhaps people only see the black dealers because of their own prejudices.



That's a good point.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> my original point  was not   that i hated  drug dealers   or drug users   just  that i hated people trying to scam me  because   i feel  that one day i might  say no to a person who needs help  ...  and it's probably that feeling that keeps me giving out  a little  money   when i have some (though generally to the people  who look like they really need a meal - it's hard to tell)



The people scamming you need help too. They're trying to assemble some drug money.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I'd go along with that please.
> 
> It's the fucking drug tourists who have created most of the problems, not the dealers.



What is a drug tourist?

Anyone who lives outside of a one-mile radius from where the dealer is standing?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

DJ Bigga said:
			
		

> It is views such as these that get (majority) white folks coming up to me in clubs saying 'got any pills?' What is it about a 6ft black guy that screams drug dealer to these people?



It's your skin colour. Just like when I was younger, everyone assumed I played a lot of basketball because I'm 6'4" and black.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 17, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> What is a drug tourist?
> 
> Anyone who lives outside of a one-mile radius from where the dealer is standing?


No, it's one kilometre. We've switched to metric.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> No, it's one kilometre. We've switched to metric.



The home of Imperial measurement has gone metric?


Certain activities tend to congregate in certain areas.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 17, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> What is a drug tourist?
> 
> Anyone who lives outside of a one-mile radius from where the dealer is standing?


People who travel to an area which they live outside of specifically to buy drugs on the street. It's a big problem in Brixton. I have watched people get off the tube, buy drugs and get straight back on the tube again. It's a really major problem here.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 17, 2006)

I think Johnny that part of the gripe is that it is widely felt said "drugs tourists" don't give a stuff about Brixton (and areas like Brixton) except as their drugs market. They don't want to shell out any extra taxes to help the place out and they don't want either to live there or to have the place and its people come anywhere near them. And you know why? Well, you know, the drugs and all.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 17, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> The people scamming you need help too. They're trying to assemble some drug money.


That's as may be, but it's a pretty basic reaction for people to object to being scammed. Nobody likes that. It's a question of being able to take a more balanced view once you've calmed down and not go on an authoritarian knee-jerk, or start believing all these myths about career beggars who drive Bentleys etc.

It still annoys me when it happens to me even though it doesn't make any real difference, all told, if I give somebody a few quid because they told me a lie.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> People who travel to an area which they live outside of specifically to buy drugs on the street. It's a big problem in Brixton. I have watched people get off the tube, buy drugs and get straight back on the tube again. It's a really major problem here.



I don't think this defintion gets us very far.  It raises more questions than it answers, specifically:

A.  What about people from outside Brixton who go there to buy drugs indoors?  Is that more acceptable, and if so why?

B.  What about people who live in Brixton who buy drugs in their local streets?  Is that more acceptable, and if so why?

I truly believe that the only consistent position for those who oppose street dealing is to be *completely* anti-drug use.  Otherwise, there is no logic to the argument, it becomes contradictory, and there is always the lurking danger of hypocrisy.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 17, 2006)

Yeah, but there's never any completely consistent positions and people who try and create them always end up at the far end of an extremely convoluted train of logic.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 17, 2006)

I don't think it's inconsistent to say "things would be a lot better if it wasn't for people coming here from all over town and buying as well".


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Yeah, but there's never any completely consistent positions and people who try and create them always end up at the far end of an extremely convoluted train of logic.



Here is a completely consistent position on the matter, albeit one which I am very far from holding: all illegal drug use is unethical, because it is unethical to break the law.  Here is the utterly inconsistent position espoused by many on here: *some* illegal drug use is unethical, and some is not.

For then we must venture onto very slippery ground indeed.  We have seen people on these boards attempting to differentiate between ethical and unethical drug use on various absurd premises, including: 

visible drug use bad, invisible drug use OK
coke use OK, crack use bad
street dealing bad, house dealing OK 
weed use good, coke use bad 
street buys by Brixtonites OK, street buys by outsiders bad  

And so forth.  None of them make any sense at all.  Is it too much to expect a bit of consistency?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 17, 2006)

The things is, it's not good/bad but gradations of good and bad.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> it is unethical to break the law



Completely unhelpful point here with regards to your debate, but I don't think that it is necessarily unethical to break the law.  For example where would women be now if not for the law breaking suffragettes?  What about people who refused to pay poll tax? etc etc..

Anyway, just a small point....


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 17, 2006)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> Completely unhelpful point here with regards to your debate, but I don't think that it is necessarily unethical to break the law.  For example where would women be now if not for the law breaking suffragettes?  What about people who refused to pay poll tax? etc etc..
> 
> Anyway, just a small point....


Also one that missed that Mr Dwyer was not advocating the position himself but suggesting that it would be consistent.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Here is the utterly inconsistent position espoused by many on here: *some* illegal drug use is unethical, and some is not.


Hold on, that's not (necessarily) inconsistent at all. Just because you think that it's unjustified doesn't make it inconsistent. Saying "I think it's fine to smoke dope at home but not on the street" is consistent.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> The things is, it's not good/bad but gradations of good and bad.



I know!  That makes it even worse!  I've been going nuts here trying to follow some people's logic.  Maybe it was a mistake to try?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Hold on, that's not (necessarily) inconsistent at all. Just because you think that it's unjustified doesn't make it inconsistent. Saying "I think it's fine to smoke dope at home but not on the street" is consistent.



Well I suppose its not really all that inconsistent, no.  But it still doesn't make sense to me.  Its not like having sex or something, is it?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 17, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> It still annoys me when it happens to me even though it doesn't make any real difference, all told, if I give somebody a few quid because they told me a lie.



And that's the bottom line, isn't it?

In most instances, the person being asked/scammed has much greater resources than the one doing the asking/scamming, and the dollar or two given will make no difference to the giver, but will make some difference for the receiver.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well I suppose its not really all that inconsistent, no.  But it still doesn't make sense to me.  Its not like having sex or something, is it?


Well, that one wasn't exactly fully explored, given that it's not one that I hold. But there are plenty of arguments out there that are logically consistent but where I simply don't agree with the premises. There's only so far you can go arguing about those before you just have to work out whether you're going to compromise or fight.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Well, that one wasn't exactly fully explored, given that it's not one that I hold. But there are plenty of arguments out there that are logically consistent but where I simply don't agree with the premises. There's only so far you can go arguing about those before you just have to work out whether you're going to compromise or fight.



Hmph.  Spose you're right.  Most probably I meant I didn't agree with the premises.


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Hmph.  Spose you're right.  Most probably I meant I didn't agree with the premises.



I don't think anyone agrees with your premise, certainly not when you equate hating crack dealers with racism...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 17, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> And that's the bottom line, isn't it?
> 
> In most instances, the person being asked/scammed has much greater resources than the one doing the asking/scamming, and the dollar or two given will make no difference to the giver, but will make some difference for the receiver.


In general scammers on the street are going to be pretty desperate, sure.

In the end though people have a negative reaction to being cheated. If you always think "well, I don't mind if this person is lying, they must need the money" then you're not being cheated, you're doing what you want to do.

Perhaps if people had a more concerned attitude to people in need generally, without having to have their heartstrings tugged with stories of being assaulted, the issue wouldn't come up so much in the first place.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I don't think this defintion gets us very far.  It raises more questions than it answers, specifically:
> 
> A.  What about people from outside Brixton who go there to buy drugs indoors?  Is that more acceptable, and if so why?


I don't see that happening so I can't comment. However, no one has shouted out of their kitchen window asking me to buy their drugs or physically held my arm demanding I come into their house to buy drugs.





			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> B.  What about people who live in Brixton who buy drugs in their local streets?  Is that more acceptable, and if so why?


It's not acceptable either, but if it was only buyers from Brixton there would be less punters and also less dealers. 




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> I truly believe that the only consistent position for those who oppose street dealing is to be *completely* anti-drug use.  Otherwise, there is no logic to the argument, it becomes contradictory, and there is always the lurking danger of hypocrisy.


I think it should be under state control distributed via the NHS. But I've said all these things before, here, in Brixton forum meetings etc etc.
The problem for many people is the aggression of the dealers who see just about everyone as punters, whether you are 12 or 60. I live on an estate near the centre of Brixton and I am now getting increasingly hassled by kerb-crawlers (and I'm no spring chicken. I am a fairly frumpy looking old baggage). Guns, pimps and vicious robberies are now far more commonplace. My ex-next door neighbour, a pensioner, was shot dead. A friend's sister was shot in the head in front of her children as a 'warning' to her boyfriend. Three friends have witnessed fatal shootings on the street. When I first moved here a quarter of a century ago there were street dealers, like anywhere else in London, but they didn't hassle non-punters and they weren't involved in guns.


----------



## Giles (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Here is a completely consistent position on the matter, albeit one which I am very far from holding: all illegal drug use is unethical, because it is unethical to break the law.  Here is the utterly inconsistent position espoused by many on here: *some* illegal drug use is unethical, and some is not.
> 
> For then we must venture onto very slippery ground indeed.  We have seen people on these boards attempting to differentiate between ethical and unethical drug use on various absurd premises, including:
> 
> ...




I don't think that I am alone in thinking that many on here have no problem with people consuming whatever substance they wish to, provided that they do it, and buy it, discreetly and with some decorum, and don't get so fucked up by what they take, that they end up spoiling life in an area for everyone else.

It's similar to the way that I don't have a problem with most people drinking alcohol, but I do have a problem with those whose drinking makes them into violent thugs, or makes them vomit and piss in my doorway, etc.

As Tony Blair would say, "It's about respect".

Giles..


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> When I first moved here a quarter of a century ago there were street dealers, like anywhere else in London, but they didn't hassle non-punters and they weren't involved in guns.



That would have been BC.

Before Crack.

Crack = guns.


----------



## pk (Jan 17, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> I don't think that I am alone in thinking that many on here have no problem with people consuming whatever substance they wish to, provided that they do it, and buy it, discreetly and with some decorum, and don't get so fucked up by what they take, that they end up spoiling life in an area for everyone else.
> 
> It's similar to the way that I don't have a problem with most people drinking alcohol, but I do have a problem with those whose drinking makes them into violent thugs, or makes them vomit and piss in my doorway, etc.
> 
> ...



Which is a perfectly reasonable approach.

I don't know what planet Dwyer is on, but nothing he has said so far has been consistant, in fact it's mostly been fairly hypocritical...


----------



## gaijingirl (Jan 17, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Also one that missed that Mr Dwyer was not advocating the position himself but suggesting that it would be consistent.



Yeah.. I did understand that... I wasn't making a point about his point ... if you see what I mean...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 17, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> As Tony Blair would say, "It's about respect".


Unfortunately arrogant paranoid gun toters say it's about respect when they shoot you, because you didn't look them in the eye, or else because you did look them in the eye. It's terrifying and it affects us all.


----------



## Giles (Jan 17, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Unfortunately arrogant paranoid gun toters say it's about respect when they shoot you, because you didn't look them in the eye, or else because you did look them in the eye. It's terrifying and it affects us all.



Yes, I know, but that's not the kind of "respect" that I feel Mr Blair had in mind!

Giles..


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 17, 2006)

I don't think he's that concerned about mutual respect - he just means "don't cause trouble with each other, peons, and do what we tell you".


----------



## netbob (Jan 17, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> I don't think he's that concerned about mutual respect - he just means "don't cause trouble with each other, peons, and do what we tell you".



Tony Blair is the new Cartman "RESPECT MY AUTHORATEE"


----------



## Ol Nick (Jan 17, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I also suspect that if drugs _were_ legalised, a lot of drug-fans would give them up in droves. I get the feeling that, for a certain type of drug user, the seediness and illegality is a large part of the attraction.


I was very attracted  to the seedy and illegal Massive Human Turds deposited by Chaotic Drug Users in Tunstall Road this morning.

And I have no objection to people doing as they will in their own home. Hell even I do the occasional Massive Human Turd when alone at home.


----------



## netbob (Jan 17, 2006)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> I was very attracted  to the seedy and illegal Massive Human Turds deposited by Chaotic Drug Users in Tunstall Road this morning.
> 
> And I have no objection to people doing as they will in their own home. Hell even I do the occasional Massive Human Turd when alone at home.



One of my neighbours claims he saw a turd with a syringe sticking out the top in our yard a few years. Almost too good to believe though


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 17, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> It's similar to the way that I don't have a problem with most people drinking alcohol, but I do have a problem with those whose drinking makes them into violent thugs, or makes them vomit and piss in my doorway, etc.


I have a problem with the desperate state in to which they have got themselves, or in which they have found themselves, or however you wish to put it. I also have a problem with people who _simply_ see such people as a problem. Fucked-up people are everybody's problem and aour first duty as human beings is to recognise them as human beings. Our second is to care for them as human beings.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 17, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> More police and more cameras and ASBO' and more searches of possible transgressors is not the solution.
> 
> Proper shops selling decent weed/hash would still bring much cash into the local economy (a lot of locals grow the stuf too) but would reduce a lot of the problems that many find hard to take.



I'm still waiting for an alternative solution from you as I think we've all agreed that's a rather utopian vision ...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 17, 2006)

Someone from the Green party (not Shane) has been sticking up posters at bus stops demanding (in a Green sort of way) retail space for cannabis. Most people I know think it's a non-starter because it won't stop people seeing Brixton as a handy source for drugs....


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> I'm still waiting for an alternative solution from you as I think we've all agreed that's a rather utopian vision ...



I don't think the legalization of all drugs is unrealistically utopian.  Its been done in many countries already.  And its the only solution to the problems people go on about here.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Someone from the Green party (not Shane) has been sticking up posters at bus stops demanding (in a Green sort of way) retail space for cannabis. Most people I know think it's a non-starter because it won't stop people seeing Brixton as a handy source for drugs....



It would stop them buying on the streets though, and that's what you object to, am I right?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> It's been done in many countries already.


Has it?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Has it?



Decriminalized, yes.  Portugal decriminalized possession of all drugs in 2001, and some Latin American countries had already done so.  Many other countries have "tolerance zones," in which the authorities do not interfere with drug-taking or dealing, such as Switzerland, Mexico, Denmark etc.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 17, 2006)

I've seen no evidence where it works and you don't get drugs tourists (viz Amsterdam). Which, to my knowledge, is the only place that's made steps towards it and, AFAIK, they're now reconsidering that.

My point to cherrybaby however, was to point out that s/he had dismissed every other idea that anyone else on this thread had come up with except for this suggestion. Which, while I agree is not beyond the realms of possibility, and is indeed desirable, is very unlikely to see the light in the UK given the prevailing political complexion of this country until long after I reach pensionable age.


----------



## suzee blue cheese (Jan 17, 2006)

Phildwyer: Is it better for people to come to Brixton and buy their drugs indoors than from a street dealer?  I haven't given it much thought, but I do know it's overall better to shit in a toilet.  

Do we consider it somehow OK for people from Brixton to buy off the street but not OK for people coming in from outside to score?  Just the fact that people are travelling in for the drugs means that the market place is expanding to accomodate needs = even greater numbers of dealers.  The amount of people who live in Brixton who buy off the street could never sustain even half the current level of dealing that goes on.  So having large numbers of 'drug tourists' drop in to make a purchase isn't helpful. 

Apart from the people this thread was started about, another noticeable thing about Brixton is that there are hardly any old folk out and about.  You'd be forgiven for thinking there aren't many but the shops are full of them earlier on in the day before things begin to lively up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 17, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> I don't think he's that concerned about mutual respect - he just means "don't cause trouble with each other, peons, and do what we tell you".



or perhaps "respect us, your betters".


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 18, 2006)

suzee blue cheese said:
			
		

> Phildwyer: Is it better for people to come to Brixton and buy their drugs indoors than from a street dealer?  I haven't given it much thought, but I do know it's overall better to shit in a toilet.
> 
> Do we consider it somehow OK for people from Brixton to buy off the street but not OK for people coming in from outside to score?  Just the fact that people are travelling in for the drugs means that the market place is expanding to accomodate needs = even greater numbers of dealers.  The amount of people who live in Brixton who buy off the street could never sustain even half the current level of dealing that goes on.  So having large numbers of 'drug tourists' drop in to make a purchase isn't helpful.
> 
> Apart from the people this thread was started about, another noticeable thing about Brixton is that there are hardly any old folk out and about.  You'd be forgiven for thinking there aren't many but the shops are full of them earlier on in the day before things begin to lively up.



Right.  I see your points.  But what is the way forward?  I do not think it can lie through the prosecution of dealers and users as "criminals."  Surely the answer is to install of several officially-sanctioned "tolerance zones," possibly in disused housing estates, where dealing and using would be allowed to go on unhindered.  These "zones" could be equipped with a police station, a first-aid station and a drugs counselling office.  That's what they do in many other countries.  It would undoubtedly eliminate many of the problems you see with drugs and crime on your streets.  I believe that people should be campaigning for this, and not meanly snitching to the police or taking vigilante action, as many on here have shamefully advocated.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 18, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Portugal decriminalized possession of all drugs in 2001


Can't be that successful. A very large proportion of the smack users in Brixton are Portuguese. Not as in the Portuguese who came here long ago as political refugees, these guys have arrived in the last decade or so.


----------



## snadge (Jan 18, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I have a problem with the desperate state in to which they have got themselves, or in which they have found themselves, or however you wish to put it. I also have a problem with people who _simply_ see such people as a problem. Fucked-up people are everybody's problem and aour first duty as human beings is to recognise them as human beings. Our second is to care for them as human beings.




  thanks for putting that so elequontly.


----------



## snadge (Jan 18, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Right.  I see your points.  But what is the way forward?  I do not think it can lie through the prosecution of dealers and users as "criminals."  Surely the answer is to install of several officially-sanctioned "tolerance zones," possibly in disused housing estates, where dealing and using would be allowed to go on unhindered.  These "zones" could be equipped with a police station, a first-aid station and a drugs counselling office.  That's what they do in many other countries.  It would undoubtedly eliminate many of the problems you see with drugs and crime on your streets.  I believe that people should be campaigning for this, and not meanly snitching to the police or taking vigilante action, as many on here have shamefully advocated.



jeez philly....that's a tack change..


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 18, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> It would stop them buying on the streets though, and that's what you object to, am I right?


It's *one* of the things I object to...you didn't read my post about people I know and shootings, obviously.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 18, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> disused housing estates


What disused housing estates? Sorry, you haven't been in Brixton, or even London for a very very long time unless you had a bucket with no eyeholes over your head.


----------



## snadge (Jan 18, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> What disused housing estates? Sorry, you haven't been in Brixton, or even London for a very very long time unless you had a bucket with no eyeholes over your head.





philly doesn't read much, he spouts a lot though.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 18, 2006)

If there were disused housing estates littered about there wouldn't be people sleeping on the streets and half the people I know with adult children would be enjoying the possibility of empty nest syndrome. People I care about wouldn't be in horrendous housing situations...I could go on and on. That one phrase has made me decide it's pointless engaging with someone who knows NOTHING about living in London.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 18, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> these guys have arrived in the last decade or so.



As is their right. You could do the same in Athens, Stockholm or Lisbon.


----------



## snadge (Jan 18, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> As is their right. You could do the same in Athens, Stockholm or Lisbon.



agreed it is thier right but what of the people that have to tolerate the drug tourism in the cities you have mentioned.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 18, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> agreed it is thier right but what of the people that have to tolerate the drug tourism in the cities you have mentioned.



And there are British drug users in those cities too. Guranteed.
Or are we going to do a Daily Mail "Brussels Forces Junkies on Upstanding Brixton" story hey ?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 18, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> A.  What about people from outside Brixton who go there to buy drugs indoors?  Is that more acceptable, and if so why?


This is more acceptable because it causes less problems for everyone else. 


> B.  What about people who live in Brixton who buy drugs in their local streets?  Is that more acceptable, and if so why?


This is more acceptable becuase it doesn't concentrate all the bad stuff linked to crack and smack use in one place and make people there suffere the side effects that if spread far wider would be far less of a problem.

I live out in Surrey and there is no street dealing in my town. Drug dealers are based in flats and keep a low profile so as to maximise the lifespan of their location, before getting busted by the police.

There are also not large numbers of people coming into the town where I live to score. People will typically have a dealer within walking distance of where they live. This means that a concentration doesn't build up effecting a particular neighbourhood or estate disproportionately, the users and dealers need to keep a low profile and the police are not so overwhelamed by serious problems that they give up delaing with low level anti-social behaviour.

The most desirable thing IMO would be to legalise and regulate all drugs and have them channeled through distribution routes, outlets and venues which would minimise the harm to users and to the community generally. 

Your argument - that people can't dislike something if it is being done by a group of people who have a higher percentage of "group X" than the general population is utterly nonsensical. This applies to every single thing you can think of since nothing will hit the average exactly. You have also failed to produce one single piece of evidence to back up any of your claims.


----------



## snadge (Jan 18, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> And there are British drug users in those cities too. Guranteed.
> Or are we going to do a Daily Mail "Brussels Forces Junkies on Upstanding Brixton" story hey ?




agreed there are but that isn't what this thread is about...is it?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 18, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Here is a completely consistent position on the matter, albeit one which I am very far from holding: all illegal drug use is unethical, because it is unethical to break the law.  Here is the utterly inconsistent position espoused by many on here: *some* illegal drug use is unethical, and some is not.


Bollocks. People can think certain actions are unethical regardless of their legality or otherwise. For example someone may think it is unethical to tell a lie even if it isn't against the law. They may also think there is nothing wrong with smoking cannabis even tho' it is against the law. You really don't have the first clue what you are talking about - which comes from the fact that you did a PhD in medieval english literature and know fuck all about philosophy, despite thinking yourself an expert. You aren't, you're a fraud, and you have proved it many times over on u75.


----------



## snadge (Jan 18, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Bollocks. People can think certain actions are unethical regardless of their legality or otherwise. For example someone may think it is unethical to tell a lie even if it isn't against the law. They may also think there is nothing wrong with smoking cannabis even tho' it is against the law. You really don't have the first clue what you are talking about - which comes from the fact that you did a PhD in medieval english literature and no fuck all about philosophy, depsite thinking yourself an expert. You aren't, you're a fraud, and you have proved it many times over on u75..



fucking word


----------



## Isambard (Jan 18, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> agreed there are but that isn't what this thread is about...is it?



It is when people claim the moral high ground about being a community beset by "drug tourists". 
I bet a lot of Brixtonites are "drug tourists" somewhere else as well.


----------



## snadge (Jan 18, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> It is when people claim the moral high ground about being a community beset by "drug tourists".
> I bet a lot of Brixtonites are "drug tourists" somewhere else as well.



that isn't the point though, you are trying to bring hypocrisy into the debate.

Mrs Magpie has very valid points, from what I gather she isn't a drug tourist but she has to put up or shut up.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 18, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> visible drug use bad, invisible drug use OK
> coke use OK, crack use bad
> street dealing bad, house dealing OK
> weed use good, coke use bad
> street buys by Brixtonites OK, street buys by outsiders bad


It's the impacts activities have on people that is seen as not acceptable (or otherwise).


----------



## Isambard (Jan 18, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> that isn't the point though, you are trying to bring hypocrisy into the debate.
> Mrs Magpie has very valid points.



She does, yes.

Hypocrisy? Moi?
No, because I realise my role in the whole thing.

You never done an illegal drug outside your neighbourhood?


----------



## snadge (Jan 18, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> She does, yes.
> 
> Hypocrisy? Moi?
> No, because I realise my role in the whole thing.
> ...



this isn't about what I've done, of course I have *but* I have never made myself known  

there are ways of doing things and there are ways of not doing things..


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 18, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> It's the impacts activities have on people that is seen as not acceptable (or otherwise).



The hypocrisy comes in because it seems that economic status determines acceptability of behaviours.

The middle class drug user can pay to have the drugs brought to her home. No one sees her snorting, smoking, injecting. Once it's done, she'll sleep in a warm place, and will eat nutritiously, so that the worst ravages of drug use can be at least held at bay. When she leaves the house, her clothes will be clean and new.

The street person arguably has a greater justification or need for drug use, but because they live in the street, their activities are visible, and they don't have the palliative effect of money to smooth over the rough edges.

Is it your argument that the poor should simply abstain from drug use, that drug use is a privilege that comes with money?

If one has the urge for mood or perceptual alteration when sitting in one's flat listening to music or watching the telly, how strong must the urge be when sitting cold on a park bench at midnight?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 18, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ...possibly in disused housing estates...


Disused housing estates?

Have you got any in mind phildwyer? 

In fact, can you even name a single Lambeth estate without going to look on a map?


----------



## snadge (Jan 18, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Is it your argument that the poor should simply abstain from drug use, that drug use is a privilege that comes with money?




expand on that JC2


----------



## Isambard (Jan 18, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> there are ways of doing things and there are ways of not doing things..



Yes. Luckily I've got things in control enought that I did do illegal drugs in Brixton I'd hope that wouldn't be detremental for people who live there. But the argument about "drug tourists" assumes that there is no 2 way street. I daresay there are people from Brixton who have done drugs my way as well. Innit.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 18, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> It is when people claim the moral high ground about being a community beset by "drug tourists".
> I bet a lot of Brixtonites are "drug tourists" somewhere else as well.


"Drug tourist" is usually referring to British people from other parts of London or outside London. I don't think anyone has a particular problem with people of non-British nationalities coming to Brixton. The reference to Portugese was simply a response to phildwyer holding Portugal up as an example of somewhere with a good policy. The question might be: if they have such a good policy there why would a smack/crack user want to come to London? My reply would be that there are a whole range of reasons people might come to London, so it doesn't in itself count for or against the Portguese policy.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 18, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> "Drug tourist" is usually referring to British people from other parts of London or outside London.



Sorry, but "free market" innit. Brixtonites want to buy Prada they go to Bond Street and we get all you chaves cluttering up the streets.    Seriously, I'd like to do a thread on the issue when I'm sober.    NN.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 18, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Is it your argument that the poor should simply abstain from drug use, that drug use is a privilege that comes with money?


No. 

Why do you think that?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 18, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> I daresay there are people from Brixton who have done drugs my way as well. Innit.


Are you talking of the annual scrumpy-and-mud-seeking mob that head west every summer?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 18, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> Why do you think that?



In post 470, you talk about the impacts of people's activities.

There's no doubt that the drug use by poor street people, taking place 'in the street', as it were, has a greater likelihood for negative impact on the general public than does the drug use of the middle class, in the comfort of their own homes.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 18, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> expand on that JC2



It comes from the idea that street person drug use is unseemly or otherwise negative because there they are in the street, stoned, injecting, puking, ranting etc. Most people seem to be down on this sort of behaviour happening in the streets of their neighborhood.

But if you accept that there are going to be street people for the foreseeable future, then the only way to prevent the negative aspects of their drug abuse on the public, is to curtail their drug use.

This would leave drug use as the domain of those with money.

Just to be clear, this isn't what I believe in, but merely an extrapolation from what others have said on this thread, about the undesirability of drug use on the streets.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 18, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> In post 470, you talk about the impacts of people's activities.
> 
> There's no doubt that the drug use by poor street people, taking place 'in the street', as it were, has a greater likelihood for negative impact on the general public than does the drug use of the middle class, in the comfort of their own homes.


_"Is it your argument that the poor should simply abstain from drug use, that drug use is a privilege that comes with money?"_

Sorry I still fail to follow your logic.




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> visible drug use bad, invisible drug use OK
> coke use OK, crack use bad
> street dealing bad, house dealing OK
> weed use good, coke use bad
> street buys by Brixtonites OK, street buys by outsiders bad






			
				TeeJay said:
			
		

> It's the impacts activities have on people that is seen as not acceptable (or otherwise).



As you can see I was responding to phildwyer claiming that people were somehow judging the morality of types of drugs or different locations.

I was pointing out to him that it wasn't an issue of the chemical composition     of the drug, it's legal class (A, B, C) or even an abstarct debate about being indoors or out - it was an issue of the negative impact different behaviours had on people. I was saying that he was mischaracterising the "good/bad" debate.

I fail to see where you get the idea that I have made any kind of arguement that _"poor should simply abstain from drug use"_.

The argument is that *everyone* should abstain from behaviour that impacts negatively on other people.

First phildwyer has tried in a completely moronic manner to deduce from this very simple and reasonable principle that anyone saying so is racist, and now you seem to be doing the same thing for economic/financial variables.

If someone was making an unreasonable demand that fell purely on poor people then maybe you would have a better case. The demand that everyone avoid fucking other people around is neither unreasonable nor does it fall solely on the poor. You have no case.

As usual.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 18, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> _"Is it your argument that the poor should simply abstain from drug use, that drug use is a privilege that comes with money?"_
> 
> Sorry I still fail to follow your logic.
> 
> ...



My point is that people with money can use drugs with minimal negative impact on the public around them.

Almost by definition, the drug use of street people will be in the face of the public, and often in a negative way. 

Therefore, the only way these street people can abstain from having this particular type of negative impact, is to abstain from drugs.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 18, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> It comes from the idea that street person drug use is unseemly or otherwise negative because there they are in the street, stoned, injecting, puking, ranting etc. Most people seem to be down on this sort of behaviour happening in the streets of their neighborhood.


There are plenty of richer people who go out and drink too much, vomit, fight and generally behave like cunts. Many people object to that as well.

In both cases it is the *behaviour* that people objected to, because of the direct *impacts* of that behaviour, not because of the financial or socio-economic status of the people doing it, despite what you are claiming.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 18, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> My point is that people with money can use drugs with minimal negative impact on the public around them.
> 
> Almost by definition, the drug use of street people will be in the face of the public, and often in a negative way.
> 
> Therefore, the only way these street people can abstain from having this particular type of negative impact, is to abstain from drugs.


Sorry but this isn't true.

Many people with cash are utter wankers and have plenty of negative impact on people when they do drugs (mostly alcohol). You would know this if you spent any time in the UK.

Many homeless people (I take this is what you mean by "street people"? This isn't a common term in the UK) don't take drugs in the street and keep a low profile. "Homeless" in the UK doesn't even mean "rough sleeper" - it means anyone who doesn't have permanent accomodation and most homeless people live in hostels, b&b and other temporary accomodation. Other people who may be out in the streets doing stuff are not homeless. In fact your whole "street people" stuff sounds like you are talking about Vancouver or somewhere else. Don't assume that all the same things apply in Brixton.

Fuck it. You're "argument" is so full of bollocks I really couldn't be bothered keeping this up. It's like talking to a chimp. You are never going to understand because you don't bother reading things, don't bother finding evidence or background information, and are incapable of holding a coherent and logical line of reasoning, either in your own posts or in someone else's. This is a total waste of time.


----------



## academia (Jan 18, 2006)

How much cash do I need to be a wanker? 
I've got about £6 on me now, is that enough?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 18, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> There are plenty of richer people who go out and drink too much, vomit, fight and generally behave like cunts. Many people object to that as well.
> .



True enough, but they have some choice. Depending on circumstances, they might be getting drunk and rowdy at the cabin by the lake. The street people do everything on the street.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 18, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Sorry but this isn't true.
> 
> Many people with cash are utter wankers and have plenty of negative impact on people when they do drugs (mostly alcohol). You would know this if you spent any time in the UK.
> 
> Many homeless people (I take this is what you mean by "street people"? This isn't a common term in the UK) don't take drugs in the street and keep a low profile. "Homeless" in the UK doesn't even mean "rough sleeper" - it means anyone who doesn't have permanent accomodation and most homeless people live in hostels, b&b and other temporary accomodation..



The homeless in brixton can afford to stay at b&bs?

You say you're half american, and have spent a lot of time there. You should be familiar with the term 'street people'.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 18, 2006)

I think it's worth bearing in mind that non-homeless poorer people feel the impact of the crack/smack blight far more than the more mobile and affluent. The poorer you are the less choices you have, especially about where to live.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 18, 2006)

It's true. Around here, the elderly poor are routinely victimized by young addicts looking for easy money. This can mean an old woman on her way home with her welfare money in her purse, or an old guy sleeping under a bridge deck with the day's bottles in a shopping cart beside him.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 18, 2006)

I'm not saying it's desirable to have drug addicted street people trying to scam you out of your money, but even so, some consideration must be given to the circumstances that resulted in them ending up that way.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 18, 2006)

I think most people do, but sometimes patience wears very thin. I know a formerly drug-addicted homeless girl and she said people were nicer here in Brixton, whereas she was often physically attacked elsewhere in London. That's how she lost her front teeth. Hooray Henry with a champagne bottle in the West End. She never scammed anyone, and she was pretty together, especially about food. Probably why she's OK today but it's been a hard struggle for her.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 18, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> What disused housing estates? Sorry, you haven't been in Brixton, or even London for a very very long time unless you had a bucket with no eyeholes over your head.



FFS, I wish people would stop accusing me of never going to Brixton.  I'm there *all the time,* I was there three weeks ago, I bumped into lots of people from these boards there.  Jesus Christ.  Obviously I meant that a housing estate would have to be evacuated by its residents--and in this sense "disused"--before it could be turned into a drug-and-prostitution "tolerance zone."  Yes it would cost money blah blah.  Better than what you've got now thought, isn't it, you seem to find it absolutely intolerble at the moment?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 18, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Can't be that successful. A very large proportion of the smack users in Brixton are Portuguese. Not as in the Portuguese who came here long ago as political refugees, these guys have arrived in the last decade or so.



I suppose it would be gauche to ask for any evidence to support this claim?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 18, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> that isn't the point though, you are trying to bring hypocrisy into the debate.



Hypocrisy has clouded this debate from the very beginning.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 18, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I suppose it would be gauche to ask for any evidence to support this claim?


From when I was a Lay Visitor to Lambeth Police Stations, but there are several drugs workers who use this forum who can confirm this. Going out now, previous appointment.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 18, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Fuck it. You're "argument" is so full of bollocks I really couldn't be bothered keeping this up. It's like talking to a chimp. You are never going to understand because you don't bother reading things, don't bother finding evidence or background information, and are incapable of holding a coherent and logical line of reasoning, either in your own posts or in someone else's. This is a total waste of time.



TeeJay, you're talking to Johnny Canuck above, but you've already addressed several other people on this thread in similarly tortured terms.  Please try to calm down, chill out, and just relax a little bit.  Its not much fun for the rest of us, watching you blowing your top all the time.  Do not become angry when people disagree with you.  Do not become frustrated when people make arguments that seem to contradict yours.  This is good advice I'm giving you, really.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 18, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> From when I was a Lay Visitor to Lambeth Police Stations, but there are several drugs workers who use this forum who can confirm this. Going out now, previous appointment.



Actually, as a habituee of Brixton, I know what you say about the proportion of Portuguese junkies to be true.  I was just parodying the resonse I got when I mentioned that 95% of the dealers on Coldharbour Lane are black.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 18, 2006)

None of the portugese lot have ever offered me drugs. They always look like they are on a mission.


----------



## snadge (Jan 18, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> TeeJay, you're talking to Johnny Canuck above, but you've already addressed several other people on this thread in similarly tortured terms.  Please try to calm down, chill out, and just relax a little bit.  Its not much fun for the rest of us, watching you blowing your top all the time.  Do not become angry when people disagree with you.  Do not become frustrated when people make arguments that seem to contradict yours.  This is good advice I'm giving you, really.



patronising git


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 18, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> First phildwyer has tried in a completely moronic manner to deduce from this very simple and reasonable principle that anyone saying so is racist, and now you seem to be doing the same thing for economic/financial variables.



TeeJay, please don't get upset at what I am about to tell you.  OK, all Johnny Canuck or I are arguing is that you cannot look at a problem like "drug abuse" *in isolation* from wider social issues.  You cannot.  Issues like race and economic class *are* relevant to understanding and solving the "drug problem."  They *are.*  That's all we're saying.  Do you agree with us now?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 18, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> None of the portugese lot have ever offered me drugs. They always look like they are on a mission.



One of them tried to steal my beer when I was watching the England v. Portugal game.  Other than that my encounters with them have been entirely nice.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jan 18, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Probably why she's OK today but it's been a hard struggle for her.



Hey I didn't know that !!!!!! 

It's the best news I've gotten for a long time. I've got big fucking tears in my eyes. We haven't seen her for a long time and we'd hoped for this news but had feared for different.

A hard struggle is right. A long, long hard struggle against massive odds too. 

   I feel like laughing out loud.


----------



## editor (Jan 18, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Probably why she's OK today but it's been a hard struggle for her.


Good to hear she's OK.


----------



## pk (Jan 18, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Hypocrisy has clouded this debate from the very beginning.



Yes. Yours.

Out of interest - are you on crack?

Might explain your fractured logic, single-minded mission to convince people of a fact that transpires to be utter nonsense, and the speed at which you concede defeat - perhaps coinciding with the drug wearing off...

Just a theory.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 18, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Yes. Yours.
> 
> Out of interest - are you on crack?
> 
> ...



More ejaculation from our resident badge-sniffer.  Not that it comes as any surprise.  For have we not learned by now to expect that, whenever the subjects of crime and punishment are raised, PK will shortly arrive in a slavering frenzy of sado-masochistic excitement?  Whether it is Gary Glitter or Jonathan King, whether they are football hooligans or Islamic fundamentalists, PK's prescription never varies.  He wants them *dead.*  But first, he wants them *tortured.*  A lot.  By him.  Nor has anyone yet forgotten the loud and grisly applause with which he greeted the killing of Sr. De Menezes.  A gruesome and blood-stained weirdo, he is, in short.

But anyway, rather than gratify this pervert with the verbal thrashing after which he so flagrantly lusts, I shall attempt to advance the debate.  The main point to grasp is that drug addicts and prostitutes are not bad people.  In fact, they are often very good people indeed.  There is no point in *criminalizing* them, for that would (obviously) make them into criminals.  They should be treated as what they are: the *victims* of crimes that are not named as such in our evil society.  Their interests should be put *first,* and the *first* question we should be asking is how we can protect and assist them.   

That is my view at any rate.


----------



## pk (Jan 18, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> More ejaculation from our resident badge-sniffer.  Not that it comes as any surprise.  For have we not learned by now to expect that, whenever the subjects of crime and punishment are raised, PK will shortly arrive in a slavering frenzy of sado-masochistic excitement?  Whether it is Gary Glitter or Jonathan King, whether they are football hooligans or Islamic fundamentalists, PK's prescription never varies.  He wants them *dead.*  But first, he wants them *tortured.*  A lot.  By him.  Nor has anyone yet forgotten the loud and grisly applause with which he greeted the killing of Sr. De Menezes.  A gruesome and blood-stained weirdo, he is, in short.



Phildwyer, you've already addressed several other people on this thread in similarly tortured terms. 

Please try to calm down, chill out, and just relax a little bit. 

Its not much fun for the rest of us, watching you blowing your top all the time. 

Do not become angry when people disagree with you. 

Do not become frustrated when people make arguments that seem to contradict yours. 

This is good advice I'm giving you, really. You twat.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 18, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> The homeless in brixton can afford to stay at b&bs?


"Homeless" in the UK doesn't mean "rough sleeper".


> You say you're half american, and have spent a lot of time there. You should be familiar with the term 'street people'.


We are talking about Brixton, therefore we need to use the relevant terms.

The original topic of this thread was someone blagging people in Brixton and this has developed into a discussion about crack delaers and users in Brixton.

There is *some* connection with homelessness, but not necessarily a direct one in the way you are suggesting. 

If you had actually been to Brixton you might realise this.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 18, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> TeeJay, you're talking to Johnny Canuck above, but you've already addressed several other people on this thread in similarly tortured terms.  Please try to calm down, chill out, and just relax a little bit.  Its not much fun for the rest of us, watching you blowing your top all the time.  Do not become angry when people disagree with you.  Do not become frustrated when people make arguments that seem to contradict yours.  This is good advice I'm giving you, really.


Here's some advice for you:


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 18, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> TeeJay, please don't get upset at what I am about to tell you.  OK, all Johnny Canuck or I are arguing is that you cannot look at a problem like "drug abuse" *in isolation* from wider social issues.  You cannot.  Issues like race and economic class *are* relevant to understanding and solving the "drug problem."  They *are.*  That's all we're saying.  Do you agree with us now?


You are now back-pedalling furiously, trying to pretend you were saying something reasonable all along.

What a loser.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 18, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Here's some advice for you:



Surely not!

I can't believe it, Saint Philip tainted by insinuations of fraud!

Say it ain't so!!


----------



## suzee blue cheese (Jan 18, 2006)

> I think most people do, but sometimes patience wears very thin. I know a formerly drug-addicted homeless girl and she said people were nicer here in Brixton, whereas she was often physically attacked elsewhere in London. That's how she lost her front teeth. Hooray Henry with a champagne bottle in the West End. She never scammed anyone, and she was pretty together, especially about food. Probably why she's OK today but it's been a hard struggle for her.



It's true, the West End is a nightmare for people sleeping on the street.  H. once came across a girl who was distraught having been pissed on by some utter animal.  He put her up for the night and got her clothes washed so she could at least have a safe place to rest up after the experience and didn't have to walk around with the smell of someone else's piss all over her clothes.  

Mrs M: I'm so glad to hear you describe her as formerly addicted, really, really glad.  If I saw her outside Sainsbury's I always offered to get her something to eat and drink.  And I haven't seen her in ages, so I'd been wondering what had happened to her, fearing the worse really.  Brilliant news.



> One of them tried to steal my beer when I was watching the England v. Portugal game. Other than that my encounters with them have been entirely nice.



A few years ago, a group of European junkies occupied a house a couple of doors away from me.  Some of whom I recognised from hanging round by the Tube back then - faces change.  It became a total nightmare for the period of time they were there, used needles all over the place and people fixing up in the garden, oblivious to the fact they hadn't even made it indoors.  There was a spate of burglaries, one which resulted in an older Italian man being beaten in his own home.  It wasn't safe for them and it wasn't safe for us.  Eventually there were CID all over the place investigating a 'serious incident' and the house was boarded up a few months later.  

I don't know what the solution is, I tend towards the legalisation argument, provision of clean supplies, a safe place to use and ready access to treatment.  But that's not on the cards here, not for a long time I fear.  So the situation can only continue to grow worse.

In the meantime, I may feel compassion for the poor sods in such trouble who have to use the bottom of my street as their latrine but I can't somehow make my compassion override my feeling of revulsion that there are large human turds laying in wait for the unwary each morning.  I don't know how to reconcile those two emotions


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 18, 2006)

suzee blue cheese said:
			
		

> I don't know what the solution is, I tend towards the legalisation argument, provision of clean supplies, a safe place to use and ready access to treatment.  But that's not on the cards here, not for a long time I fear.  So the situation can only continue to grow worse.
> 
> In the meantime, I may feel compassion for the poor sods in such trouble who have to use the bottom of my street as their latrine but I can't somehow make my compassion override my feeling of revulsion that there are large human turds laying in wait for the unwary each morning.  I don't know how to reconcile those two emotions


Maybe some kind of portaloo would be a very cheap and immediate answer to the turd problem? Or requesting the council schedule an early morning street cleaning patrol?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 18, 2006)

suzee blue cheese said:
			
		

> Mrs M: I'm so glad to hear you describe her as formerly addicted, really, really glad.  If I saw her outside Sainsbury's I always offered to get her something to eat and drink.  And I haven't seen her in ages, so I'd been wondering what had happened to her, fearing the worse really.  Brilliant news.


Well, she says she's clean and I so want to believe it's true... It wasn't me who saw her recently though. I got it second-hand although the time I saw her before she looked really well. She moved away from the source and worked hard to got herself together, which I know to be true, because of other info I got from someone who knows her in a support sense.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 18, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> "Homeless" in the UK doesn't mean "rough sleeper".
> We are talking about Brixton, therefore we need to use the relevant terms.
> 
> The original topic of this thread was someone blagging people in Brixton and this has developed into a discussion about crack delaers and users in Brixton.
> ...



Well then enlighten me: what does 'homeless' mean in UK?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 18, 2006)

I dunno, Teejay; I search for things about homelessness in the UK, and this picture pops up:






http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4089202.stm


That looks exactly the same as the homelessness here.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 18, 2006)

On the street, in a hostel or what used to be called a Spike, sofa surfing. Basically not knowing quite where you will be spending the night or the night after that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 18, 2006)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4267114.stm


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 18, 2006)

Street sleeper or roofless tends to be used for people who actually sleep on the street, park bences etc.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 18, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> On the street, in a hostel or what used to be called a Spike, sofa surfing. Basically not knowing quite where you will be spending the night or the night after that.



Pretty much the same in Canada, but also including nights spent in a detox centre.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 18, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> On the street, in a hostel or what used to be called a Spike


The Spike


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 18, 2006)

I've mentioned before that towards the end of her active political life I asked my great-aunt, a London Labour councillor, when that meant something, for many years, whether she felt she'd accomplished anything. Oh yes, she replied - when she'd started there had been people sleeping rough all over London and now there weren't.

Which there weren't - this must have been about 25 years ago - or very few, people who basically _couldn't_ live any other way, for whatever reason.

Now of course London is strewn with the homeless and has been since the mid-Eighties. It was done deliberately, with contempt for the people who suffered as a result, and we are invited every so often to see those victims as our enemies and support measures that will create even more of them. But it doesn't have to be that way.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 18, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Well then enlighten me: what does 'homeless' mean in UK?


Here you go:
What is Homelessness? Definitions and Risk factors (pdf)
and
Key Statistics About Homelessness (pdf)

Very up to date (October 2005) and from Crisis, one of the leading homeless organisations in the UK.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 18, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> The Spike


Thanks for that, only this very morning I was wondering about the derivation of the insult 'toe-rag' 



			
				George Orwell said:
			
		

> Some of the men refused the bath, and washed only their ‘toe-rags’, the horrid, greasy little clouts which tramps bind round their feet.


----------



## pk (Jan 18, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You are now back-pedalling furiously, trying to pretend you were saying something reasonable all along.
> 
> What a loser.



Indeed.

I haven't seen back-pedalling as frantic as this since the gruelling downhill section of the Tour de France on a particularly perilous stretch of Les Alpes.

 

I'm still waiting for an apology from Duuurwyer for calling me a _racist_, and now it seems I'm a _pervert_ too... funny how animated he gets when he's on the losing streak innit?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 18, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Well then enlighten me: what does 'homeless' mean in UK?



People who don't have a home - it's that simple. A homeless person could be one who sleeps on a friend's sofa for extended periods (no silliness please).


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 18, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> More ejaculation from our resident badge-sniffer.  Not that it comes as any surprise.  For have we not learned by now to expect that, whenever the subjects of crime and punishment are raised, PK will shortly arrive in a slavering frenzy of sado-masochistic excitement?  Whether it is Gary Glitter or Jonathan King, whether they are football hooligans or Islamic fundamentalists, PK's prescription never varies.  He wants them *dead.*  But first, he wants them *tortured.*  A lot.  By him.  Nor has anyone yet forgotten the loud and grisly applause with which he greeted the killing of Sr. De Menezes.  A gruesome and blood-stained weirdo, he is, in short.
> 
> But anyway, rather than gratify this pervert with the verbal thrashing after which he so flagrantly lusts, I shall attempt to advance the debate.  The main point to grasp is that drug addicts and prostitutes are not bad people.  In fact, they are often very good people indeed.  There is no point in *criminalizing* them, for that would (obviously) make them into criminals.  They should be treated as what they are: the *victims* of crimes that are not named as such in our evil society.  Their interests should be put *first,* and the *first* question we should be asking is how we can protect and assist them.
> 
> That is my view at any rate.



Christ.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 18, 2006)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Christ.



You've hit the nail on the head.

Phil thinks he's Christ.


----------



## netbob (Jan 18, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The main point to grasp is that drug addicts and prostitutes are not bad people.  In fact, they are often very good people indeed.  There is no point in *criminalizing* them, for that would (obviously) make them into criminals.  They should be treated as what they are: the *victims* of crimes that are not named as such in our evil society.



I can't disagree with most of that, but doing nothing about things like prostitution and drug addiction in our communities isnt an option either is it? - it fails drug adicts/ prostitues as much as it fails those who live with the effects of their actions.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 18, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> You've hit the nail on the head.
> 
> Phil thinks he's Christ.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 18, 2006)

memespring said:
			
		

> I can't disagree with most of that, but doing nothing about things like prostitution and drug addiction in our communities isnt an option either is it? - it fails drug adicts/ prostitues as much as it fails those who live with the effects of their actions.


Well said.
It's how we treat (or mistreat) the most vulnerable sections of the population that provides a gauge as to whether we really are as civilised a society as we like to believe.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

memespring said:
			
		

> I can't disagree with most of that, but doing nothing about things like prostitution and drug addiction in our communities isnt an option either is it? - it fails drug adicts/ prostitues as much as it fails those who live with the effects of their actions.



That's why the answer, as I've said before, is "tolerance zones" for both drugs *and* prostitution.  Put them in some enclosed area--Mexico and Denmark use walled compounds, Switzerland uses parks, I'd suggest an evacuated council estate in London.  Allow free traffic in and out.  Have a cop shop in there, and an emergency room, and a drug treatment center, and an STD info/free condom center.  Let people do want they want there, as long as they hurt no-one else.  Problem solved!  Or surely at least much alleviated.  Works in other places, why not Brixton?  Better than snitching to the cops, which merely exacerbates the problem, in addition to being absolutely despicable in itself, for a victimless crime.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 19, 2006)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2004/09/27/inject_site040927.html


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 19, 2006)

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/361/vandu.shtml


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> That's why the answer, as I've said before, is "tolerance zones" for both drugs *and* prostitution.  Put them in some enclosed area--Mexico and Denmark use walled compounds, Switzerland uses parks, I'd suggest an evacuated council estate in London.



You are fucking joking... aren't you?

Have you ever been to that needle park in Geneva?

I have - it's a shithole... and if you think that's the answer then you really are a simpleton.



> Allow free traffic in and out.



Translation: allow the drug tourism to continue just as it does on CHL.



> Have a cop shop in there, and an emergency room, and a drug treatment center, and an STD info/free condom center.  Let people do want they want there, as long as they hurt no-one else.



And if they do hurt others - when the "free traffic" is getting mugged, raped, or worse???



> Problem solved!  Or surely at least much alleviated.  Works in other places, why not Brixton?



Name one other place where it "works"?

Sounds like hell on earth - how do you force people to stay in this abandoned housing estate anyway?



> Better than snitching to the cops, which merely exacerbates the problem, in addition to being absolutely despicable in itself, for a victimless crime.



You haven't got a fucking clue, it's clear from your earlier comments (coke=crack) that you have *no idea* what crack is, never mind what it does to people.

Your remedial "solution" is about as sensible as sending the tanks in.

Please shut up now.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 19, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2004/09/27/inject_site040927.html


That's particularly interesting, thanks JC2. There's a drugs treatment centre due to open locally and one of the objections from the anti-centre lot is that it will bring more dealers to the area...that article mentions that as a fear that turned out to be erroneous.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> You are fucking joking... aren't you?
> 
> Have you ever been to that needle park in Geneva?
> 
> I have - it's a shithole...



I'm sure it is.  But the point is, you idiot, that the rest of Geneva is *not* a shithole.  See?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> You haven't got a fucking clue, it's clear from your earlier comments (coke=crack) that you have *no idea* what crack is, never mind what it does to people.



You would seem to be backpedalling rather heavily from your confident earlier claim that I am in fact on crack myself!  Anyway, the fact is that I have far more experience of crack users than you, having lived in Harlem and the Lower East Side of NYC at the height of the crack epidemic.  You are as nothing.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 19, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> That's particularly interesting, thanks JC2. There's a drugs treatment centre due to open locally and one of the objections from the anti-centre lot is that it will bring more dealers to the area...that article mentions that as a fear that turned out to be erroneous.



The safe injection sites are part of the City of Vancouver's Four Pillars Drug Strategy.

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/fourpillars/


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Name one other place where it "works"?



Vancouver.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/361/vandu.shtml



An excellent link, of *course* its a success.  So are similar areas in many Latin American and European countries.  What is it that prevents the UK and USA from following this obvious example?  Well, I suppose we see the answer in the various weird hang-ups and unconscious prejudices exhibited on these boards.  The problem is with people's *attitdues* towards drug addicts and prostitutes--attitudes that are in very large part informed by racial and class prejudice.  But try explaining that to those who hold those attitudes. Oh, you have...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> An excellent link, of *course* its a success.  So are similar areas in many Latin American and European countries.  What is it that prevents the UK and USA from following this obvious example?...



Fear, and misplaced morality.


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'm sure it is.  But the point is, you idiot, that the rest of Geneva is *not* a shithole.  See?



There might be another reason for that.. if you'd bothered to check... idiot...

Apr*19,*1994	: Amnesty International expresses concern about reports that the Swiss police are using unwarranted violence against Foreigners and immigrants in custody.

Jun*22,*1994	: Hundreds of young Swiss hold a one-hour strike to protest what they see as Switzerland's isolation and xenophobia.

Feb*15,*1995 :	Hundreds of demonstrators march through central Zurich chanting anti-racism slogans and handing out leaflets in protest at a Swiss police crackdown on Europe's largest drug scene. The demonstrators claim that the crackdown is repressive and will lead to unfair treatment of Foreigners.

Feb*20,*1995	: The Swiss city of Zurich ended its free drugs and clean needles to addicts program after increased violence and foreign gangs made it too dangerous. Over half the 3,500 addicts supplied each day were Foreigners, who were subsequently deported. (Baltimore Sun 2/20/95)

http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/mar/chronology.asp?groupId=22502


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> And if they do hurt others - when the "free traffic" is getting mugged, raped, or worse???



Then you have policemen stationed in the "zone," who will arrest any such perps with far greater ease than they would in general society.  And in reality "tolerance zones" are virtually free of violent crime in any case.


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You would seem to be backpedalling rather heavily from your confident earlier claim that I am in fact on crack myself!  Anyway, the fact is that I have far more experience of crack users than you, having lived in Harlem and the Lower East Side of NYC at the height of the crack epidemic.  You are as nothing.



You know nothing of my experiences with crack, or its effects on the lives of those I have known since childhood.

When did you live in NYC? For how long?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Sounds like hell on earth - how do you force people to stay in this abandoned housing estate anyway?



Chacun a son gout innit?  And you don't have to "force" anyone to stay there, you just don't allow them to sell or buy sex or drugs anywhere else.  They'll find there way there alright...


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> When did you live in NYC? For how long?



1987--97.  Mostly in Harlem or the Lower East Side.  Oh yes, you won't beat me for street cred.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> That's why the answer, as I've said before, is "tolerance zones" for both drugs *and* prostitution.  Put them in some enclosed area--Mexico and Denmark use walled compounds, Switzerland uses parks, I'd suggest an evacuated council estate in London.  Allow free traffic in and out.  Have a cop shop in there, and an emergency room, and a drug treatment center, and an STD info/free condom center.  Let people do want they want there, as long as they hurt no-one else.  Problem solved!  Or surely at least much alleviated.  Works in other places, why not Brixton?  Better than snitching to the cops, which merely exacerbates the problem, in addition to being absolutely despicable in itself, for a victimless crime.


Why exactly do you want to push everyone off to a ghetto somewhere again?

I thought you were saying that there were no problems...

I thought that you were saying that anyone who had problems was racist...

...so why exactly are you proposing this?

Regarding your idea itself - what would you do if people didn't want to go and use this area? What would you do in response to people staying where they are now?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> An excellent link, of *course* its a success.  So are similar areas in many Latin American and European countries.  What is it that prevents the UK and USA from following this obvious example?  Well, I suppose we see the answer in the various weird hang-ups and unconscious prejudices exhibited on these boards.  The problem is with people's *attitdues* towards drug addicts and prostitutes--attitudes that are in very large part informed by racial and class prejudice.  But try explaining that to those who hold those attitudes. Oh, you have...


You are now talking about prostitution as well...

..I haven't really noticed it being a massive issue in this thread until you started talking about it.

Why did you bring it up?

(ps do you actually know where most of the prostitution happens in Lambeth?)


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 19, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Why exactly do you want to push everyone off to a ghetto somewhere again?
> 
> I thought you were saying that there were no problems...



But you did. You said that drug users on the street shouldn't be allowed to have a negative impact on the public, passersby etc.

This is an answer to that problem.


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Vancouver.



There's good reason for the despair that hangs over Vancouver's Downtown Eastside...Researchers have found that the 6,000 to 10,000 heroin addicts who inhabit this pocket of poverty have the developed world's highest rate of HIV transmission - 18.6 per cent. Translation: If 1,000 addicts are free of HIV, 186 of them will contract the AIDS- related virus within 12 months." 

M. Cernetig, Globe and Mail, Oct 8, 97.

http://www.ugrad.math.ubc.ca/coursedoc/math100/notes/mordifeqs/hiv.html

Canadian aboriginals in Vancouver face AIDS epidemic

HIV/AIDS is likely to become the next epidemic facing Canada’s aboriginals, with aboriginal injecting drug users in Vancouver becoming infected at twice the rate among non-aboriginal injecting drug users in the city, a new study from the Canadian Medical Association Journal says (2003;168:19-24). 

The reason for the higher rate of infection among aboriginal people seems to be related to the frequency with which they inject what are known as speedballs, a combination of cocaine and heroin.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7381/126/e


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Regarding your idea itself - what would you do if people didn't want to go and use this area? What would you do in response to people staying where they are now?



Well, don't you think that, if there was an area where dealers knew they could always find users, and vice versa, and prostitutes knew they could always find johns, and vice versa, and all parties knew they would not be harrassed by the police--whereas anywhere else they would--then *all* the hookers and dealers and junkies and whoremongers would congregate in that area and nowhere else?  Or *almost* all at least?  I certainly do.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> But you did. You said that drug users on the street shouldn't be allowed to have a negative impact on the public, passersby etc.
> 
> This is an answer to that problem.


I want to klnow if he is changing his whole argument. Are you saying that you and phil now agree with me?

ffs johnny and phildwyer - its like the fucking chuckle brothers...

...without 'teh funnies!'


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> There's good reason for the despair that hangs over Vancouver's Downtown Eastside...Researchers have found that the 6,000 to 10,000 heroin addicts who inhabit this pocket of poverty have the developed world's highest rate of HIV transmission - 18.6 per cent. Translation: If 1,000 addicts are free of HIV, 186 of them will contract the AIDS- related virus within 12 months."
> 
> M. Cernetig, Globe and Mail, *Oct 8, 97*.
> 
> ...



Your first article is from 1997.

The city implemented the Four Pillars in 2001.

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/fourpillars/pdf/Factsheet_history.pdf

They did this to combat the very problems that you're highlighting.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, don't you think that, if there was an area where dealers knew they could always find users, and vice versa, and prostitutes knew they could always find johns, and vice versa, and all parties knew they would not be harrassed by the police--whereas anywhere else they would--then *all* the hookers and dealers and junkies and whoremongers would congregate in that area and nowhere else?  Or *almost* all at least?  I certainly do.


You just used 84 words to completely avoid the question.

Care to have another go?
_
"what would you do if people didn't want to go and use this area? What would you do in response to people staying where they are now?"_


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> 1987--97.  Mostly in Harlem or the Lower East Side.  Oh yes, you won't beat me for street cred.



So if that's the case - who the fuck are you to lecture anyone about Brixton's problems?

Crack arrived in Brixton, as I noticed it, between 1992 and 1994.

What connection do you really have with Brixton, Phildwyer?

Because I can tell you now - your utopian vision of an abandoned housing estate (is there such a thing in Brixton?) being used as a drop-in centre for all manner of junkies and prostitutes can't make things any better at all - there will still be crack addicted prostitutes on Brixton Hill looking for the passing trade in the cars - and they'll not want to stay in some estate of your dreams...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> So if that's the case - who the fuck are you to lecture anyone about Brixton's problems?
> 
> Crack arrived in Brixton, as I noticed it, between 1992 and 1994.
> 
> ...



What do you suggest should be done?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

_"an abandoned housing estate (is there such a thing in Brixton?)"_

No, no, didn't you see his 'clarification': he wants to kick out all the residents from an existing estate and turn it over to dealing and prostitution. 

 

(he *must* be taking the piss surely!)


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> What connection do you really have with Brixton, Phildwyer?



Well I'm sure I don't know why you're suddenly so obsessed with my life history, but since you ask, members of my immediate family live in Brixton and have done for over 15 years, and I visit them for extended periods several times a year.  As many long-standing members of these boards can attest.  You may rest assured that I know Brixton like the back of my hand.  Probably much better than you, since you say that you live "out in the country."


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Your first article is from 1997.
> 
> The city implemented the Four Pillars in 2001.
> 
> ...



But would you not agree that drug dealers and pimps are still operating openly with impunity, in spite of this initiative?

I know nothing about Vancouver - never been there yet - but it seems that the problems still exist, and are getting worse.... correct me if I'm wrong...


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> What do you suggest should be done?



I've never been opposed to the concept of supervised clinics, spread over a wide area (not concentrated like the Terrordome vision of Hades that Phildwyer seems to be proposing) where heroin addicts can access services and treatment in order to primarily help them quit the habit, and also reduce the risk of their turning to street crime in order to line the pockets of smack dealing scum.

What I will never accept is the prospect of crack addicts being able to fire up a pipe and roam the streets with impunity, mainly because I am acutely aware of the absolute degradation of the sense of morality and decency that crack cocaine use brings upon the user.

You cannot reason with a seasoned crackhead in full swing.

Prolonged use gives the user a sense of superhuman imperviousness, and human life is rendered absolutely inconsequential when the possibility of gaining enough funds to get hold of another rock is just a violent mugging away.

Hand in hand with this goes the sad spectre of young women being abused for money, and in a far more deprived and tragic manner than before crack was an issue.

This I'm sure you are aware of.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> But would you not agree that drug dealers and pimps are still operating openly with impunity, in spite of this initiative?
> 
> I know nothing about Vancouver - never been there yet - but it seems that the problems still exist, and are getting worse.... correct me if I'm wrong...



The problem is still there. I can still walk out the front door of my workplace, walk three blocks, and see people sitting in alleys and doorways smoking crack. But there has been some improvement.

Up until about two years ago, the Downtown Eastside, as it's known, was an open air drug emporium/brothel/lunatic asylum. Drug dealers literally lined the streets, thieves could be seen heading down there with shopping carts full of stolen merchandise, hookers were giving blowjobs in alleys, etc. I know you have these kinds of problems in London etc, but I suspect that few cities anywhere have anything to rival the old Downtown Eastside for sheer bleakness and madness.

Then, the cops went in there in strength: large sweeps with hundreds of officers, backed up by immigration officers, etc. Hundreds of arrests were made, honduran dealers were deported by the dozen, etc. They busted a number of corner stores that were just drug selling operations, with a few cans of food on the shelves for show.

 At the same time, they got the safe injection sites going, so it wasn't just a law and order crackdown (pardon the pun).

Nowdays, you'd hardly recognize the place. There are still drugs and crazies, etc, but at a fraction of their former strength. Business at the injection sites is booming. They're handing out safe crack kits to users, because of the recent hepatitis and tuberculosis epidemics.

The drug use has spread out somewhat from the centralization of the downtown eastside; the problem will never be eliminated, at least not with the laws as they currently stand, but it seems that some progress has been made to bringing back a little more public order, while also attending to the health needs of addicts.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> the Terrordome vision of Hades that Phildwyer seems to be proposing



Nah, they're really not that bad.  It may surprise you to learn that the *vast* majority of prostitutes and drug dealers and addicts--and even most crack users--are actually fairly reasonable human beings, who simply want to ply their trade or enjoy their sinful pleasures in peace.  You just notice the fuck-ups cos they're the most visible.  And their proportion would be *vastly* reduced by the measures I am proposing. Have you ever visited the Red Light District of Amsterdam?  See much trouble there?  Course you have, and course you didn't.


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well I'm sure I don't know why you're suddenly so obsessed with my life history, but since you ask, members of my immediate family live in Brixton and have done for over 15 years, and I visit them for extended periods several times a year.  As many long-standing members of these boards can attest.  You may rest assured that I know Brixton like the back of my hand.  Probably much better than you, since you say that you live "out in the country."



I lived in Lambeth for two years, and was raised in South London, ice skating in Streatham every week as a kid, going out in Tooting with friends, and worked in Soho for over ten years - I only relatively recently moved to the country.... mainly because there was no fucking way I was going to tolerate my partner or child getting abused or threatened just for walking home at night without physically killing someone.

Ever been to Geneva, Phildwyer?

You set yourself up as an expert on places where these imaginary abandoned housing estates are now a junkie Utopia where no crimes happen outside the big concrete walls... yet I don't think you can tell me of one single place where you can testify first hand that this approach is successful.

Aside from your earlier bullshit assertions which we'll ignore for now - I don't think you know what to do any more than I do - so don't pretend to have all the answers because it makes you look pathetic, frankly.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I've never been opposed to the concept of supervised clinics, spread over a wide area (not concentrated like the Terrordome vision of Hades that Phildwyer seems to be proposing) where heroin addicts can access services and treatment in order to primarily help them quit the habit, and also reduce the risk of their turning to street crime in order to line the pockets of smack dealing scum.
> 
> What I will never accept is the prospect of crack addicts being able to fire up a pipe and roam the streets with impunity, mainly because I am acutely aware of the absolute degradation of the sense of morality and decency that crack cocaine use brings upon the user.
> 
> You cannot reason with a seasoned crackhead in full swing.



But it wears off quickly. In the summer, we were walking down Davie Street, and there was a big commotion ahead. A crackhead had run into a coffee shop to hide from the Devil. Then he began smashing shelves, etc. One of the patrons was a bodybuilder type: he sat on the addict till the cops came.

We sat on a terrace nearby and had a coffee. It took awhile to bring the guy out, but by the time they did, he was pretty calmed down, not seeing the Devil anymore.

(I knew all this because I recognized one of the cops. He writes a column for a local newspaper, and we were chatting about his column. He filled us in on the back story of the addict.)


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Nah, they're really not that bad.  It may surprise you to learn that the *vast* majority of prostitutes and drug dealers and addicts--and even most crack users--are actually fairly reasonable human beings, who simply want to ply their trade or enjoy their sinful pleasures in peace.  You just notice the fuck-ups cos they're the most visible.



I agree. I think a lot of the people in these areas have just been fucked by life. Often, they're keenly aware of a sense of justice and fair play. For the most part, I've never felt in any physical danger in even the worst parts of the downtown eastside, even though it's always prudent to recognize that there are still predators there, as well as some people with serious mental problems.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> there was no fucking way I was going to tolerate my partner or child getting abused or threatened just for walking home at night without physically killing someone.



Again with the "physically killing someone."  It would make it far easier to debate with you if you could just lose these incessant fantasies involving yourself committing acts of violence against those you consider "criminals."  Its makes you look like a bit of a nutter, tbh.


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Nah, they're really not that bad.  It may surprise you to learn that the *vast* majority of prostitutes and drug dealers and addicts--and even most crack users--are actually fairly reasonable human beings, who simply want to ply their trade or enjoy their sinful pleasures in peace.  You just notice the fuck-ups cos they're the most visible.  And their proportion would be *vastly* reduced by the measures I am proposing. Have you ever visited the Red Light District of Amsterdam?  See much trouble there?  Course you have, and course you didn't.



Been to Amsterdam six times, for both work and pleasure... I personally think men who visit prostitutes are contemptable, but that's my own view, when I went for the pleasure it was to be able to have a spliff, and even that gets fucking boring after the first two hours, sitting in some stinking cafe listening to boring people and their boring drug anecdotes... 

As for trouble - you have no idea - I've seen a semi-naked black man covered in blood being dragged through Centraal inbetween two police horses, seen fights between junkies, women mistaken for being prostitutes being abused by tourists... addicts slumped in doorways in full view of passers by...

I love the Dutch people and their approach to life but I was ashamed to be British with the amount of disgusting behaviour I have witnessed whilst there... and I only assumed the perpetrators were British.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Been to Amsterdam six times, for both work and pleasure... I personally think men who visit prostitutes are contemptable, but that's my own view, when I went for the pleasure it was to be able to have a spliff, and even that gets fucking boring after the first two hours, sitting in some stinking cafe listening to boring people and their boring drug anecdotes...
> 
> As for trouble - you have no idea - I've seen a semi-naked black man covered in blood being dragged through Centraal inbetween two police horses, seen fights between junkies, women mistaken for being prostitutes being abused by tourists... addicts slumped in doorways in full view of passers by...
> 
> I love the Dutch people and their approach to life but I was ashamed to be British with the amount of disgusting behaviour I have witnessed whilst there... and I only assumed the perpetrators were British.



Yep, human beings aren't perfect. They're going to continue drinking and drugging and fucking and getting sick on themselves. It seems to be part of what we are. It also seems that the more we try to deny it and repress it, the more is the harm that results.


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Again with the "physically killing someone."  It would make it far easier to debate with you if you could just lose these incessant fantasies involving yourself committing acts of violence against those you consider "criminals."  Its makes you look like a bit of a nutter, tbh.



Are you married?

Have you ever been with a partner who, whilst visibly pregnant, was violently mugged for a fucking mobile phone, and subsequently jeered at?

Believe me, had I collared the surplus cunts who did that to the love of my life, they would have _begged_ me to kill them.

In the face of such human detrius - I *am* a fucking nutter.

Of course - you set your stall out earlier didn't you, by saying that "snitching to the cops, merely exacerbates the problem, in addition to being absolutely despicable in itself" and I know first hand that even as things as they are, The Cops Do Fuck All, so if the cops aren't going to deal with this shit then who is?

You?

No - you're six hours away. 

Brave of you to come up with all the answers yet not be anywhere near the area when they're implemented.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I love the Dutch people and their approach to life but I was ashamed to be British with the amount of disgusting behaviour I have witnessed whilst there... and I only assumed the perpetrators were British.



Of course they were British!  You know why?  Because Britain has an anachronistic, punitive and puritanical attitude towards "crime" and "vice" that merely serves to eternally perpetuate and greatly increase their prevelence.  An attitude that you yourself espouse at every opportunity.  Also, there's no way you can tell me that there is as much trouble in Amsterdam as there is in Brixton. Or Doncaster.  Or Reading.  Or Taff's Well.  Or *anywhere else* in Britain, come to that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 19, 2006)

Are there any social problems at all that don't end with you killing people Pk/walter?


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Yep, human beings aren't perfect. They're going to continue drinking and drugging and fucking and getting sick on themselves. It seems to be part of what we are. It also seems that the more we try to deny it and repress it, the more is the harm that results.



So let's just give up on being able to raise kids in a safe neighbourhood - lets admit defeat - the junkies and the crackheads and the whores have won, let's give them our town and we'll move on elsewhere.

Believe me - after having a good friend shot in the head nine times by crackhead scum in front of his nine year old daughter, after watching a beautiful girl I have known since we were kids become addicted to crack and her skin become enveloped in a rash, after an aquaintance was kidnapped from CHL and taken to a flat where he was tortured for two days with sharpened coathangers whilst his captors drained his bank accounts via the cash machines... do you seriously think I give a fuck about the needs of the crack dealers?

They don't give a fuck about me or my life, it's a dog eat dog world...


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Believe me, had I collared the surplus cunts who did that to the love of my life, they would have _begged_ me to kill them.
> 
> In the face of such human detrius - I *am* a fucking nutter.



Yes, yes, I think we all understand that darling.  Its alright, we *do* accept the reality of your ultra-violent tendencies.  Admirable, I'm sure.  But tell us, has it ever occured to you that perhaps the immediate relatives of crime victims might not be in the best position to determine the fate of the criminals?  Insofar as they could not be expected to be *objective* on this matter?  And furthermore, that it might be preferable to have a system of courts and judges who could possibly render a more objective verdict than the immediate relatives of the victim?  Eh? Has that ever occured to you?  Has it?


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Are there any social problems at all that don't end with you killing people Pk/walter?



Leave it, hypocrite, this isn't your time.

I left your threads alone... besides, you're too late.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> ...I personally think men who visit prostitutes are contemptable...


Since its semi-tradional in some places to post song lyrics, here's the latest song by the Arctic Monkeys 

"When The Sun Goes Down (Scummy)"

So who's that girl there?
I wonder what went wrong
So that she had to roam the streets
She don't do major credit cards
I doubt she does receipts
It's all not quite legitimate

And what a scummy man
Just give him half a chance
I bet he'll rob you if he can
Can see it in his eyes, yeah
That he's got a driving ban
Amongst some other offences

And I've seen him with girls of the night
And he told Roxanne to put on her red light
They're all infected but he'll be alright
Cause he's a scumbag, don't you know
I said he's a scumbag, don't you know!

Although you're trying not to listen
I bet your eyes are staring at the ground
She makes a subtle proposition
Sorry love I'll have to turn you down

And oh he must be up to something
Want half a chance to show he's more than likely
I've got a feeling in my stomach
I start to wonder what his story might be
What his story might be

They said it changes when the sun goes down
And they said it changes when the sun goes down
And they said it changes when the sun goes down
Around here
Around

And look here comes a Ford Mondeo
Isn't he Mister Inconspicuous
And he don't have to say 'owt
She understands she's here to get picked up

And she's delighted when she sees him
Pulling in and giving her the eye
Because she must be fucking freezing
Scantily clad beneath the clear night sky
She don't stop in the winter, no and...

They said it changes when the sun goes down
And they said it changes when the sun goes down
And they said it changes when the sun goes down
Around here

They said it changes when the sun goes down
And they said it changes when the sun goes down
And they said it changes when the sun goes down
Around here
Around here

What a scummy man
Just give him half a chance
I bet he'll rob you if he can
Can see it in his eyes that he's got a nasty plan
I hope you're not involved at all

(nb they offer free official downloads on their site/forum: http://www.arcticmonkeys.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=913 )


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Leave it, hypocrite, this isn't your time.
> 
> I left your threads alone... besides, you're too late.


 No, You've not done it yet - you're going to do it in the future. Deal?


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> No, You've not done it yet - you're going to do it in the future. Deal?



Yeah I did - I backed off when you asked before, if you remember, do me the same favour... believe it or not we're actually getting somewhere here on this thread, maybe... either way your input isn't going to add much if you're just after a row - save it for another time...


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Since its semi-tradional in some places to post song lyrics, here's the latest song by the Arctic Monkeys
> 
> "When The Sun Goes Down (Scummy)"



Don't... you'll start JC2 off...


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Yeah I did - I backed off when you asked before, if you remember, do me the same favour... believe it or not we're actually getting somewhere here on this thread, maybe... either way your input isn't going to add much if you're just after a row - save it for another time...



Actually Butcher's (and I've no idea what the beef between you two is) PK is right here.  We are sort of getting somewhere on this thread, and it might be better if you took yer feuding eslewhere.  Feel free to wade in on the substantive issues here though...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 19, 2006)

Leave off, you threw that back in my face because you knew no one else had seen it. You lied and spat in my face for good measure. If you want me to back off here and leave you alone you  say now that you're leaving off _my_ threads - and that doesn't mean threads that i've started.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Actually Butcher's (and I've no idea what the beef between you two is) PK is right here.  We are sort of getting somewhere on this thread, and it might be better if you took yer feuding eslewhere.  Feel free to wade in on the substantive issues here though...


 Bide your time. This is just a little interval. I'll have an answer one way or the other and be off soon.


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

Worth repeating in the vain hope that Phildwyer will answer...




			
				Teejay said:
			
		

> "what would you do if people didn't want to go and use this area?
> What would you do in response to people staying where they are now?"


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Leave off, you threw that back in my face because you knew no one else had seen it. You lied and spat in my face for good measure. If you want me to back off here and leave you alone you  say now that you're leaving off _my_ threads - and that doesn't mean threads that i've started.



I'm not sure what you're on about - all I remember is you halfway through some intense thread where you'd just got into your stride, I'd come in from the pub and fancied a virtual ruck - you said "do me a favour, not now" or words to that effect, and I backed off straight away... besides, when was the last time I pissed about with your business here anyway????

It's been a while... that I do know.

For fucks sake, are you just pissed again?

Go and read a book, this isn't productive... and I'm not drinking ATM...


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Worth repeating in the vain hope that Phildwyer will answer...



Well obviously they *would* go and use this area.  OK, say you're a junkie, right?  You want to score?  Would you (a) go to Coldharbour Lane, crawling as it is with undercover cops, muggers, and rip-off artists, or (b) go to the "tolerance zone," where you could be sure of scoring good gear, and neither getting arrested, nor ripped off, nor mugged"  EH?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Of course they were British!  You know why?  Because Britain has an anachronistic, punitive and puritanical attitude towards "crime" and "vice" that merely serves to eternally perpetuate and greatly increase their prevelence.  An attitude that you yourself espouse at every opportunity.  Also, there's no way you can tell me that there is as much trouble in Amsterdam as there is in Brixton. Or Doncaster.  Or Reading.  Or Taff's Well.  Or *anywhere else* in Britain, come to that.


What do you think of the recent changes re. prostitution?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Of course they were British!  You know why?  Because Britain has an anachronistic, punitive and puritanical attitude towards "crime" and "vice" that merely serves to eternally perpetuate and greatly increase their prevelence.  An attitude that you yourself espouse at every opportunity.  Also, there's no way you can tell me that there is as much trouble in Amsterdam as there is in Brixton. Or Doncaster.  Or Reading.  Or Taff's Well.  Or *anywhere else* in Britain, come to that.


There is more trouble in Amsterdam than in my town.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you're on about - all I remember is you halfway through some intense thread where you'd just got into your stride, I'd come in from the pub and fancied a virtual ruck - you said "do me a favour, not now" or words to that effect, and I backed off straight away... besides, when was the last time I pissed about with your business here anyway????
> 
> It's been a while... that I do know.
> 
> ...


 Ok, you're totally wrong or lying - but let's go that way then.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ...it might be preferable to have a system of courts and judges who could possibly render a more objective verdict...


Earlier on this thread you were talking about how people shouldn't "snitch" to the police.

You keep changing your tune every few posts ffs!


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Earlier on this thread you were talking about how people shouldn't "snitch" to the police.



About *victimless* crimes, fool.


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well obviously they *would* go and use this area.  OK, say you're a junkie, right?  You want to score?  Would you (a) go to Coldharbour Lane, crawling as it is with undercover cops, muggers, and rip-off artists, or (b) go to the "tolerance zone," where you could be sure of scoring good gear, and neither getting arrested, nor ripped off, nor mugged"  EH?



That just doesn't equate with real life though.

In your abandoned housing estate that harbours drug users, once the money runs out, the pressure is on to get the cash for the next hit - assuming the black market is alive and well and drug prohibition is still firmly in place - the supply/demand rule dictates that the drug users will get their funds from criminal activity - it's not as if they've got a day job - so of course you're going to get people being mugged!

You could say that Coldharbour Lane was an unofficial place of tolerance - yet still people are getting shot, kidnapped, attacked and mugged, all to make ends meet.

Do you think people on crack give a fuck about supposed "borders"?

Besides - it seems to me that to enforce such a "tolerance zone" you'd need far more policing on its outskirts... and then people like you or I not looking for drugs or whores would be busted for a couple of spliffs, or drinking from a can of lager...


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> About *victimless* crimes, fool.



Enough of the "fool" comments, we're on a fairly decent level now, in spite of having opposing arguments.

And the proliferation of drugs like crack or Bolivia's finest is never victimless - how do you think the hard drugs get here in the first place?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer, I don't understand - you started off on this thread saying people complaining about CHL were racists. Now its you who is wanting to move people to a zone somewhere else. Are you now admitting that there is a problem? Do you still say that people who say there is a problem are racists? Does this make you a racist?

You talk about how people shouldn't snitch and 'victimless crimes' but then propose zones where people are 'allowed' to do x, y and z. Outside they are not allowed to do these things - so your proposal needs to be policed. Have you suddenly changed your mind about 'snitching' to your own proposed police?


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Ok, you're totally wrong or lying - but let's go that way then.



OK you're totally pissed or just trying it on - but it's clear you want a row anyway, even though for me right now clearly it would be like slapping a wet chimp.

I'll see if I can find the time to slag you of inbetween salient on-topic points... either that or you could save your undoubtedly witty and scathing remarks for another time and fuck off back to that other _terribly busy and important_ website Ern and Swarthy think that they're running...


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> phildwyer, I don't understand - you started off on this thread saying people complaining about CHL were racists. Now its you who is wanting to move people to a zone somewhere else. Are you now admitting that there is a problem? Do you still say that people who say there is a problem are racists? Does this make you a racist?



Maybe he just _got love_ for _the ghetto_?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> In your abandoned housing estate that harbours drug users, once the money runs out, the pressure is on to get the cash for the next hit - assuming the black market is alive and well and drug prohibition is still firmly in place - the supply/demand rule dictates that the drug users will get their funds from criminal activity - it's not as if they've got a day job - so of course you're going to get people being mugged!



Well I daresay you may have a point.  I'd actually advocate complete legalization and free drugs for anyone who wants them.  The crackheads would last about five minutes.  But anyway, its drinkin' time over here.  Perhaps, if you like, I will ask some of the many crackheads I will certainly encounter between my house and the pub what their preferred solution would be.  Of course, this will mean that I will arrive at the pub about $20 lighter than I set off.  A small price to pay for winning an internet argument though, innit?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> it would be like slapping a wet chimp.


I wouldn't ever be foolish enough to slap a wet chimp. It would probably rip my arm off.

edited to add:
I might get away with shoving a soggy bonobo though.


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well I daresay you may have a point.  I'd actually advocate complete legalization and free drugs for anyone who wants them.  The crackheads would last about five minutes.



So give them all the free crack they want and just have a decent supply of bodybags ready so they don't litter the streets?

Blimey. That was easier than I thought.



> But anyway, its drinkin' time over here.  Perhaps, if you like, I will ask some of the many crackheads I will certainly encounter between my house and the pub what their preferred solution would be.  Of course, this will mean that I will arrive at the pub about $20 lighter than I set off.  A small price to pay for winning an internet argument though, innit?



Out of interest - and I'll probably regret this - where are you anyway?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Out of interest - and I'll probably regret this - where are you anyway?



Slap bang in the middle of Philadelphia.  Absolutely surrounded by crackheads, whores, junkies and beggars.  Don't bother me none.


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> I wouldn't ever be foolish enough to slap a wet chimp. It would probably rip my arm off.
> 
> edited to add:
> I might get away with shoving a soggy bonobo though.



I think virtually slapping a wet, drunk chimp who is way past his prime and his bedtime is a fairly safe, and quite possibly fun thing to do, at this time of night.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ...I'd actually advocate complete legalization and free drugs for anyone who wants them.  The crackheads would last about five minutes...


I thought that earlier you were arguing that we should be helping these people, who are severely disadvantaged. Now you seem to be advocating helping them kill themselves off.

For someone who urges people to be rational and logical in their arguments you have managed to put a hell of a lot of contraditory ideas forward just on this single thread.

Are you doing this on purpose just to wind people up, are you a bit confused or have you actually changed your mind over the course of this thread?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Slap bang in the middle of Philadelphia.  Absolutely surrounded by crackheads, whores, junkies and beggars.  Don't bother me none.


Do you like it because it is "vibrant and edgy"? 

Or just because noone actually notices that you talk utter shite?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I think virtually slapping a wet, drunk chimp who is way past his prime and his bedtime is a fairly safe, and quite possibly fun thing to do, at this time of night.



Yes indeed, and what time *is* it over there?  3.30am?  What an interesting life you must lead.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> So let's just give up on being able to raise kids in a safe neighbourhood - lets admit defeat - the junkies and the crackheads and the whores have won, let's give them our town and we'll move on elsewhere.
> 
> Believe me - after having a good friend shot in the head nine times by crackhead scum in front of his nine year old daughter, after watching a beautiful girl I have known since we were kids become addicted to crack and her skin become enveloped in a rash, after an aquaintance was kidnapped from CHL and taken to a flat where he was tortured for two days with sharpened coathangers whilst his captors drained his bank accounts via the cash machines... do you seriously think I give a fuck about the needs of the crack dealers?
> 
> They don't give a fuck about me or my life, it's a dog eat dog world...



I don't think it has to be one extreme or the other. I don't think it has to be shooting druggies in the streets vs anarchy in the streets. All I'm saying is there will always be  drug addiction, and people who cant cope, and we need to find a mechanism that hopefully minimizes the negative behaviour, but also is caring enough to provide some care for the addicted and disadvantaged.

As for your experiences, I don't believe that the majority of even crackheads go about shooting or torturing people. Those that do are criminals, just like the non-crackheads who do the same thing.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes indeed, and what time *is* it over there?  3.30am?  What an interesting life you must lead.


See how many questions you avoid on this thread?

You have no answers.

Aren't you missing out on drinking time? 

Toddle off then.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> As for your experiences, I don't believe that the majority of even crackheads go about shooting or torturing people. Those that do are criminals, just like the non-crackheads who do the same thing.


Does saying this make you a racist?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Are you married?
> 
> Have you ever been with a partner who, whilst visibly pregnant, was violently mugged for a fucking mobile phone, and subsequently jeered at?
> 
> ...



I can understand your impulse to violence. It seems that quite a few people around you have fallen victim to crime and violence. I don't think that your or their experience constitutes the norm, by any means, however.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 19, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> I wouldn't ever be foolish enough to slap a wet chimp. It would probably rip my arm off.
> 
> edited to add:
> I might get away with shoving a soggy bonobo though.



Slapping the wet chimp.

Is that some sort of euphemism for self abuse?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> So give them all the free crack they want and just have a decent supply of bodybags ready so they don't litter the streets?
> 
> Blimey. That was easier than I thought.
> 
> ...



The problem is, I don't think free crack would work. Free drugs would only work with self limiting substances like marijuana, junk etc.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 19, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Does saying this make you a racist?



I don't know. Most of the crackheads around here are white.


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes indeed, and what time *is* it over there?  3.30am?  What an interesting life you must lead.



I'm working right now, for your info.

And yes - I do lead an intrinsically more interesting life than most.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> And yes - I do lead an intrinsically more interesting life than most.



Me too mate, sfucking great innit?  I reallly am off to the pub now, honest...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I'm working right now, for your info.
> 
> And yes - I do lead an intrinsically more interesting life than most.



Other people might consider their lives to be interesting, too.


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Me too mate, sfucking great innit?  I reallly am off to the pub now, honest...



So, in summary:

"crackheads and prostitutes are really nice people, right, so we shouldn't criminalise them, we should stick them all in some disused housing estate, preferably one with big high walls all around it, and feed them drugs until they die"

Welcome To The Terrordome.



> It's weak to speak and blame somebody else
> When you destroy yourself
> First nothing's worse than a mother's pain
> Of a son slain in Bensonhurst
> ...


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I don't know. Most of the crackheads around here are white.


You think you can't be racist against white people?


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Other people might consider their lives to be interesting, too.



Naaa. I know 'em.

Boring cunts, they are.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Me too mate, sfucking great innit?  I reallly am off to the pub now, honest...


You've been "rushing off to the pub" for the last 33 minutes


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 19, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You think you can't be racist against white people?



Probably, but I'm not.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Naaa. I know 'em.
> 
> Boring cunts, they are.



Nobody likes a boring cunt.


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

Careful now...

pk = (7.73 posts per day)

JC2 = (19.22 posts per day)


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

TeeJay = 5.99 posts per day 

except I have cheated by having my postcount reset


----------



## Jessiedog (Jan 19, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Slapping the wet chimp.
> 
> Is that some sort of euphemism for self abuse?




No.

That would be stroking the soggy bonobo.



Woof


----------



## netbob (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> That's why the answer, as I've said before, is "tolerance zones" for both drugs *and* prostitution.  Put them in some enclosed area--Mexico and Denmark use walled compounds, Switzerland uses parks, I'd suggest an evacuated council estate in London.  Allow free traffic in and out.  Have a cop shop in there, and an emergency room, and a drug treatment center, and an STD info/free condom center.  Let people do want they want there, as long as they hurt no-one else.  Problem solved!



I'd say _head in sand_ rather than _problem solved_.

Not sure about the walled gettos, souns a bit too much like Warsaw.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 19, 2006)

Pk you keep being silly with all this kill people talk. You _are_ a plastic gangster.


----------



## Jessiedog (Jan 19, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Pk you keep being silly with all this kill people talk. You _are_ a plastic gangster.




Hmmmm.......

That's a new one.

"Banging the plastic gangster."



Woof


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 19, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> how do you force people to stay in this abandoned housing estate anyway?


And moreover, what becomes of this "abandoned estate's" former residents? Do they get any choice in the matter of their estate being "evacuated" in order to house a drugs market? How will _they_ feel about being turfed out of their homes for it?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 19, 2006)

...and bearing in mind the massive shortage of social housing, where would they be 'evacuated' to, pray tell?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 19, 2006)

I don't think the idea of a "New Jack City" style freezone is a goer really. Nor do I think that free crack on the NHS would work. For heroin yes but not crack. Punitive action against crack heads is not likly to achive desired results either. Lets face it, coke and crack are massively available now compared to twenty years ago. There is no quick fix. Any solution must have compassion as a part of it.


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Pk you keep being silly with all this kill people talk. You _are_ a plastic gangster.



And you _are_ a returning previously banned poster, a shit one at that.

What was your name before you were banned?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> And moreover, what becomes of this "abandoned estate's" former residents? Do they get any choice in the matter of their estate being "evacuated" in order to house a drugs market? How will _they_ feel about being turfed out of their homes for it?



Naturally the current residents of the estate would have to be handsomely compensated.  Most probably you would have to build them a new, much nicer, estate to live in.  You will probably object that this would cost a great deal of money, and you are right.  But the expense would be the merest drip in the ocean compared to the vast costs of constantly arresting, convicting and above all imprisoning dealers, addicts and prostitutes which we presently incur each and every day, to no good effect whatsoever.  Do you know how much it costs to keep someone in prison for a year?  I am sure you could build a nice house for that sort of money. Anyone concerned about public drug dealing in Brixton should contact the appropriate authorities and demand that this course of action be taken, that is my opinion.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Naturally the current residents of the estate would have to be handsomely compensated.  Most probably you would have to build them a new, much nicer, estate to live in.  You will probably object that this would cost a great deal of money, and you are right.  But the expense would be the merest drip in the ocean compared to the vast costs of constantly arresting, convicting and above all imprisoning dealers, addicts and prostitutes which we presently incur each and every day, to no good effect whatsoever.  Do you know how much it costs to keep someone in prison for a year?  I am sure you could build a nice house for that sort of money. Anyone concerned about public drug dealing in Brixton should contact the appropriate authorities and demand that this course of action be taken, that is my opinion.



Phil, you are whats known in Ireland as "A Fucking Eejit"


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ...Do you know how much it costs to keep someone in prison for a year?  I am sure you could build a nice house for that sort of money...


_"The average unit cost of keeping someone in prison is £24,271 a year"_ 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/167990.stm


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 19, 2006)

I came in from a party at 3am on Monday night. As I was walking past KFC a dealer did the usual "Skunk? Skunk? SKUNK?" approach on me. 
I have to admit I was slightly "tired and emotional" at the time, but I turned round, looked him in the eye and said: "F*ck off you prick, go sell your shit somewhere else. You are a f*cking menace. F*ck off." 

It was the first time I had done more than just ignore aggressive dealers and I have to say it felt really good. 
The dealer, who must have been about 20, didn't say a word. He just turned round and walked off.
The next morning, in the cold, and slightly painful light of day, I wondered whether this had been a wise course of action. Probably not, I Decided. 
On a serious note, what do people think about telling dealers that we don't want them on our streets?  Should we tell them to F*ck off or is ignoring them the best course of action?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Naturally the current residents of the estate would have to be handsomely compensated.  Most probably you would have to build them a new, much nicer, estate to live in.  You will probably object that this would cost a great deal of money, and you are right.  But the expense would be the merest drip in the ocean compared to the vast costs of constantly arresting, convicting and above all imprisoning dealers, addicts and prostitutes which we presently incur each and every day, to no good effect whatsoever.


The problem being that many British cities that have "drugs problems", and London in particular, have little developable land for large-scale social housing projects, so decanting tenants (even with generous compensation) from one estate to another wouldn't happen. The only way this could be managed would be to split existing communities piecemeal and place them wherever existing housing was available.
Not a great recipe for social good, I'm sure you'll agree.


> Do you know how much it costs to keep someone in prison for a year?


That depends on the category of prison, but given that most drugs offenders serve the first part of their sentence in a category B "local" prison, then around £30,000 a year, against about £20,000 for a cat C or an "open".


> I am sure you could build a nice house for that sort of money.


In some rural county in a state in the US, then perhaps. Here, if you saved up for 10-15 years, then possibly you'd be able to afford a modest domicile *IF* house prices remained static over that period of time.


> Anyone concerned about public drug dealing in Brixton should contact the appropriate authorities and demand that this course of action be taken, that is my opinion.


Your opinion is, to put it kindly, ill-informed.

It was, however, entertaining.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> In some rural county in a state in the US, then perhaps. Here, if you saved up for 10-15 years, then possibly you'd be able to afford a modest domicile *IF* house prices remained static over that period of time.



No, I said you could *build* a nice house for that, not buy one.  The displaced residents would be given the houses free!  So let's say it take 25,000 quid to keep someone in prison for a year.  And roughly the same amount to build a nice house.  How many people live on an average estate?  Maybe 2,000?  So you'd only need to spend enough to pay for 2,000 prison years.  I reckon you'd save that in a year easily, as there are far more than 2,000 people jailed for drug or prostitution offences every year.  After that it would be pure profit.  I think its a good idea anyway.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> I came in from a party at 3am on Monday night. As I was walking past KFC a dealer did the usual "Skunk? Skunk? SKUNK?" approach on me.
> I have to admit I was slightly "tired and emotional" at the time, but I turned round, looked him in the eye and said: "F*ck off you prick, go sell your shit somewhere else. You are a f*cking menace. F*ck off."
> 
> It was the first time I had done more than just ignore aggressive dealers and I have to say it felt really good.



Why?  Serious question.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 19, 2006)

Personally in Brixton I always found early-hours parties pissed me off more than dealers. Probably because I could get away from the dealers.


----------



## snadge (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No, I said you could *build* a nice house for that, not buy one.  The displaced residents would be given the houses free!  So let's say it take 25,000 quid to keep someone in prison for a year.  And roughly the same amount to build a nice house.  How many people live on an average estate?  Maybe 2,000?  So you'd only need to spend enough to pay for 2,000 prison years.  I reckon you'd save that in a year easily, as there are far more than 2,000 people jailed for drug or prostitution offences every year.  After that it would be pure profit.  I think its a good idea anyway.




  


jesus wept


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Why?  Serious question.



I am not talking to you. You are clearly crackers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No, I said you could *build* a nice house for that, not buy one.  The displaced residents would be given the houses free!  So let's say it take 25,000 quid to keep someone in prison for a year.  And roughly the same amount to build a nice house.  How many people live on an average estate?  Maybe 2,000?  So you'd only need to spend enough to pay for 2,000 prison years.  I reckon you'd save that in a year easily, as there are far more than 2,000 people jailed for drug or prostitution offences every year.  After that it would be pure profit.  I think its a good idea anyway.



A few problems:

1) Land cost will up your outgoings by 300-400% based on current prices.

2) Land availability is scarce, which will cause outgoings to rise as demand escalates. We can't predict by how much but we can say with certainty that it *will* rise.

3) You posited that your ghetto/housing project would be policed, so you haven't allowed for a percentage of your ghetto population committing a non-drugs or prostitution offence for which they may be jailed. This would mean additional burdens on both the prison system and the ghetto administration.

4) basing your premise on a John Carpenter film is never a good idea.   

There are more, but I'll leave others to scare more points up.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> You posited that your ghetto/housing project would be policed, so you haven't allowed for a percentage of your ghetto population committing a non-drugs or prostitution offence for which they may be jailed. This would mean additional burdens on both the prison system and the ghetto administration.



Actually I'm pretty sure they wouldn't commit many offences.  They'd be too busy taking drugs and whoring wouldn't they?  I suppose you might say that they would go outside the compound and commit crimes to get more money to spend on their drugs.  That is why the drugs should be free.  I suppose the prostitutes couldn't be free, that wouldn't work, but you don't hear of anyone committing crimes for money to visit prostitutes do you?  Do you?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> I am not talking to you. You are clearly crackers.



Well at least I don't get my jollies from telling drug dealers to fuck off when I'm totally legless at 3 in the morning, you nutter.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 19, 2006)

It was a case of the worm turning. 
And I am still not talking to you.


----------



## netbob (Jan 19, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> I came in from a party at 3am on Monday night. As I was walking past KFC a dealer did the usual "Skunk? Skunk? SKUNK?" approach on me.
> I have to admit I was slightly "tired and emotional" at the time, but I turned round, looked him in the eye and said: "F*ck off you prick, go sell your shit somewhere else. You are a f*cking menace. F*ck off."
> 
> It was the first time I had done more than just ignore aggressive dealers and I have to say it felt really good.
> ...



Most of the weed street dealers in Brixton aren't exactly communters so the streets are 'theirs' too. 

I'm not defending their right to shout Sunk? at you or anything, it's just an observation that this isn't a _them-n-us _issue.


----------



## snadge (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Actually I'm pretty sure they wouldn't commit many offences.  They'd be too busy taking drugs and whoring wouldn't they?  I suppose you might say that they would go outside the compound and commit crimes to get more money to spend on their drugs.  That is why the drugs should be free.  I suppose the prostitutes couldn't be free, that wouldn't work, but you don't hear of anyone committing crimes for money to visit prostitutes do you?  Do you?



fuck off.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 19, 2006)

memespring said:
			
		

> Most of the weed street dealers in Brixton aren't exactly communters so the streets are 'theirs' too.
> 
> I'm not defending their right to shout Sunk? at you or anything, it's just an observation that this isn't a _them-n-us _issue.


Well, it could be argued that for strike-breaking scabs it was "their workplace" as well. Doesn't alter the fact that their behaviour is pissing over all those around them.

If people want to be considered part of a given community, they should show the rest of it some courtesey.


----------



## netbob (Jan 19, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Well, it could be argued that for strike-breaking scabs it was "their workplace" as well. Doesn't alter the fact that their behaviour is pissing over all those around them.
> 
> If people want to be considered part of a given community, they should show the rest of it some courtesey.



I know, and I wasn't suggesting that is socially acceptable, or that something shoulden't be done about it. Just that the issue is complicated.

Interesting parallel by the way?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 19, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Pk you keep being silly with all this kill people talk. You _are_ a plastic gangster.



But is he a plastic fantastic lover?



Her neon mouth with a bleeding talk smile
Is nothing but electric sign
You could say she has an individual style
She's a part of a colorful time

Super-sealed lady, chrome-color clothes
You wear 'cause you have no other
But I suppose no one knows
You're my plastic fantastic lover

Your rattlin' cough never shuts off
Is nothing but a used machine
Your aluminum finish, slightly diminished
Is the best I've ever seen

Cosmetic baby, plug into me
And never, ever find another
And I realize no one's wise
To my plastic fantastic lover

The electrical dust is starting to rust
Her trapezoid thermometer taste
All the red tape is mechanical rape
Of the TV program waste

Data control and IBM
Science is mankind's brother
But all I see is draining me
On my plastic fantastic lover


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 19, 2006)

memespring said:
			
		

> I know, and I wasn't suggesting that is socially acceptable, or that something shoulden't be done about it. Just that the issue is complicated.
> 
> Interesting parallel by the way?




If I am sworn at, threatened with violence by aggressive dealers, then I feel justified to answer back. I know its not a them and us issue and was not trying to paint it as one, but I don't feel that this is a "we are all members of the same community" argument. Nearly everyone who lives in Brixton - regardless of how long they have lived there - want to see aggressive dealers off the streets.
Drug dealers do not have the right to peddle shit on the streets of Brixton and make residents' lives a misery. Tolerance is one thing, accepting their violent, intimidating behaviour with a shrug of the shoulders is something else.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> If people want to be considered part of a given community, they should show the rest of it some courtesey.



Which party do you think was showing discourtesy in this incident?


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Which party do you think was showing discourtesy in this incident?


I refer you to RushcroftRoader's response in post #350.

Phildwyer, can you really not understand that Brixton's residents are getting to the end of their tolerance threshold toward flagrant and antisocial drug dealing?


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 19, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> Nearly everyone who lives in Brixton - regardless of how long they have lived there - want to see aggressive dealers off the streets.
> Drug dealers do not have the right to peddle shit on the streets of Brixton and make residents' lives a misery. Tolerance is one thing, accepting their violent, intimidating behaviour with a shrug of the shoulders is something else.


Well said.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Phildwyer, can you really not understand that Brixton's residents are getting to the end of their tolerance threshold toward flagrant and antisocial drug dealing?



Well there does seem to be a certain amount of discontent, at least on these boards, yes.  But what is really so antisocial about saying "skunk?"  How antisocial is it, really?  Did it really deserve the foul-mouthed, drunken abuse that Rushcroft Roader dished out?


----------



## netbob (Jan 19, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> If I am sworn at, threatened with violence by aggressive dealers, then I feel justified to answer back. I know its not a them and us issue and was not trying to paint it as one, but I don't feel that this is a "we are all members of the same community" argument. Nearly everyone who lives in Brixton - regardless of how long they have lived there - want to see aggressive dealers off the streets.
> Drug dealers do not have the right to peddle shit on the streets of Brixton and make residents' lives a misery. Tolerance is one thing, accepting their violent, intimidating behaviour with a shrug of the shoulders is something else.



I'd agree with pretty much all of that. Believe me I wasn't trying to suggest that the problem should not be tackled, or should be ignored.

I guess the point I was trying to make was that part of the solution to Brixton's drug problems has to look at why a sizable number of local people end dealing or on drugs. And even if they are having a negative impact on their community, they are still intertwined with it.

In answer to your original question about challenging dealers on the street, I think people asserting themselves does help change the perception of dealers. But I think creating a general atmosphere of dealing not being tolerated is better (although obviously harder to create) than direct challenging.


----------



## snadge (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well there does seem to be a certain amount of discontent, at least on these boards, yes.  But what is really so antisocial about saying "skunk?"  How antisocial is it, really?  Did it really deserve the foul-mouthed, drunken abuse that Rushcroft Roader dished out?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> If I am sworn at, threatened with violence by aggressive dealers, then I feel justified to answer back.



But in the incident you have recounted you were neither sworn at nor threatened.  All the guy did was say "skunk."  Why did you have to abuse him in that aggressive, drunken manner?  Don't you think *he* was the one intimidated?  Personally, I think the main problem with Brixton is drunks wandering the streets at 3am shouting "fuck off" at people.


----------



## snadge (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But in the incident you have recounted you were neither sworn at nor threatened.  All the guy did was say "skunk."  Why did you have to abuse him in that aggressive, drunken manner?  Don't you think *he* was the one intimidated?  Personally, I think the main problem with Brixton is drunks wandering the streets at 3am shouting "fuck off" at people.



Why don't you listen to people instead of patronising everyone....


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well there does seem to be a certain amount of discontent, at least on these boards, yes.  But what is really so antisocial about saying "skunk?"  How antisocial is it, really?  Did it really deserve the foul-mouthed, drunken abuse that Rushcroft Roader dished out?


If there is no problem then why are you proposing to evacuate a n estate and create a 'walled ghetto'?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> If there is no problem then why are you proposing to evacuate a n estate and create a 'walled ghetto'?



I am simply attempting to provide a solution to what *others* evidently see as a problem.  But it seems that the very people who perceive a problem are quick to reject any proposed solution that does not involve killing, imprisoning, persecuting or verbally abusing the dealers.  I wonder why that might be?  Actually, I *know* why it is.  What do you think?


----------



## snadge (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I am simply attempting to provide a solution to what *others* evidently see as a problem.  But it seems that the very people who perceive a problem are quick to reject any proposed solution that does not involve killing, imprisoning, persecuting or verbally abusing the dealers.  I wonder why that might be?  Actually, I *know* why it is.  What do you think?




let's guess, rascism    

daft cunt


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ...Personally, I think the main problem with Brixton is drunks wandering the streets at 3am shouting "fuck off" at people.


Are you proposing that we should evacute another estate for all the 3am drunks then?

The funny thing is that I have never really had any problem from drunk people in Brixton (unlike other places in the UK) but I have had harassment from people who are linked to drug dealing (users/dealers) or who are generally 'operating' in the area because they can get away with it.

I have noticed that things seem to have got a lot worse since c.1998, although this may just be my subjective impression. I doubt that the underlying poverty and deprivation in the area has changed that much since then, but the one issue that seems to be mentioned time and again is crack.

IMO if dealers and users of whatever substance or business kept a low profile, were not aggressive and threatening and if there wasn't a general atmosphere of squalor/filth/drugs detritus, violence and harassment in the area then I wouldn't be bothered what people were getting up to, even if it wasn't that well hidden.

I get the impression that many people who live and work in Brixton are not that bothered by people simply saying "skunk" at them - after all the cannabis festivals have always had great local support and were only sunk by a couple of local tory councillors who had to fake their own "public complaints" and use their minority partnership to railroad the local libdems into it as well. I have never heard of any real local campaign against cannabis per se, despite Kate Hoey trying to pretend there was.

It is the whole thing that goes along with this "scene" - all the other impacts - that people are bothered by. I could make a whole list but you can read so many things on this thread already which have been posted by people who are there every day.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I get the impression that many people who live and work in Brixton are not that bothered by people simply saying "skunk" at them



That is my impression too.  But there is clearly a small minority who find it perfectly acceptable to bellow obscene insults at people who say "skunk."  I just wonder why *anyone* would consider that acceptable.  I mean, this was a teenager (I assume black) being screamed at by a large, drunken white man (I assume).  I think it must have been quite traumatic for the kid.


----------



## snadge (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I mean, this was a teenager (I assume black) being screamed at by a large, drunken white man (I assume).  I think it must have been quite traumatic for the kid.



*fuck off*


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I am simply attempting to provide a solution to what *others* evidently see as a problem.  But it seems that the very people who perceive a problem are quick to reject any proposed solution that does not involve killing, imprisoning, persecuting or verbally abusing the dealers.  I wonder why that might be?  Actually, I *know* why it is.  What do you think?


I think you need to make up your mind if there is a problem or not. Can you really argue that an estate should be evacuated if you don't really believe that there is a problem in the first place?

For what its worth I have sometimes said that it would be better if the dealers were operating in an area that was not being used at night-time - such as an industrial estate - but in fact nearby Somerleyton Road is lined on one side by industrial units, but on the other by an estate, and editor has said that it is the one of the only roads in London that he won't walk down at night. While it may mean less people are impacted by dealers/users because they have moved away from a main street and away from a residential road, in other ways it increases the risk of attacks and violence because it is down a dark and deserted road, and there are still people who will be impacted.

I think that it would be good if the supply of drugs (and sex) was largely separated:

* cannabis into private homes or 'shops'/'cab offices' (and preferably into cafes/pubs).
* pills and powders, speed, ket and coke in clubs (and preferably into pharmacies in the longer term).
* smack in private homes or preferably into NHS clinics/'shooting galleries'.
* prostitution into private homes (and preferably into licensed business premises in the longer term).

It seems that noone much likes crack - but it would be better if it was separated from all the rest, since the others can actually come to some kind of equilibrium.

Moving the supply and use of drugs into these spaces would provide some kind of self-regulation, in that all the venues would have a self interest in self-policing to a large degree, wanting to keep their license or avoid being busted and closed down. To some degree all these things happen already in various places - ie private homes and/or pubs/clubs/business fronts. 

It is usually the people being aggressive on the street that ends up with a crack-down (see Landor Rod), although the police et al seem to not be able to make up their mind what they want to tolerate and where they would prefer things to be taking place. It might well be that in fact the police busting various venues has actually increased the level of negative impacts on the streets?

Next time you come to Brixton phildwyer. maybe you should atgend one of the Lambeth Poice Consultative Group meetings and put your ideas to them, or you could also contact lambeth council. That is if you are being serious, you do actually care about this issue and think your ideas are viable.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> *fuck off*



Oh that's right, it is impossible that a *drug dealer* might feel intimidated at having obscenities screamed at him by an unknown drunk, because drug dealers aren't real people with real feelings like you or I, are they?  Great sense of rhythm though.


----------



## snadge (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh that's right, it is impossible that a *drug dealer* might feel intimidated at having obscenities screamed at him by an unknown drunk, because drug dealers aren't real people with real feelings like you or I, are they?  Great sense of rhythm though.




wanker.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I think you need to make up your mind if there is a problem or not. Can you really argue that an estate should be evacuated if you don't really believe that there is a problem in the first place?
> 
> For what its worth I have sometimes said that it would be better if the dealers were operating in an area that was not being used at night-time - such as an industrial estate - but in fact nearby Somerleyton Road is lined on one side by industrial units, but on the other by an estate, and editor has said that it is the one of the only roads in London that he won't walk down at night. While it may mean less people are impacted by dealers/users because they have moved away from a main street and away from a residential road, in other ways it increases the risk of attacks and violence because it is down a dark and deserted road, and there are still people who will be impacted.
> 
> ...



These are all excellent ideas.  An industrial estate would do fine.  I also agree with your conclusions here.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 19, 2006)

Industrial estate? Quoi?  

Oh, it's just phil....


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Industrial estate? Quoi?
> 
> Oh, it's just phil....



Imbecile.  TeeJay mentioned that he had suggested that drug dealers be confined to an industrial estate, and I said that was a good idea.  That's all.  Happy now?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> That is my impression too.  But there is clearly a small minority who find it perfectly acceptable to bellow obscene insults at people who say "skunk."  I just wonder why *anyone* would consider that acceptable.  I mean, this was a teenager (I assume black) being screamed at by a large, drunken white man (I assume).  I think it must have been quite traumatic for the kid.


I think you are missing the context. As someone who studies language you know that what is being communicated doesn't always reduce down to simple words. Even someone starting to follow you and call out that they want to know what time it is can be very intimidating - often you can feel almost feel an attempted mugging coming on by someone's body language, tone of voice and behaviour, for example. You should not assume that people have certain skin colours unless you have actually been told so, and to try and ressurect your original "racism" argument is bizarre, seeing as you have been avoiding all my questions about it for the last 100 or so posts. I thouight you had quietly and gracefully given up on that one?

The wider context - "RushcroftRoader" - someone who lives on Rushcroft Rd. Here is a link to a map of where that is: http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.... Road, SW2, BRIXTON&lang=&db=GB&keepicon=true

Another bit of context (which you don't really seem to be absorbing): what this guy was doing, how he was behaving and what he 'represents' (in being part of a group of people who have had a very large and negative impact on the area).

Add all these contextual factors into the mix and I am sure you will begin to get a clearer picture of the whats and whys.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Imbecile.  TeeJay mentioned that he had suggested that drug dealers be confined to an industrial estate, and I said that was a good idea.  That's all.  Happy now?



Fuck off and take your nonsense with you, fool.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> These are all excellent ideas.  An industrial estate would do fine.  I also agree with your conclusions here.


No phildwyer, you haven't read my post. I said that I had *previously* suggested that maybe it would be a good idea but in fact it has several problems, and I was proposing something else.

Sorry phildwyer, you will have to read my post again - maybe you actually *disagree* with what I am saying.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 19, 2006)

So phil, I see you're still *misrepresenting* other people's posts. You should meet rogue yam, he's your kind of guy. Know what I mean?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh that's right, it is impossible that a *drug dealer* might feel intimidated at having obscenities screamed at him by an unknown drunk, because drug dealers aren't real people with real feelings like you or I, are they?  Great sense of rhythm though.


How about next time you come to Brixton we take you to meet some of these people? We could show you some of the routes we take home at night time and let you walk some of them? You could even have a go at stopping for a chat.

When are you over next?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 19, 2006)

Have you ever been to Dumbarton Court, phil? You'd love it.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> No phildwyer, you haven't read my post. I said that I had *previously* suggested that maybe it would be a good idea but in fact it has several problems, and I was proposing something else.



 I know.  That is why I used the pluperfect tense in referring to your suggestion.  I believe that your suggestion was good, and that you should not have revised it.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> How about next time you come to Brixton we take you to meet some of these people? We could show you some of the routes we take home at night time and let you walk some of them? You could even have a go at stopping for a chat.
> 
> When are you over next?



Some time in February.  It would be good to meet you, but there's no need to show me around.  I know Brixton like the back of my hand.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> The wider context - "RushcroftRoader" - someone who lives on Rushcroft Rd. Here is a link to a map of where that is: http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.... Road, SW2, BRIXTON&lang=&db=GB&keepicon=true
> 
> Another bit of context (which you don't really seem to be absorbing): what this guy was doing, how he was behaving and what he 'represents' (in being part of a group of people who have had a very large and negative impact on the area).



Oh I know what he "represents" alright.  If I was selling skunk on the street I'd be pretty nervous to begin with, but if a drunk white guy started yelling "fuck off" at me over and over again, especially at 3am when there are not many people around, I'd be absolutely terrified.  Wouldn't you?


----------



## snadge (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh I know what he "represents" alright.  If I was selling skunk on the street I'd be pretty nervous to begin with, but if a drunk white guy started yelling "fuck off" at me over and over again, especially at 3am when there are not many people around, I'd be absolutely terrified.  Wouldn't you?




rascist


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh I know what he "represents" alright.  If I was selling skunk on the street I'd be pretty nervous to begin with, but if a drunk white guy started yelling "fuck off" at me over and over again, especially at 3am when there are not many people around, I'd be absolutely terrified.  Wouldn't you?


You seem to enjoy making everyone shout 'fuck off' at you on this thread. Maybe its something you only dare do online?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Some time in February.  It would be good to meet you, but there's no need to show me around.  I know Brixton like the back of my hand.


It really doesn't sound like you do.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> It really doesn't sound like you do.



Well I do.  Test me.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You seem to enjoy making everyone shout 'fuck off' at you on this thread. Maybe its something you only dare do online?



It has been known to happen in real life too, tbh.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well I do.  Test me.


No need really - you have posted a lot already.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 19, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> rascist



Not at all.  My point is that a drunken white man screaming "fuck off" over and over again at a young black kid, at 3am on Coldharbour Lane, is a scenario *extremely* likely to attract the attention of the police.  As, perhaps, it was designed to?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Actually I'm pretty sure they wouldn't commit many offences.


I wouldn't be too sure about that. Just about every legal or quasi-legal red light district I ever visited in Europe (quite a few) had big signage everywhere warning johns about the possibility of being rolled.


> They'd be too busy taking drugs and whoring wouldn't they?  I suppose you might say that they would go outside the compound and commit crimes to get more money to spend on their drugs.  That is why the drugs should be free.  I suppose the prostitutes couldn't be free, that wouldn't work, but you don't hear of anyone committing crimes for money to visit prostitutes do you?  Do you?



I somehow doubt that if it does happen that the offender is going to say "I mugged the granny 'cos I needed cash for a nosh job, guv'nor".


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> It has been known to happen in real life too, tbh.



What people scream "fuck off" at you in real life?

I am unsurprised at this.

Do you talk this much shit in real life - or only when you're on crack?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 19, 2006)

Nevertheless his point is a valid one. The chap at whom RushcroftRoader shougted abuse - was he actually being intimidating in any way? And was he causing more disturbance to the community than, say, somebody engaged in partying till three in the morning?


----------



## colacubes (Jan 20, 2006)

I've read all of this thread (I clearly have too much time on my hands   ) and have not felt that I should post till now.




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> My point is that a drunken white man screaming "fuck off" over and over again at a young black kid, at 3am on Coldharbour Lane, is a scenario *extremely* likely to attract the attention of the police.  As, perhaps, it was designed to?



As far as I can see it hasn't been shown that:

a)  it was a young black kid that Rushcroftroader was screaming "fuck off" at

OR

b)  that he screamed it "over and over again".

This is sensationalising what he has said.  Could have happened - BUT - not stated or witnessed so let's all behave.

I will however admit to screaming at a crackhead to "fuck off" this week.  Neither big nor clever but I will explain (as I believe my other half mentioned earlier in the thread but people chose not to answer to so I'll be interested in any responses).

I live in central Brixton.  I love it    - Brixton is great and I chose to live here.  I know the area well having lived in it for many years  However should I have to deal with this phildwyer?

I came home last Thursday at 1am after a party.  I walked down my road and went in my front gate.  As I walked in a bloke barged past me and knocked me out of the way.  He then sat on the steps to my flat and would not let me past.  He smoked crack, blowing it in my face and threatened to attack me.  He left after 10 minutes of me cajoling him to leave so I could get past.

I tolerate a lot of the problems in Brixton.  However should I have to tolerated this Phil?


----------



## snadge (Jan 20, 2006)

nipsla said:
			
		

> I've read all of this thread (I clearly have too much time on my hands   ) and have not felt that I should post till now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




according to Phil, it's rascist not to....


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Not at all.  My point is that a drunken white man screaming "fuck off" over and over again at a young black kid, at 3am on Coldharbour Lane, is a scenario *extremely* likely to attract the attention of the police.  As, perhaps, it was designed to?


Why are you are inventing all these details?


----------



## pk (Jan 20, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Why are you are inventing all these details?



Because he's trying to make out that Rushcroft Roader is a grass.

And failing, miserably.

Pretty fucking pathetic show all round, Phildwyer... even given your obvious bullshit on this thread - I kind of expected better.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

nipsla said:
			
		

> I tolerate a lot of the problems in Brixton.  However should I have to tolerated this Phil?



No. Its a bit different from someone just saying "skunk" as you walk past though innit?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Why are you are inventing all these details?



What details?  That the kid was black?  That Rushcroft Roader is white?  I'm not inventing them, I'm presuming them.  Do you presume differently?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Because he's trying to make out that Rushcroft Roader is a grass.



No I'm not.  Although there are several people on this thread who *have* advocated grassing, he is not one of them, afaik.  But if you start shouting "fuck off" at a drug dealer at 3am, then you're quite likely to attract the cops, right?  And Rushcroft Roader assumed the kid had drugs on him, so if the cops did come, he'd have been arrested.  Do you, or does Ruschcroft Roader, have any idea what a conviction for drug dealing means to a black teenager in the UK?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What details?  That the kid was black?  That Rushcroft Roader is white?  I'm not inventing them, I'm presuming them.  Do you presume differently?


You are inventing these details and others as well. Why?

I have noticed that every so often you start posting in a very provocative and attention seeking way - as if you are drawing energy from the number of people who respond to your posts. You seem to revel in having and holding an audience and get a buzz if people start getting angry at you. You trim the sails of your argument not by any consistent direction or logic, but simple to sustain the moment of the shit-storm you've stirred up. 

It's true that everyone needs social interaction, feedback and validation of their worth but you need to get this from your daily life and work and through stable personal relationships. It is pointless trying to deal with your low levels of self-esteem and your insecurity by constantly trying to create situations in which you are the centre of attention.

Why bother pd?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ...But if you start shouting "fuck off" at a drug dealer at 3am, then you're quite likely to attract the cops, right?...


Unlikely.

You don't sound like you know what you are talking about frankly, but that isn't the point is it?

This is all done for effect isn't it pd?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 20, 2006)

you make far too many presumtions  in your own favor 

for example _"a scenario *extremely* likely to attract the attention of the police."_ no... unless there was a police officer within spitting distance i would very much doubt it... i have watched shoutin matches  go on for  ages with out even a tiny glimps of the police 

as for the  apparent  weak bladdered drug dealer who is treadfully terrified by shouty drunk   whats he goin to do when one  of  the less stable clientelle goes a bit nuts on him?  i've had people bang on the door for 15 min at 4 am in the morning shouting through the letter box ...  imagine what they must be like to the people  selling the stuff    now thats far more lihtly to draw the attention of the police

as for me i have no idea if rushcrofroader is black or white


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> as for the  apparent  weak bladdered drug dealer who is treadfully terrified by shouty drunk   whats he goin to do when one  of  the less stable clientelle goes a bit nuts on him?  i've had people bang on the door for 15 min at 4 am in the morning shouting through the letter box ...  imagine what they must be like to the people  selling the stuff    now thats far more lihtly to draw the attention of the police



Well maybe, but there's still no excuse for going off at someone like that just for saying "skunk."  Its just pathetic.  Especialy if, as I again presume, Rushcroft Roader is someone who has enjoyed many advantages and opportunities in life that the dealer has not.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> It's true that everyone needs social interaction, feedback and validation of their worth but you need to get this from your daily life and work and through stable personal relationships.



Heh, and you would know about such things how, exactly?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 20, 2006)

But none of this is about RushcroftRoader, about the dealer or even about Brixton.

This is all about phildwyer.

pd - you have lots of interesting things to say without having to go through all this attention-seeking. By constantly changing your argument and deciding to think up outrageous ideas really lets yourself down because you do have some intelligent things to say amongst the deliberate silliness. Laying into people for made-up sins (eg racism) is such a pointlessly nasty thing to do      but you are by all accounts likeable, intelligent and funny when people have met you. Why do you give in to the urge to behave like this to people haven't met? Again you are letting yourself down. 

Couldn't you confine this kind of thing to the Ninjaboy and Firky threads - there are a number of posters here who really get off on this kind of humour? 

Or at least just start another mega-thread in theory and philosophy, where you can baffle everyone with your knowldege and wordplay and really hold court?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well maybe, but there's still no excuse for going off at someone like that just for saying "skunk."  Its just pathetic.  Especialy if, as I again presume, Rushcroft Roader is someone who has enjoyed many advantages and opportunities in life that the dealer has not.



many dru dealers are pushy and aressive  and  most annoyingly it's constant!  it is really rather unpleaset to have random strange people suddenly move close into you and mutter "skunk!" at you... for that matter it you still be fairly unplesent if they muttered "you have a great taste in clothes!"   when this happens day in day out i'm not supprised   that people occationally snap and shout fuck off  it's hardly the end of the world for the dealer and it's hardly  some deep moral crime  to shot at someone who is annoyin you when your drunk

also to be brutaly honest there are hundereds of thousands of people who have had the same or even worse opertunities that that drug dealer  would it still be an out rage if they told em to fuck off?   and if so  why did you bring it up


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Heh, and you would know about such things how, exactly?


Everyone does need social interaction, feedback and validation of their worth. I don't know why you would want to dispute this.

I haven't had a proper full-time paying job for a long time now and I don't have a vast number of friends or a whirlwind social life, and I am single and have been for a long time as well. I have various health problems that cause me problems. It's probably true that many people would say that my life is shit, although personally I am just glad to be alive - everything else is a bonus.  

I don't see how any of this would make me less aware of the need for validation, if anything it has made me more aware of it: you notice things more when they stop working after all.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Laying into people for made-up sins (eg racism) is such a pointlessly nasty thing to do      but you are by all accounts likeable, intelligent and funny when people have met you.



And the same is said of you, TeeJay.  And yet you can come across as a complete dickhead on the internet sometimes.  And as I've said before, people can be racist without being conscious of the fact, and the banal and pointless aggression we often see here against drug dealers reveals just such an unconscious racism.  In my opinion.


----------



## pk (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And the same is said of you, TeeJay.  And yet you can come across as a complete dickhead on the internet sometimes.  And as I've said before, people can be racist without being conscious of the fact, and the banal and pointless aggression we often see here against drug dealers reveals just such an unconscious racism.  In my opinion.



So you "presume" people are racist just as casually as you "presume" Rushcroft Roader to be black, and also in a far more priveliged position that the pesky dealers.

I think YOU are the one with prejudice issues here, clearly.

And that's no presumption, that's a clear-cut conclusion.


----------



## editor (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ...and the banal and pointless aggression we often see here against drug dealers reveals just such an unconscious racism.  In my opinion.


Even when there's been no mention of their colour?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> many dru dealers are pushy and aressive  and  most annoyingly it's constant!  it is really rather unpleaset to have random strange people suddenly move close into you and mutter "skunk!" at you... for that matter it you still be fairly unplesent if they muttered "you have a great taste in clothes!"   when this happens day in day out i'm not supprised   that people occationally snap and shout fuck off  it's hardly the end of the world for the dealer and it's hardly  some deep moral crime  to shot at someone who is annoyin you when your drunk



Well, I am offered drugs on the street dozens of times every single day, and have been for most of my adult life, and it has never bothered me in the slightest.  I would no more dream of telling the dealers to fuck off than I would my local shopkeeper.  I honestly can't see what the problem is.  Unless it is that people feel uncomfortable when approached by certain kinds of other people.  Honestly, I can't see any other reason for finding it so offensive.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Even when there's been no mention of their colour?



our sub concious racism presumes their colour  obviously.... it's probly some form of mental colour blindness


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> So you "presume" people are racist just as casually as you "presume" Rushcroft Roader to be black



I presume him to be *white,* you nincompoop.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Even when there's been no mention of their colour?



We all know what colour they are.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I would no more dream of telling the dealers to fuck off than I would my local shopkeeper.  I honestly can't see what the problem is.  Unless it is that people feel uncomfortable when approached by certain kinds of other people.  Honestly, I can't see any other reason for finding it so offensive.



last time i walked down the street  the owner of my local shop stranly didn't walk right up close to be  stare in my face and mutter "red bull? crisps? newspaper?"  and follow me up the street  some distance

if he  did  i would feel much morew obliged to tell him where to stick it

or is that just because he is a certian type of person?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> We all know what colour they are.



they are all black.... except of course for all the ones who arn't    but  i guess they must just be statistical anomalies  or our imaination


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And the same is said of you, TeeJay.  And yet you can come across as a complete dickhead on the internet sometimes.


Yeah I can read my own posts, and sometimes wish I had kept my mouth shut. Do you ever have this feeling?





> And as I've said before, people can be racist without being conscious of the fact, and the banal and pointless aggression we often see here against drug dealers reveals just such an unconscious racism.  In my opinion.


It is not right to go from a general "people can be racist" to a specific "this person is racist". The general point may or may not be a fair comment. The specific one is out of order.

I also don't like banal and pointless aggression and I try my best not to get angry when I feel harassed, but rather than pour fuel on the fire by telling people they are wrong to feel angry and that their anger arises out of racial hatred or hating poor people, I think you need to realise that a lot of the anger and fear arises out of the particular behaviour of some of the dealers, users, scammers and gangsters and that the situation on CHL isn't a generalised on but one that has got worse in recent years, in a specific area and in specific ways.

I would bet that almost all (if not all) Brixton residents who post here would agree with you that the way that parts of London (including Brixton) are protrayed by the media and are seen by sections of the wider British public are filtered through some unpleasant filters and stereotypes, including race and class, but rather than making this valid argument you have chosen to attack specific people for things that you have no evidence of whatsoever, and which are deeply nasty. I hope that this wasn't intentional one your part and comes down to how you are expressing your ideas than any desire to hurt people.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> last time i walked down the street  the owner of my local shop stranly didn't walk right up close to be  stare in my face and mutter "red bull? crisps? newspaper?"  and follow me up the street  some distance



I wouldn't mind if he did.  I'd quite like it.  Anyway, the waiters in the restaurants do that round here.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, I am offered drugs on the street dozens of times every single day, and have been for most of my adult life, and it has never bothered me in the slightest.  I would no more dream of telling the dealers to fuck off than I would my local shopkeeper.  I honestly can't see what the problem is.  Unless it is that people feel uncomfortable when approached by certain kinds of other people.  Honestly, I can't see any other reason for finding it so offensive.


Maybe the situation in Philadelphia (and before that in New York) had stabilised and was less problematic in its range and degree of impacts than that in Brixton at the moment. 

I would be far more interested if you told us all about your own neighbourhood and how things work there rather than attacking people for talking about theirs.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> It is not right to go from a general "people can be racist" to a specific "this person is racist". The general point may or may not be a fair comment. The specific one is out of order.



Fair enough.  Actually I don't think *people* can be racist at all, just their words or actions.  Even self-proclaimed racists I've known have been perfectly willing to get along with specific people of other races.  I should have been more precise and said something like "the hostility towards drug dealers we see here is facilitated by unconscious suspicion, or unfamiliarity, or mistrust, or stereotypical perceptions, of people of colour."  I do believe that to be true.


----------



## pk (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I presume him to be *white,* you nincompoop.



So as to fit your stereotyped view of him?

This is revealing far more about your racist attitude than anything.

You presume the drug dealer was a black man = racist

And you presume Urban75 users who don't like being hassled to buy drugs are white men = racist.

I think you're more than a bit fucking dodgy.

Does anyone know Phildwyer's past history for this kind of thing, because I smell a Stormfront type troll here...


----------



## pk (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Fair enough.  Actually I don't think *people* can be racist at all, just their words or actions.  Even self-proclaimed racists I've known have been perfectly willing to get along with specific people of other races.  I should have been more precise and said something like "the hostility towards drug dealers we see here is facilitated by unconscious suspicion, or unfamiliarity, or mistrust, or stereotypical perceptions, of people of colour."  I do believe that to be true.



More backpedalling...


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I would be far more interested if you told us all about your own neighbourhood and how things work there rather than attacking people for talking about theirs.



Well you wouldn't tell a dealer to fuck off here, that's for sure, you'd get something in your head, as they say.  (I once heard one guy threaten another by saying "I'll put my shit in your ass").  Anyway, I have to go to bed now, I'll tell you more tomorrow if you like.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> So as to fit your stereotyped view of him?
> 
> This is revealing far more about your racist attitude than anything.
> 
> ...



Sorry mate, I know you're back from the pub and "fancy a virtual ruck" as you put it last night, but I can't be bothered this evening.  I'm going to bed.  Try me again this time tomorrow and I might be able to oblige.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I wouldn't mind if he did.  I'd quite like it.  Anyway, the waiters in the restaurants do that round here.



well if you have no concept of personal space you can't really use your own feelings about being accosted in the street as the moral mesuring stick for us all then can you?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 20, 2006)

OK, I am going to leave this for now.

I don't think I am doing you or myself any favours in getting sucked into your continued attention-seeking behaviour here.

You are still doing it: saying whatever you think will sustain *you* being the central focus of this thread, trimming the sails of your argument to try and catch as much wind as possible.


----------



## pk (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Sorry mate, I know you're back from the pub and "fancy a virtual ruck" as you put it last night, but I can't be bothered this evening.  I'm going to bed.  Try me again this time tomorrow and I might be able to oblige.



I'd have to be completely pissed to be on your illogical and slow-witted level.

As it happens - I'm not drunk tonight either.... as much as I know you'd love to think so.

Truth is, you're the one making bizarre claims, then backpedalling madly, then exposing your prejudices - just as if you were drunk or on crack.

And once again you choose to retire on a losing streak.

I'd just give it up if I were you.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 20, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> But none of this is about RushcroftRoader


But it is. he's behaved aggressively towards someone else. Therefore it reasonable to ask whether that is justified. We're not in _Telegraph_-world where good and bad is determined by who a person is rather than what they do: everybody had to account for their actions, lawabiding and respectable people as well as people who are neither.

If this is _not_ so then what we get is a section of the population who are regarded as outlaws, who can be abused and attacked in any way we want because they're assumed to be rubbish. Wheras, in fact, somebody offering skunk is as human as the rest of us and entitled to the same presumptions of courtesy.

By all means consider whatever legal and ethical ways you wish of removing drug dealers from your neighbourhood: that's right and proper. What is neither, is "lashing out": identifying people as objects of hate and derision, in relation to whom we can let _ourselves_, as it were, "off the leash" and exempt ourselves from the normal standards of civilised behaviour. That is a very dangerous road indeed.

I am very far from agreeing with everything Phil has said on this thread or, for that matter, the way he has said it, but I think he has some valid points (gleaned, perhaps, from his US experience of race relations and their impact on drugs and law-and-order policy) to make about perceptions and the way we view other people. They can't be addressed by screaming at him any more than Brixton's drug problems can be addressed by partygoers shouting at people offering them skunk.

(You can shout at _me_ instead, if you wish: I'm off to the Czech Republic for a week. Be seeing you.)


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I wouldn't mind if he did.  I'd quite like it.



Liar


----------



## snadge (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well maybe, but there's still no excuse for going off at someone like that just for saying "skunk."  Its just pathetic.  Especialy if, as I again presume, Rushcroft Roader is someone who has enjoyed many advantages and opportunities in life that the dealer has not.



you fuckin' presume far too much for your own good.

idiot


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> We all know what colour they are.



Do "we"?


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I have noticed that things seem to have got a lot worse since c.1998, although this may just be my subjective impression.


I've noticed that too. Brixton has always had it's "ups" and "downs" for as long as I've lived here (since the late 70s), but from 1998 onwards things seem to nosedive in the space of months and, sadly, have never quite recovered. I suspect a lot of the reason for this is ineeed the crack problem.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> Why don't you listen to people instead of patronising everyone....




This is a hilarous quote given the abusive posts that snadge has come out with before and since.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Not at all.  My point is that a drunken white man screaming "fuck off" over and over again at a young black kid, at 3am on Coldharbour Lane, is a scenario *extremely* likely to attract the attention of the police.  As, perhaps, it was designed to?


phildwyer, you have an almost politician-like ability to twist the view of the situation described around and make it appear that the victim of the situation is the perpetrator and the perpetrator the victim. Not something to be proud of, and liely to land you with a loud raspberry were you to come to Brixton and try spouting that off to long-term Brixtoners who are fed up withte street dealing and attendant problems. 

You appear to be completely out of touch.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You seem to enjoy making everyone shout 'fuck off' at you on this thread. Maybe its something you only dare do online?




He _makes_ people shout fuck off at him? It seems more accurate to say that several posters coudld not string a logical arguement together and have resorted to simple but unwitty abuse.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> many dru dealers are pushy and aressive  and  most annoyingly it's constant!  it is really rather unpleaset to have random strange people suddenly move close into you and mutter "skunk!" at you... for that matter it you still be fairly unplesent if they muttered "you have a great taste in clothes!"   when this happens day in day out i'm not supprised   that people occationally snap and shout fuck off  it's hardly the end of the world for the dealer and it's hardly  some deep moral crime  to shot at someone who is annoyin you when your drunk
> 
> also to be brutaly honest there are hundereds of thousands of people who have had the same or even worse opertunities that that drug dealer  would it still be an out rage if they told em to fuck off?   and if so  why did you bring it up




Do you pick fights with the person shouting "Standard!" by the Tube?


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Nevertheless his point is a valid one. The chap at whom RushcroftRoader shougted abuse - was he actually being intimidating in any way? And was he causing more disturbance to the community than, say, somebody engaged in partying till three in the morning?


Donna Ferentes, you are conflating two seperate issues - albeit both one of nuisances to Brixton residents. I don't like excessive music/partying to three in  the mornin, either. However, I am*also* FED UP of hearing a parade of dodgy morons going "Skunk. Weed. Skunk. Weed. Weed. Skunk" ad nasueaum.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I wouldn't mind if he did.  I'd quite like it.  Anyway, the waiters in the restaurants do that round here.




Don't go to Camden market your delicate sensibilities would not tolerate the aggressive in yer face noodle sellers shouting "try this, free sample" as you scuttle by.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

RuchcroftRoader shows that booze plus wanker = tosspot hypocrite!


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well there does seem to be a certain amount of discontent, at least on these boards, yes.  But what is really so antisocial about saying "skunk?"  How antisocial is it, really?  Did it really deserve the foul-mouthed, drunken abuse that Rushcroft Roader dished out?



You stupid iognorant moran.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, I am offered drugs on the street dozens of times every single day, and have been for most of my adult life, and it has never bothered me in the slightest.  I would no more dream of telling the dealers to fuck off than I would my local shopkeeper.


Well, your local shopkeeper doens't stand in the street trying to foist his wares on an unwilling audience by mumbling one word over and over again. If shopkeepers did that, it would be pretty irritating as well, tbh.

As for : "Well, I am offered drugs on the street dozens of times every single day, and have been for most of my adult life, and it has never bothered me in the slightest", you just sound like you've become institutionalised to the problem. Which is sad.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> We all know what colour they are.


That says more about your preconceptions and prejudices than anyone elses.


----------



## tarannau (Jan 20, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> phildwyer, you have an almost politician-like ability to twist the view of the situation described around and make it appear that the victim of the situation is the perpetrator and the perpetrator the victim. Not something to be proud of, and liely to land you with a loud raspberry were you to come to Brixton and try spouting that off to long-term Brixtoners who are fed up withte street dealing and attendant problems.
> 
> You appear to be completely out of touch.



As much as I'm in total agreement with Mr Retro's description of Phildwyer as a 'fucking eejit,' I also think Rushcroft Roader doesn't come out of this smelling of roses himself. I think his reaction was unneccessary and full of drunken bravado.  Better way to deal with things than that.

And as miserable and persistent as Poster342002's bleating about Brixton is, I don't think the majority of Brixton residents think the same, nor do they believe that they become victims by shaking their head and saying 'no' to someone offering them drugs.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Well, your local shopkeeper doens't stand in the street trying to foist his wares on an unwilling audience by mumbling one word over and over again. If shopkeepers di that, it would be pretty irritating as well, tbh.
> 
> As for : "Well, I am offered drugs on the street dozens of times every single day, and have been for most of my adult life, and it has never bothered me in the slightest", you just sound like you've become institutionalised to the problem. Which is sad.




What do you feel about people loudly selling the Evening Standard?

How about the touts down Brick Lane getting in yer face trying to steer you into their employers eaterie?

Would you yell drunken abuse at them?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> You stupid iognorant moran.




You just can't see the hilarity of your hypocrisy can you?


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> somebody offering skunk is as human as the rest of us and entitled to the same presumptions of courtesy.


Would you say the same of a strikebreaking scab? Similar justifications for thier behaviour would be offered as to why they _have_ to do it ("can't afford to strike and lose pay, etc etc blah blah")...


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> That says more about your preconceptions and prejudices than anyone elses.



Come on, don't be disingenuous, you know the dealer was a black guy. Rushcroft roader just suddenly feels great that he has an excuse to abuse black people without feeling too guilty.

I personally would still fear a drunk more than a weed dealer. Especially at 3am.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 20, 2006)

I think I said that maybe I shouldn't have shouted abuse at the dealer. But this incident has nothing to do with how "liberal" or not we should be towards drug dealers on our doorstep. Clearly I didn't think at the time of the incident about the man's opportunities in life or his undiscovered potential as some people on this thread have suggested I ought to have done. 

My reaction was the result of months of aggro and intimidation suffered at the hands of dealers - including one incident when I had the contents of a bin thrown at me in 4pm one afternoon - and I am not going to apologise for it. 
And skin colour has nothing to do with it. I don't care if these dealers are white, black, blue or green. Its not about skin colour its about respecting the community we all live in.   

Is there really anybody on this thread that actually believes that Brixton would not be a better place if the gangs of highly volatile, aggressive dealers were taken off the street?
There is no point trying to argue with PhilDwyer. Best to ignore him altogether.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> I think I said that maybe I shouldn't have shouted abuse at the dealer. But this incident has nothing to do with how "liberal" or not we should be towards drug dealers on our doorstep. Clearly I didn't think at the time of the incident about the man's opportunities in life or his undiscovered potential as some people on this thread have suggested I ought to have done.
> 
> My reaction was the result of months of aggro and intimidation suffered at the hands of dealers - including one incident when I had the contents of a bin thrown at me in 4pm one afternoon - and I am not going to apologise for it.
> And skin colour has nothing to do with it. I don't care if these dealers are white, black, blue or green. Its not about skin colour its about respecting the community we all live in.
> ...




It was not aggressive for someone to say "skunk, skunk, skunk" when you walked past. Yelling abuse towards this guy because of past behaviour by others is innapropriate and wrong. You only said you might have regretted it because in the sober light of day you fear retribution. I always find a polite no thankyou suffices. Unless I am buying in which case I say yes please. 

Drunks scare me more than weed dealers. eighbours playing loud music at 3am on a weekday would drive me up the wall.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> skin colour has nothing to do with it. I don't care if these dealers are white, black, blue or green. Its not about skin colour its about respecting the community we all live in.


Indeed. And it's a point which many of us on here have made again and again - alas, to no avail. And we've still had no real resposne to the fact that many of the most vociferous anti-delar, anti-drugs residents in Brixton are _themselves_ black. Are they self-hating racists too?


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 20, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Do you pick fights with the person shouting "Standard!" by the Tube?




No, I just involve him in a debate about the quality of his publication's sports pages!


----------



## tarannau (Jan 20, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Well, your local shopkeeper doens't stand in the street trying to foist his wares on an unwilling audience by mumbling one word over and over again. If shopkeepers di that, it would be pretty irritating as well, tbh.
> 
> As for : "Well, I am offered drugs on the street dozens of times every single day, and have been for most of my adult life, and it has never bothered me in the slightest", you just sound like you've become institutionalised to the problem. Which is sad.



I've lived in Brixton for pretty much all my life and that last paragraph fucks me off. It's not about being institutionalised, it's more that - like many long term Brixtonians - I don't regard the odd person offering me weed as a huge problem. I shake my head, they smile, I carry on. It's not a particular worry some of those guys I've known for over 15 years; they've been friendly folk most of the time, neighbourhood policemen other times. I don't necessarily regard their presence as a sign that things are entirely bleak.

I regret the way that people seem increasingly fearful of others. There's used to be a thriving street culture, people sat outside their front gardens, on street corners, hell - _even drinking in public_ - sometimes sound systems. A summer's stroll was a lovely day to greet the neighbours, a big diverse melting pot. 

Now all that has been largely killed off, asbo'd out of existence. People seem fearful of people hanging outside and increasingly silo'ed off into their little groups. I'm all for being tough on violent drug dealers and nasty characters; only I don't believe it's particularly devastating to have to say 'no' to someone once in a while.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Indeed. And it's a point which many of us on here have made again and again - alas, to no avail. And we've still had no real resposne to the fact that many of the most vociferous anti-delar, anti-drugs residents in Brixton are _themselves_ black. Are they self-hating racists too?




No real response?  This was agreed without argument. I don't know about the self hating bit. You come across like Gerry Gable.


----------



## snadge (Jan 20, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> You just can't see the hilarity of your hypocrisy can you?



and your a fool as well......

trying  to wind everyone up


one for you sir then

*fuck off*


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> No, I just involve him in a debate about the quality of his publication's sports pages!


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> There's used to be a thriving street culture, people sat outside their front gardens, on street corners, hell - _even drinking in public_ - sometimes sound systems. A summer's stroll was a lovely day to greet the neighbours, a big diverse melting pot.
> 
> Now all that has been largely killed off, asbo'd out of existence.


I suspect it's also been forced out of existance by the overt and initmadating drug pushers, scammers, crackheads etc etc. Not may people want to enjoy the outdoors with all that aggro to contend with, nowadays...


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> and your a fool as well......
> 
> trying  to wind everyone up
> 
> ...




Why not just leave the debate?. Your just contributing abuse and it's not witty or original or indeed funny.


----------



## pk (Jan 20, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Why not just leave the debate?. Your just contributing abuse and it's not witty or original or indeed funny.



So who were you when you were banned from here before??


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I suspect it's also been forced out of existance by the overt and initmadating drug pushers, scammers, crackheads etc etc. Not may people want to enjoy the outdoors with all that aggro to contend with, nowadays...



I don' know, it can be interesting to sit on the Albert Terrace and have a few whilst watching the goings on.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

Sheeesshhh!   

I'm not sure I can be bothered continuing with debating against attempts to defend the indefensible, really.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> So who were you when you were banned from here before??



What was the syndicate you used to be in?


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 20, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> I've lived in Brixton for pretty much all my life and that last paragraph fucks me off. It's not about being institutionalised, it's more that - like many long term Brixtonians - I don't regard the odd person offering me weed as a huge problem. I shake my head, they smile, I carry on. It's not a particular worry some of those guys I've known for over 15 years; they've been friendly folk most of the time, neighbourhood policemen other times. I don't necessarily regard their presence as a sign that things are entirely bleak.
> 
> I regret the way that people seem increasingly fearful of others. There's used to be a thriving street culture, people sat outside their front gardens, on street corners, hell - _even drinking in public_ - sometimes sound systems. A summer's stroll was a lovely day to greet the neighbours, a big diverse melting pot.
> 
> Now all that has been largely killed off, asbo'd out of existence. People seem fearful of people hanging outside and increasingly silo'ed off into their little groups. I'm all for being tough on violent drug dealers and nasty characters; only I don't believe it's particularly devastating to have to say 'no' to someone once in a while.



And I know the older pot dealers as well, but we are not talking about them. We are talking about the gangs of dealing youths and crack addicts.


----------



## snadge (Jan 20, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Why not just leave the debate?. Your just contributing abuse and it's not witty or original or indeed funny.



I left before due to phill's garbage but kept a watchfull eye on it


----------



## pk (Jan 20, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> What was the syndicate you used to be in?



What?

Why are you answering a question with a question?

Something to hide?

Who were you on here before you were banned?

Just say if you're too scared to tell.


----------



## netbob (Jan 20, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> And I know the older pot dealers as well, but we are not talking about them. We are talking about the gangs of dealing youths and crack addicts.



The older guys are very much in the decendancy. I think a simular thing happened in Notting Hill during the late nineties - i.e. an influx of crack and the forcing out of the older weed dealers who were generally accepted and considered part of the commmunity.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> I don' know, it can be interesting to sit on the Albert Terrace and have a few whilst watching the goings on.


Well, I'm afraid all I can really say in response to that is that quite a few people don't share you're (apparent) view of it as amusing entertainment.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Well, I'm afraid all I can really say in resposne to that is that a lot of us who live here don't share you're (apparent) view of it as amusing entertainment.



I am not being too semantic but there is a big difference between "interesting" and "amusing". I have always found Brixton street lfe to be interesting since I started going as a teen to 121 in the very early eighties. But the Police and the New Yuppies find the cultural difference of people hangin out on the streets threatening.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> I am not being too semantic but there is a big difference between "interesting" and "amusing". I have always found Brixton street lfe to be interesting since I started going as a teen to 121 in the very early eighties. But the Police and the New Yuppies find the cultural difference of people hangin out on the streets threatening.


There is a difference between Brixton's street scene of the early 80s and the crack-driven dysfunction of today - which has largely driven away the vibrancy and diversity (to spout a cliche) of the former years.

And it's Brixton's long-term residents who are the most pissed off with how it's become, ime, rather than the police and new yuppies.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> There is a difference between Brixton's street scene of the early 80s and the crack-driven dysfunction of today - which has largely driven away the vibrancy and diversity (to spout a cliche) of the former years.
> 
> And it's Brixton's long-term residents who are the most pissed off with how it's become, ime, rather than the police and new yuppies.




You have to be niave or kidding right? Brixton back then was scary and difficult in many ways that it is not now. Walking down Railton Road, you would get _evil_ hassle to buy drugs. Lots of looniness abounded. 

There was no CCTV to help safeguard Nathans valuables, the police viewed everyone with fear and contempt and dished out the violence accordingly.  The riots kicked off in 81, again in 85, it was a different world. People were also been getting shot down the Lane on a fairly regular basis in the nineties and that seems to have tailed off. 

Hypocritical Plastic gangsters calling for the execution of dealers seems hilarious in the context, if you can't handle some one going "skunk skunk" towards you now, you are better off elsewhere.


----------



## tarannau (Jan 20, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> There is a difference between Brixton's street scene of the early 80s and the crack-driven dysfunction of today - which has largely driven away the vibrancy and diversity (to spout a cliche) of the former years.
> 
> And it's Brixton's long-term residents who are the most pissed off with how it's become, ime, rather than the police and new yuppies.



Aye, but by helping to clear the streets of most of their life, the conditions for the 'evil' dealers to dominate and loom large over the streets have been created. 

I seriously don't believe the problem's got that much worse in recent years - with the exception of the annoying whistling fuckers by the bus stops - it's more the perception that's changed. Few residents want to turn the clock back to a more lawless past, but my experience is that many long term Brixton residents regret the lack of acceptance and togetherness in the community now.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 20, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> You have to be niave or kidding right? Brixton back then was scary and difficult in many ways that it is not now. Walking down Railton Road, you would get _evil_ hassle to buy drugs. Lots of looniness abounded.
> 
> There was no CCTV to help safeguard Nathans valuables, the police viewed everyone with fear and contempt and dished out the violence accordingly.  The riots kicked off in 81, again in 85, it was a different world. People were also been getting shot down the Lane on a fairly regular basis in the nineties and that seems to have tailed off.
> 
> Hypocritical Plastic gangsters calling for the execution of dealers seems hilarious in the context, if you can't handle some one going "skunk skunk" towards you now, you are better off elsewhere.



Cherry, be fair - its a lot more than just someone saying "skunk skunk" occasionally and you know it.


----------



## tarannau (Jan 20, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> Cherry, be fair - its a lot more than just someone saying "skunk skunk" occasionally and you know it.



To be fair it's rarely anything but ime. Not many folk experience much else - some even seem to find that intolerable.  It used to be more dangerous back in the past if you ask me - even outside 7/11 used to feel generally threatening at night.

Rucshcroft Road's a bit of an exception mind, but that's to do with the chaotic users as much as anything. That road needs some help.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 20, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> To be fair it's rarely anything but ime. Not many folk experience much else - some even seem to find that intolerable.  It used to be more dangerous back in the past if you ask me - even outside 7/11 used to feel generally threatening at night.
> 
> Rucshcroft Road's a bit of an exception mind, but that's to do with the chaotic users as much as anything. That road needs some help.



I am willing to accept that some problems may be very localised. 
But I can only go on what I experience.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> Cherry, be fair - its a lot more than just someone saying "skunk skunk" occasionally and you know it.



Well I hear of other problems and I have no problem accepting that trouble does occor, but my experience over many many years is that people going "skunk skunk" are the only people to offer me drugs. I have not had people going "5,8,10!" outside the cab office opposite the dog star for at least 5 years. 

Back in the day all you heard was "bush bush BUSH" so some things have certainly changed, so at the least the weed is of better quality now!
 

I did see a guy getting a right wallop outside the Albert at 5pm on a weekday about 2 months ago, he was pissed, and had shoved through a group of (non dealers as far as I know) throwing abuse about. He only got one punch but it was ugly, even Pat thought he was a drunk muppet.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> And I know the older pot dealers as well, but we are not talking about them. We are talking about the gangs of dealing youths and crack addicts.



I don't see what age has to do with it.  The victim of your abuse was neither selling crack nor in a gang.  You've explained yourself now by saying that you were in fact reacting to a series of previous incidents instigated by other people.  That is plausible, but still deeply stupid.  Would you beat your wife to revenge an insult from your boss?  As Donna has said, I think the truth is that you feel that certain kinds of people are fair game for your abuse.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> I regret the way that people seem increasingly fearful of others. There's used to be a thriving street culture, people sat outside their front gardens, on street corners, hell - _even drinking in public_ - sometimes sound systems. A summer's stroll was a lovely day to greet the neighbours, a big diverse melting pot.
> 
> Now all that has been largely killed off, asbo'd out of existence. People seem fearful of people hanging outside and increasingly silo'ed off into their little groups.



Yep.  Its called "gentrification."  One of the many informative pleasures of this thread is that it allows us to watch gentrification in action.  And every time a white man shouts "fuck off" at a teenager who has said "skunk" near him the process takes an incremental step forward.


----------



## snadge (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I don't see what age has to do with it.  The victim of your abuse was neither selling crack nor in a gang.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

*Nail on head.*




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> I don't see what age has to do with it.  The victim of your abuse was neither selling crack nor in a gang.  You've explained yourself now by saying that you were in fact reacting to a series of previous incidents instigated by other people.  That is plausible, but still deeply stupid.  Would you beat your wife to revenge an insult from your boss?  As Donna has said, I think the truth is that you feel that certain kinds of people are fair game for your abuse.



Or abuse a beggar because some other beggar in the past was demanding money in a way that upset you?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

>




Come on snadge, either contribute or fuck off.


----------



## snadge (Jan 20, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Come on snadge, either contribute or fuck off.



I'm using on scrn keyboard so i cant ype    

its frstrating and i want to but it takes ages


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Come on snadge, either contribute or fuck off.



I fear he is already contributing to the best of his abilities.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> I'm using on scrn keyboard so i cant ype
> 
> its frstrating and i want to but it takes ages



I am having a vison of you using that mad little internet phone kiosk outside the Brixton Tube station. Keep hold of your wallet!


----------



## snadge (Jan 20, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> I am having a vison of you using that mad little internet phone kiosk outside the Brixton Tube station. Keep hold of your wallet!



  

i spilt tea om my keyboard this morning


----------



## tarannau (Jan 20, 2006)

Would it have been better had a black bus driver had shouted at the dealer then? In either case, I woudn't put 'shouting at people' at top of the 'indicators of gentrification' list.

You don't half talk a load of guff Phil. I think you'd be better making your own duff points rather than twisting other folks' statements to suit your own bizarre assertions.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Would it have been better had a black bus driver had shouted at the dealer then? In either case, I woudn't put 'shouting at people' at top of the 'indicators of gentrification' list.
> 
> You don't half talk a load of guff Phil. I think you'd be better making your own duff points rather than twisting other folks' statements to suit your own bizarre assertions.



Well how would you explain the decline in the quality of Brixton street life, to which you correctly draw our attention?  "ASBO'd out of existence" you said, and you are right.  Do you think that the proliferation of such restrictions has nothing to do wih the fact that many bourgeois white people have been moving in to a previously proletarian and largely black neighborhood?  Of course you don't!  The truth is that many people on this thread and elsewhere will not be happy until Brixton is indistinguishable from Tunbridge Wells.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> I am having a vison of you using that mad little internet phone kiosk outside the Brixton Tube station.



Hee.  With steam coming out of his ears and incoherent howls of outrage as he reads my latest contribution.  I have visions of Robert de Niro in the phone kiosk in "Goodfellas," when he finds out his mate has been whacked.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

Was it racist to cheer the overthrow of Francois Duvalier, the former dictator of Haiti - simply because he happened to be black? Would it have been better for socialists in Britain to keep quiet about his atrocites against his own (black) people for fear of being called racist? Or how about when the dictator of Ethipia, Hailie Sallassie, was overthrown by his own people? Or when his successor, Hailie Mariam Mengistu was ousted? Should these brutal tyrants have all been supported on the basis that they were black and it would have been racist to oppose them?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Was it racist to cheer the overthrow of Francois Duvalier, the former dictator of Haiti - simply becasue he happened to be black?



Uh.... no.  Obviously.  What's your point?


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Uh.... no.  Obviously.  What's your point?


Becuase there's a heavy implication going on on this thread that it's racist to oppose oppresive behviour if the person doing it happens to be black  - even if it's also black people themselves who are being adversely affected by their actions.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Becuase there's a heavy implication going on on this thread that it's racist to oppose oppresive behviour if the person doing it happens to be black  - even if it's also black people themselves who are being adversely affected by their actions.



I have encountered no such implication.  And in any case, would you equate the "oppressive behavior" practiced by Papa Doc Duvalier, Baron Samedi himself, the Voodoo houngan who turned his enemies into zombies and instituted the most bloodthirsty reign of terror the Western hemisphere has ever witnessed, destabilizing the entire Caribbean and plunging his nation into an abyss of misery and destruction from which it still shows no signs of emerging--would you, I say, equate *his* "oppressive behavior" with that of a teenager who said "skunk" a bit too close to to the inebriated Rushcroft Roader?  Would you?


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well how would you explain the decline in the quality of Brixton street life, to which you correctly draw our attention?  "ASBO'd out of existence" you said, and you are right.  Do you think that the proliferation of such restrictions has nothing to do wih the fact that many bourgeois white people have been moving in to a previously proletarian and largely black neighborhood?  Of course you don't!  The truth is that many people on this thread and elsewhere will not be happy until Brixton is indistinguishable from Tunbridge Wells.


What a load of old nonsense. What you _cannot seem to grasp _ is that a lot of proletarian black and white Brixtoners don't want the streets colonised by drug dealers - and NEITHER do they want Brixton to turn into Tunbridge Wells. Sorry to shatter your cosy steryotype.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> What a load of old nonsense. What you _cannot seem to grasp _ is that a lot of proletarian black and white Brixtoners don't want the streets colonised by drug dealers



No.  There have been drug dealers on the streets of Brixton for fifty years.  What these people want is to *drive* them *off* the streets, by any means necessary, as it would appear.  And, as I've mentioned before, if they succeed, you will immediately find that a lot of other things will change around Brixton--so much so that it will indeed come to resemble a boring bourgeois suburb.  I watched it happen in New York fifteen years ago.  Same tactics, same result.


----------



## pk (Jan 20, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Becuase there's a heavy implication going on on this thread that it's racist to oppose oppresive behviour if the person doing it happens to be black  - even if it's also black people themselves who are being adversely affected by their actions.



Let's clarify - the only one making such a childish implication is Phildwyer.


----------



## pk (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No.  There have been drug dealers on the streets of Brixton for fifty years.  What these people want is to *drive* them *off* the streets, by any means necessary, as it would appear.  And, as I've mentioned before, if they succeed, you will immediately find that a lot of other things will change around Brixton--so much so that it will indeed come to resemble a boring bourgeois suburb.



Utter bollocks.

You're saying that a town without aggressive dealers is automatically boring bourgeois?

Seriously - if you get mugged the next time you're on CHL I'll laugh.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well how would you explain the decline in the quality of Brixton street life, to which you correctly draw our attention?  "ASBO'd out of existence" you said, and you are right.  Do you think that the proliferation of such restrictions has nothing to do wih the fact that many bourgeois white people have been moving in to a previously proletarian and largely black neighborhood?  Of course you don't!  The truth is that many people on this thread and elsewhere will not be happy until Brixton is indistinguishable from Tunbridge Wells.



I think most people move to Brixton because it is Brixton. Why move somewhere you want to change? 
There is a very over-simplified idea on this thread that people who move to Brixton are all affluent white "yuppies" who want to destroy the identity of the place. What a load of guff. 
I moved to Brixton a few years ago because its Brixton. 

I love: The people, the market, the streets, the pubs, Eric the 88-year-old flower seller outside the Tube, the Ritzy, the Portugese deli, even the bonkers chap with the megaphone who cheerily tells me I am going to hell every morning and the whole vibe and commnuity spirit of the place that makes it really special.

I don't love: Crack heads, aggressive drug dealers, needles on my doorstep, people shitting on the street, KFC, Subway and presumptuous cretins like Phil who claim to know who I am because of the demographic they assume I fall into.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> I love: The people, the market, the streets, the pubs, Eric the 88-year-old flower seller outside the Tube, the Ritzy, the Portugese deli, even the bonkers chap with the megaphone who cheerily tells me I am going to hell every morning and the whole vibe and commnuity spirit of the place that makes it really special.



And I am telling you that these things you love about Brixton will disappear along with those things that you hate.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And I am telling you that these things you love about Brixton will disappear along with those things that you hate.



Sorry, just why exactly? 
You are not worth the time of day. And I didn't say "hate".


----------



## snadge (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And I am telling you that these things you love about Brixton will disappear along with those things that you hate.



As long as phills the 1st, I'll be happy.

work a game plan up for the rest.


I'm going to end up with fucking RSI at this rate....


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 20, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> As long as phills the 1st, I'll be happy.
> 
> work a game plan up for the rest.
> 
> ...


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> I think most people move to Brixton because it is Brixton. Why move somewhere you want to change?


Although I think it's important to point out that a lot of people live there simply because they've done so for most (or all) of their lives (I include myself here) and either don't see any reason why they _should_ move, or are simply unable to do so for any number of reasons. Some of the most passionate people about Brixton fall into this group, and it is often this group who are the most annoyed by the crackheads, dealers etc.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> RuchcroftRoader shows that booze plus wanker = tosspot hypocrite!


Says the poster who also said


> *"...It seems more accurate to say that several posters coudld not string a logical arguement together and have resorted to simple but unwitty abuse."*



Ah, hypocrisy is such a beautiful thing!!!


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Says the poster who also said
> 
> 
> Ah, hypocrisy is such a beautiful thing!!!




Come on Panda, you can do better than that.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 20, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Do you pick fights with the person shouting "Standard!" by the Tube?



if he leaned into too close and followed me down the street a bit i would certianly tell him to fuck off

newspaper sales people  don't act like drug dealers in my experiance


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> if he leaned into too close and followed me down the street a bit i would certianly tell him to fuck off
> 
> newspaper sales people  don't act like drug dealers in my experiance




I have never had anyone leaning in too close as you put it, nor following me down the street. I find lately that many do not even go "skunk skunk skunk" but use eye contact to 
sort the customers from the passers by.

Have you tried saying "no thank you" in a tone that you might use towards a neighbour?  

Wicked buds I bought yesterday!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Come on Panda, you can do better than that.



What, than to expose your hypocritical "capers"?

Hey, if you indulge, your sins will find you out, you can't be accusing someone of poor behaviour in one post then indulging in same a few posts later and expect to get away with it, only Phil's allowed to do that!


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> What, than to expose your hypocritical "capers"?
> 
> Hey, if you indulge, your sins will find you out, you can't be accusing someone of poor behaviour in one post then indulging in same a few posts later and expect to get away with it, only Phil's allowed to do that!




Context is all! 

I have tried quite hard to stick to the subject rather than to indulge in some silly abuse. 

But I am human after all.


----------



## pk (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And I am telling you that these things you love about Brixton will disappear along with those things that you hate.



Bullshit.

Absolute unmitigated bullshit.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Wicked buds I bought yesterday!



From a street dealer?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> From a street dealer?



Yeah, charming bloke, out in all weathers, works hard, honest, good merchandise. Often see him about on a Sunday with his partner and kid in a push chair. We stopped for a can and spliff a while back and chatted about the house vs street dealing scene. The turnover is on the street he reckons. Also the risk is less as he never has more than an Oz on him and it's never ever bagged up so won't get done for intent to supply. Little risk of getting the police kicking his familie's door in either doing street business.

He says he rarely gets hassle from the police as long as he does not get cheeky with them, they may tell him to "move along" from time to time but that is about that.

My only gripe is that he won't sell measured weight. 

But good quality for sure, I am still muggy headed from last night and I did not have much.


----------



## netbob (Jan 20, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Yeah, charming bloke, out in all weathers, works hard, honest, good merchandise. Often see him about on a Sunday with his partner and kid in a push chair. We stopped for a can and spliff a while back and chatted about the house vs street dealing scene. The turnover is on the street he reckons. Also the risk is less as he never has more than an Oz on him and it's never ever bagged up so won't get done for intent to supply. Little risk of getting the police kicking his familie's door in either doing street business.
> 
> He says he rarely gets hassle from the police as long as he does not get cheeky with them, they may tell him to "move along" from time to time but that is about that.
> 
> ...




http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.u...65270&method=full&siteid=50100-name_page.html


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

I think the calls for unregulated parking put the remarks by "traders" into context.

Anyway, why should one set of traders drive out another? If Mcdonalds whipped up a campagn against street dealers because it was effecting their hamburgar sales would you support them? 

I thought the stated fact of a 41% decrease in street crime was interesting. They attribute it to the success of CCTV but that is a difficult claim to justify (that CCTV is responsible). 

Brixton does seem to me to be a lot less violent though nowdays.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

memespring said:
			
		

> http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.u...65270&method=full&siteid=50100-name_page.html



Newspaper in Law-and-Order Campaign Shock!


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

Good article about impact of drugs in working class communities:

http://www.iwca.info/cutedge/ce0004.htm

Good article about crime in general in working class comunnities:

http://www.iwca.info/cutedge/ce0002.htm


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 20, 2006)

Nothing in the IWCA articles about people selling or taking marijuana though eh?


----------



## netbob (Jan 20, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Anyway, why should one set of traders drive out another? If Mcdonalds whipped up a campagn against street dealers because it was effecting their hamburgar sales would you support them?



I woudlen't give a toss about Macca's, loosing Bookshops and market stalls on the other hand I do.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 20, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Have you tried saying "no thank you" in a tone that you might use towards a neighbour?


 This is your answer to _everything_.





> Wicked buds I bought yesterday!


 We wouldn't get the hassle if it wasn't for all the fucking drugs tourists.   

Please, find your own dealer and buy your stuff in your own neighbourhood.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 20, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Brixton does seem to me to be a lot less violent though nowdays.


I rest my case.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Please, find your own dealer and buy your stuff in your own neighbourhood.



Why should he? Brixton is not yet a gated community is it?


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Why should he? Brixton is not yet a gated community is it?



oh no, look who is on his lunch break


----------



## Isambard (Jan 20, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Please, find your own dealer and buy your stuff in your own neighbourhood.




Serious question IS: Do people go to Brixton from other areas with the sole intention of buying illegal drugs alone?


----------



## Crispy (Jan 20, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> Serious question IS: Do people go to Brixton from other areas with the sole intention of buying illegal drugs alone?



My old housemate did.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 20, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> Serious question IS: Do people go to Brixton from other areas with the sole intention of buying illegal drugs alone?


 They certainly come to Brixton to buy drugs. They may take a friend with them but  they frequently get robbed and/or ripped off. I can't understand why people do it. It's not hard to find a dealer judged ok by people you know. Why buy drugs off the street when you're highly likely to get sold some bits of bark or have your money or other possessions snatched? It's so stupid. There are frequently violent altercations in my street and they are almost all started by somebody getting ripped off.


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 20, 2006)

It's a bit like 'carnival syndrome' really, yes people do come to Brix just to buy drugs, but then they also come just to rave or just to drink. The point is an area like Brixton simply could not survive without the 'travelling pound'. 

I guess you gotta take the rough with the smooth. Personally I love having drugs on the doorstep!


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 20, 2006)

DJ Bigga said:
			
		

> The point is an area like Brixton simply could not survive without the 'travelling pound'.


 Money that goes to drug dealers doesn't benefit the local economy or community at all. And Brixton certainly doesn't depend on the drug trade for survival.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Money that goes to drug dealers doesn't benefit the local economy or community at all.



Drug dealers are part of the community.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Money that goes to drug dealers doesn't benefit the local economy or community at all. And Brixton certainly doesn't depend on the drug trade for survival.


Top post!


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 20, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Money that goes to drug dealers doesn't benefit the local economy or community at all. And Brixton certainly doesn't depend on the drug trade for survival.


No but it does depend on people coming into it 'solely' to spend money. Whether that be spent on books, veggies or drugs. It's all the 'travelling pound'


----------



## pk (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Drug dealers are part of the community.



Unfortunately.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Drug dealers are part of the community.


No - they exempt themsleves from the community by pissing all over it with their dealing. Just like strikebreaking scabs exempt themselves from their union by working on strike days. In both cases the motivation is a selfish "me first and sod everybody who my actions affect" type of thinking.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Unfortunately.



Weren't *you* a drug dealer once?  I'm genuinely sorry if I've got that wrong, but didn't you mention something about that on here a while ago?


----------



## snadge (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Drug dealers are part of the community.



here we fucking go again, I've now got a proper keyboard attached so philly the right on is gonna get some abuse soon .

the only people that benefit from the drugs money don't fucking spend thier money at the local corner shop.

explain how drugs money benefits the community please


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> explain how drugs money bebefits the community please


To phildwyer: without resorting to bleating that drug dealers are part of the community. We want to know _*just what part of the community benefits from drugs money apart from the dealers*_.

Please answer that question.


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 20, 2006)

I would have thought a drug dealler standing in Brixton all day would at some point spend *some* money in Brixton. It'd be hard not too surely?


btw you'd be surprised at how many of those dealers actually live in or around Brixton.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 20, 2006)

DJ Bigga said:
			
		

> btw you'd be surprised at how many of those dealers actually live in or around Brixton.


 Yes. Almost none.


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 20, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Yes. Almost none.


Just not true I'm afraid


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

Frankly, I really don't care where they're from. They're a pain in the arse.


----------



## snadge (Jan 20, 2006)

DJ Bigga said:
			
		

> I would have thought a drug dealler standing in Brixton all day would at some point spend *some* money in Brixton. It'd be hard not too surely?



what in mcdonalds, KFC or a supermarket ( chain)?

think again


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> what in mcdonalds, KFC or a supermarket ( chain)?
> 
> think again



Last time I was in MacDonald's it seemed that drugs dealers were virtually their only clientele.


----------



## snadge (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Last time I was in MacDonald's it seemed that drugs dealers were virtually their only clientele.



so you agree mcdonalds profit from the street dealers then?


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 20, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> what in mcdonalds, KFC or a supermarket ( chain)?
> 
> think again


What about the little phone shop? Jewellers? the WI take away on electric Ave? The offy, clothes shop next to the take away and the cab station. To name a few.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> To phildwyer: without resorting to bleating that drug dealers are part of the community. We want to know _*just what part of the community benefits from drugs money apart from the dealers*_.
> 
> Please answer that question.



The customers, the dealers' families, the local businesses where the dealers shop, the dealers' landlords...


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

If I ran a small shop, the LAST people I'd want using it would be drug dealers - who'd probably "invite" me to take out "insurance" with them as well.


----------



## snadge (Jan 20, 2006)

DJ Bigga said:
			
		

> What about the little phone shop? Jewellers? the WI take away on electric Ave? The offy, clothes shop next to the take away and the cab station. To name a few.



how many phones a week do street dealers buy.

do you not think a sizeable amount of their money goes towards their own habits, meaning that the money will get spent on oxford street by the plastic gansters


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 20, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> If I ran a small shop, the LAST people I'd want using it would be drug dealers - who'd probably "invite" me to take out "insurance" with them as well.


Do you think someone selling 10 pound bags of skunk wants the police attention that comes with extortion? Would it be a smart move to stand around the corner *all day* from a shop you're extorting?

Let's keep it in the realms of reality shall we?


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 20, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> how many phones a week do street dealers buy.
> 
> do you not think a sizeable amount of their money goes towards their own habits, meaning that the money will get spent on oxford street by the plastic gansters


How many phones a week does anyone buy?


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 20, 2006)

Shops selling King Size Mars Bars must do well from all the skunk


----------



## snadge (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The customers, the dealers' families, the local businesses where the dealers shop, the dealers' landlords...



you are a prize fucking plonker

the customers are giving money over

the dealers family is just that

which local businesses benefit

and as for landlords?


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

Deleted as I just can't be arsed with this inanity of a debate anymore.


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 20, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Deleted as I just can't be arsed with this inanity of a debate anymore.


It's a shame, cos bar personal insults a debate can only be healthy.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

DJ Bigga said:
			
		

> It's a shame, cos bar personal insults a debate can only be healthy.


True - but what we've got is people (who shall remain nameless) simply insisting on a bizarre defense of the indefensible. Not a debate in any meaningful sense of the word, imo.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 20, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> True - but what we've got is people (who shall remain nameless) simply insisting on a bizarre defense of the indefensible. Not a debate in any meaningful sense of the word, imo.



just ignore Phil.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 20, 2006)

Phildwyer, I think your post #827 is WELL out of order.

Another serious question to Brixtonites from an innocent young wee lad: 

Do "drug tourists" ie people who visit Brixton solely for the purpose of buying illegal drugs make up the majority of the street dealers customers?


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 20, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> Do "drug tourists" ie people who visit Brixton solely for the purpose of buying illegal drugs make up the majority of the street dealers customers?


Brixton residents certainly make up the majority of people who want it to *stop*.

But, hey, who are we Brixtoners to complain or have a say in what we tolerate going on in our own neighbourhood?


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 20, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> Phildwyer, I think your post #827 is WELL out of order.
> 
> Another serious question to Brixtonites from an innocent young wee lad:
> 
> Do "drug tourists" ie people who visit Brixton solely for the purpose of buying illegal drugs make up the majority of the street dealers customers?


Has anyone done a survey?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> Phildwyer, I think your post #827 is WELL out of order.



Well I wouldn't have mentioned it if PK hadn't mentioned it on these boards himself.  Anyway, I might be wrong--I trust he will correct me if so--and apologies in advance if I am.  And if I'm right and he wants me to remove it, I'll do that too.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 20, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Have you tried saying "no thank you" in a tone that you might use towards a neighbour?



my god...    saying no?  i  would have NEVER though of that


of corse i have said  no tons of times  ...  or was it  not cordial enough?

do drug dealers think "oh i say he was a bit brash!  he obviously needs me to sell him some drugs!  not  like  mr cherry  whos plesent  repitiore  obviously means he is in no need of a chemical pick me up"


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 20, 2006)

DJ Bigga said:
			
		

> No but it does depend on people coming into it 'solely' to spend money. Whether that be spent on books, veggies or drugs. It's all the 'travelling pound'



Visit Brixton! come for the  drugs, stay for the people!

man  we need you as the new lambeth marketig group

"brixton offers  the weary travel  rest at one of  world famous holiday crack houses ... "


----------



## pk (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well I wouldn't have mentioned it if PK hadn't mentioned it on these boards himself.  Anyway, I might be wrong--I trust he will correct me if so--and apologies in advance if I am.  And if I'm right and he wants me to remove it, I'll do that too.



I notice you're unsure, yet sure I mentioned it. ???

Used to sell bits and pieces, about a decade ago - but NEVER, EVER stood in the fucking street trying to sell it to passers-by.

Which is the crux of this - you're assuming all drug dealers in Brixton are black, or 95 percent of them, which is offensive bullshit, and you're also saying that the dealers are a cherished section of the community, which is also bullshit, though for some reason you propose that in spite of your love for drug dealers pestering strangers you want to see them walled into a disused housing estate away from the gentrified masses.

Confused, ain't ya, kid?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 20, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Now all that has been largely killed off, asbo'd out of existence. People seem fearful of people hanging outside and increasingly silo'ed off into their little groups. I'm all for being tough on violent drug dealers and nasty characters; only I don't believe it's particularly devastating to have to say 'no' to someone once in a while.


How many ASBOs have been handed out in Brixton? Is it ASBOs that have killed off benign street culture or is it crack dealing and the violent gangsterism that surrounds it?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Used to sell bits and pieces, about a decade ago - but NEVER, EVER stood in the fucking street trying to sell it to passers-by.



I'm not sure I see the moral distinction there.  Did you consider yourself "part of the community" at that time?


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 20, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> Visit Brixton! come for the  drugs, stay for the people!
> 
> man  we need you as the new lambeth marketig group
> 
> "brixton offers  the weary travel  rest at one of  world famous holiday crack houses ... "



You gonna deal with the point?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Which is the crux of this - you're assuming all drug dealers in Brixton are black, or 95 percent of them, which is offensive bullshit, and you're also saying that the dealers are a cherished section of the community, which is also bullshit, though for some reason you propose that in spite of your love for drug dealers pestering strangers you want to see them walled into a disused housing estate away from the gentrified masses.



1.  I didn't say "in Brixton," I said "on Coldharbour Lane."  I spoke nothing but the cold truth.

2.  I didn't say "cherished."

3.  I didn't say I wanted them "walled in," I suggested creating a "tolerance zone" for drugs.  Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you advocated this idea on these boards yourself?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 20, 2006)

DJ Bigga said:
			
		

> You gonna deal with the point?



well if you insist on making daft points......

some people might just be a tad cocerned about  the origin of the money spent...  i mean you could say switzerland  had it's local econamy bosted by  large amounts of  nazi gold ... but there is  also a certian  moral price to be paid for that gain

this is mearly the thin end of the wedge


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I notice you're unsure, yet sure I mentioned it. ???



No, I was unsure you'd mentioned it.  I'm sure now.  Not that it matters to me, I don't think drug dealers are criminals to be persecuted and driven out of town.  Unlike some.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No, I was unsure you'd mentioned it.  I'm sure now.  Not that it matters to me, I don't think drug dealers are criminals to be persecuted and driven out of town.  Unlike some.



Do you think if we ignore him, he might go away?


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 20, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> well if you insist on making daft points......
> 
> some people might just be a tad cocerned about  the origin of the money spent...  i mean you could say switzerland  had it's local econamy bosted by  large amounts of  nazi gold ... but there is  also a certian  moral price to be paid for that gain
> 
> this is mearly the thin end of the wedge


The question was asked 'how do dealers contribute to the local economy' I answered the question.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 20, 2006)

and i was merly pointing out  that many people wouldn't exactly see that as a positive contribution


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 20, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> Visit Brixton! come for the  drugs, stay for the people!
> 
> man  we need you as the new lambeth marketig group
> 
> "brixton offers  the weary travel  rest at one of  world famous holiday crack houses ... "



Merely pointing out?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Confused, ain't ya, kid?



On the contrary, it is you who are confused.  You used to be a drug dealer, but now you believe that drug dealers should be locked up.  Now, of course, you were young, your ideas have changed, all that's fair enough.  But many of the dealers on Coldharbour Lane are also young, *their* ideas may change as well.  How can you advocate ruining their lives by arrest and imprisonment?  You were lucky to get out of the game without a criminal record, why not extend the same chance to today's generation of dealers?


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> On the contrary, it is you who are confused.  You used to be a drug dealer, but now you believe that drug dealers should be locked up.  Now, of course, you were young, your ideas have changed, all that's fair enough.  But many of the dealers on Coldharbour Lane are also young, *their* ideas may change as well.  How can you advocate *ruining their lives by arrest and imprisonment?*   You were lucky to get out of the game without a criminal record, why not extend the same chance to today's generation of dealers?


I don't know about that. Occupational hazard really.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 20, 2006)

DJ Bigga said:
			
		

> Merely pointing out?



sorry

Merely pointing out while at the same time taking time to practise my stand up comedy


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 20, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> sorry
> 
> Merely pointing out while at the same time taking time to practise my stand up comedy



Your honesty is admirable.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 20, 2006)

which is more than can be said of my stand up rutine

*brushes off vegtable debris*


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 20, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> which is more than can be said of my stand up rutine
> 
> *brushes off vegtable debris*


or your spelling


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 20, 2006)

you can't keep a good dyslexic doown* 



* yes  i do deserve to be shot for that joke... but i am dyslexic


----------



## netbob (Jan 20, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> you can't keep a good dyslexic doown*
> 
> 
> 
> * yes  i do deserve to be shot for that joke... but i am dyslexic



up the dyslexicas!!

me too


----------



## netbob (Jan 20, 2006)

.


----------



## netbob (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No, I was unsure you'd mentioned it.  I'm sure now.  Not that it matters to me, I don't think drug dealers are criminals to be persecuted and driven out of town.  Unlike some.



Criminal is subjective I suppose, but do you think it should be ignored then?  What is the criminal 'some'?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

memespring said:
			
		

> Criminal is subjective I suppose, but do you think it should be ignored then?  What is the criminal 'some'?



No, I meant that "some" people think drug dealers are criminals, but I don't.  That is, they *are,* but I don't think they should be.  Because I don't think drugs should be illegal, I don't think drug dealers should be treated as criminals.  I favour the creation of "tolerance zones," as I've mentioned before on this thread.


----------



## netbob (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No, I meant that "some" people think drug dealers are criminals, but I don't.  That is, they *are,* but I don't think they should be.  Because I don't think drugs should be illegal, I don't think drug dealers should be treated as criminals.  I favour the creation of "tolerance zones," as I've mentioned before on this thread.




without wishing to get all deep, who should judge what is criminal? 

Actually whilst we are at it, where are the Untollerent Zones going to be? Do we get a say? (can I choose Woking?)


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 20, 2006)

memespring said:
			
		

> without wishing to get all deep, who should judge what is criminal?



Me.


----------



## netbob (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Me.









Good choice!


----------



## colacubes (Jan 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Me.



And rightly so.  That is your opinion and it is valid.

Not necessarily justified but valid nonetheless.

BUT you still haven't answered the question I posted in post 690.  Am I a racist


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 20, 2006)

DJ Bigga said:
			
		

> Has anyone done a survey?


I think there are some figures about the number of people from outside the borough being cautioned or charged with possession. I haven't found them but I have found these figures for Coldharbour ward:

12 Months to December 2005 (year) - Figures are 'per 1000 population'
...........................Coldharbour....Lambeth........London
Burglary:.....................14.7..........14.5..........14.4
Criminal Damage:..............24.1..........18.2..........17.1
Drugs Offences:...............38.2..........10.5...........5.0
Fraud or Forgery:..............5.2...........5.1...........5.8
Other Notifiable Offences:.....3.3...........1.8...........1.2
Robbery:......................17.3..........10.6...........5.5
Sexual Offences:...............2.9...........2.0...........1.3
Theft and Handling:..........100.5..........54.4..........49.2
Violence Against the Person:..70.4..........35.6..........26.5	 

Coldharbour ward:




http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/index.php

Just in case anyone is in any doubt, compared with the London average this part of Brixton, while having roughly the same rates for 'Burglary', 'Criminal Damage' and 'Fraud/Forgery', it has over 7 times the number of 'Drugs Offences' per capita, about 3 times the rate of 'Robberies' and 'Violence Against the Person' and 2 times the rate of 'Sexual Offences' and 'Theft and Handling'.

There are plenty of people who have nothing against cannabis even when sold and used openly in Brixton, but are completely sick of all the shit that goes with crack dealing and the gangsterism surrounding street dealing in general.

If anyone has any figures that go back across previous years I would be interested to see if the crime figures were really were as bad as this before crack arrived in the area.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

nipsla said:
			
		

> Am I a racist



Of course not.  In all probability, you are the least racist person on this thread, or maybe even in the world.  You make Rosa Parkes look like Eva Braun.  You make Mahatma Ghandi look like Oswald Mosley.   You make Bernie Grant look like Nick Griffin.  You make Louis Farrakhan look like David Duke.  Oh hang on, that can't be right...


----------



## snadge (Jan 21, 2006)

at least he's not making himself look like a donkey


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 21, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I think there are some figures about the number of people from outside the borough being cautioned or charged with possession. I haven't found them


I think pooka posted some stats about that somewhere on this forum.


----------



## colacubes (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Of course not.  In all probability, you are the least racist person on this thread, or maybe even in the world.  You make Rosa Parkes look like Eva Braun.  You make Mahatma Ghandi look like Oswald Mosley.   You make Bernie Grant look like Nick Griffin.  You make Louis Farrakhan look like David Duke.  Oh hang on, that can't be right...



How nice   

I think you'd probably have a slightly better debate without resorting to abuse every time someone asks a question that you don't have a decent answer to.


----------



## CPCG (Jan 21, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I think there are some figures about the number of people from outside the borough being cautioned or charged with possession. I haven't found them



The last time any figures were published about this aspect, as far as we know, was during the cannabis trial. There is a reference on the old lambeth4paddick website (with a link to the BBC). The indications then were that over 50% of those warned for possesssion were from outside the borough. The Met's final evaluation  suggested a figure nearer 40%. Recorded incidents of possession are by far the majority of recorded drugs offences (see here. )

The police have indicated to us that _ad hoc_ analyses indicate that this remains the case. We have asked that this analysis be included in the periodic review of the No Deal initiative, and will publish the figures here.

It's worth remembering that it is generally accepted that levels of recorded drugs offences are particularly a measure of police activity, when compared to other  types of crime. So we can expect that they will rise as the No Deal initiative progresses.

I'm afraid we don't have a long historic series at Ward level, but you can find some indication (in respect of drugs for example) in the Lambeth Community Safety Audit* (page 39 onwards) and also in respect of drugs 'CAD calls' and Stops and Searches (here - Slide 7 onwards).

* This is a 3Mb pdf file, you can access individual chapters from here


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

Its also interesting to note that, during the experiment of tolerating cannabis in Brixton, there was neither an increase in "drug tourism," nor in street crime, nor in drug dealing, nor in drug use.  Furthermore, the experiment was supported by the vast majority of black residents as well as white.  Clearly that is the way forward, *not* increased police action against drug dealers.


----------



## snadge (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Its also interesting to note that, during the experiment of tolerating cannabis in Brixton, there was neither an increase in "drug tourism," nor in street crime, nor in drug dealing, nor in drug use.  Furthermore, the experiment was supported by the vast majority of black residents as well as white.  Clearly that is the way forward, *not* increased police action against drug dealers.



evidence please


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> evidence please



The evidence was provided in the previous post, so it would seem that you are only reading my contributions. Why?

http://www.lambeth4paddick.org/html/cannabis_nonsense.html


----------



## snadge (Jan 21, 2006)

one of the stats is forbidden and the other stresses


 "suggesting people were not flooding into the area to buy drugs." 

anyway the evidence I asked for was to back this claim up



> the vast majority of black residents as well as white


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> one of the stats is forbidden and the other stresses
> 
> 
> "suggesting people were not flooding into the area to buy drugs."
> ...



I've no idea what you're on about.  Is this what you want?

"According to a MORI poll of a representative sample of 2,055 Lambeth residents, opposition (or indifference) to the trial was just 8% overall. Opposition amongst different ethnic group was 10% (Black), 7% (White), 7% (Asian). These are not significant differences given the sub-sample sizes."

So it would seem, interestingly enough, that opinion on these boards is significantly more reactionary and authoritarian than public opinion in Brixton as a whole.


----------



## Jessiedog (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I've no idea what you're on about.  Is this what you want?
> 
> "According to a MORI poll of a representative sample of 2,055 Lambeth residents, opposition (or indifference) to the trial was just 8% overall. Opposition amongst different ethnic group was 10% (Black), 7% (White), 7% (Asian). These are not significant differences given the sub-sample sizes."
> 
> So it would seem, interestingly enough, that opinion on these boards is significantly more reactionary and authoritarian than public opinion in Brixton as a whole.



Nice to see you finally coming up with some stats. phil.

But you must remember that this was regarding the cannabis experiment (i.e. the police not _focussing_ on busting peeps for cannabis possession,) and I doubt many here disagree that it should be legal anyway, and certainly as the stats you show prove, there is widespread support for leaving cannabis users alone.

But ask the same 2,055 residents about "agressive street crack dealers" and I think you'd find the same peeps (black, white, blue, brown, green, yellow,) giving a VERY different resonse.

Woof


----------



## pooka (Jan 21, 2006)

The survey you're referring to phil was about the trial of not arresting people in possession. The subsequent reclassification of cannabis to Class C made this norm across the country. That decision has been re-stated by the current home secretary. My guess would be that you would find people for and against that decision in Brixton, but it wouldn't split on an ethnic basis.

Even under the trial, and subsequently under the re-classification, arrest for dealing remained. Moreover, under the reclassification, the option of arrest remained for possession where juveniles were involved, near a school or where there was an identified problem area. It's the latter that is being currently invoked in Brixton.

The problem isn't just one of dealing (there's always been dealing in Brixton) but its location in the commercial centre where people travel through, shop, come for a night out, try to earn a living, the involvement of Class A drugs and the belligerent and harrassing behaviors of the dealers. 

People have had it to the back teeth with this and that cuts across all groups, age, gender, ethnicity .... whatever.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I've no idea what you're on about.  Is this what you want?
> 
> "According to a MORI poll of a representative sample of 2,055 Lambeth residents, opposition (or indifference) to the trial was just 8% overall. Opposition amongst different ethnic group was 10% (Black), 7% (White), 7% (Asian). These are not significant differences given the sub-sample sizes."
> 
> So it would seem, interestingly enough, that opinion on these boards is significantly more reactionary and authoritarian than public opinion in Brixton as a whole.



You might be interested to know - not that it is likely to nudge you off your ridiculous soap box - that hostility towards dealers in Brixton is growing. 
There was a residents meeting with police last Monday at the Town Hall. The room was heaving with people. Furthermore, the "No Deal" initiative has massive support from local shops, market traders, residents and other community members. 
For your information, the "no deal" approach is not some sort of New York zero tolerance campaign. The police now have the powers to arrest anyone for carrying a joint. They use CCTV to target intimidating groups and known troublemakers. The first time they arrest an individual for drug possession, he or she is given a warning. The second time they are given a caution and only upon the third arrest do the police seek to press charges in court. That way, only the hard core dealers get nicked. 
This is not some arbitary crackdown by the cops, it is a response to the wishes of the community - the same people who want to preserve all that is good about Brixton. 

Other groups, such as mybrixton.org, are successfully coodinating wider community action against the crime-related problems stemming from crack and other drug dealing. 
Discussion and subsequent action is not just about taking dealers off the streets, it is also about working for long-term solutions to addiction, including instigating wider community awareness for inititiatives such as the Drug Treatment Centre.

You make all these lofty statements, but you have no idea what is actualy happening on the ground or the real feelings of Brixton residents. 
Phil, you are poisoning this useful debate with your ignorant, out of touch, deluded comments. Please go away.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

pooka said:
			
		

> The problem isn't just one of dealing (there's always been dealing in Brixton) but its location in the commercial centre where people travel through, shop, come for a night out, try to earn a living, the involvement of Class A drugs and the belligerent and harrassing behaviors of the dealers.



Well I have never found the behavior of the dealers "belligerent," and I truly think this is a matter of cultural difference.  White, middle-class English people will tend to experience certain kinds of behavior as "belligerent" which other people would not.  In fact, I would say that white, middle-class English people have the lowest "belligerence tolerance" of anyone in the whole world.  Wouldn't you agree?

But anyway, even assuming that what you say is true, surely it is obvious that these problems would be instantly eliminated by the idea which I have proposed: the creation of a "tolerance zone" for drugs and prostitution, possibly in an abandoned housing estate.  Take it from me, that is the only solution, and it will *have* to be implemented eventually.  Might as well do it now if you ask me, get it over with like.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> You might be interested to know - not that it is likely to nudge you off your ridiculous soap box - that hostility towards dealers in Brixton is growing.



Absolute rubbish.  You simply project your *own* hostility towards the dealers (which as we have seen is postively rabid, and which you evidently have real difficulty in controlling) onto those around you.  How many people in Brixton do you think go around yelling "fuck off" at the dealers, as you do?  Very few, that's how many.  Possibly only you, in fact.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Absolute rubbish.  You simply project your *own* hostility towards the dealers (which as we have seen is postively rabid, and which you evidently have real difficulty in controlling) onto those around you.  How many people in Brixton do you think go around yelling "fuck off" at the dealers, as you do?  Very few, that's how many.  Possibly only you, in fact.



sorry, did you just conveniently ignore all the rest of my email. Do you live in Brixton? Do you actually know about what is happening?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well I have never found the behavior of the dealers "belligerent,"



you don't live here do you?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 21, 2006)

oh dear oh dear oh dear

it looks like next time i'm out  i won't have to worry about being mugged  by  crack heads  but if i'm not carefull  rushcrof roader might shout at me


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

Jessiedog said:
			
		

> But ask the same 2,055 residents about "agressive street crack dealers" and I think you'd find the same peeps (black, white, blue, brown, green, yellow,) giving a VERY different resonse.



I think the "aggressive street crack dealers" are a bit of a myth, tbh.  First of all, as several other people have already said, I have *never* been offered crack on Coldharbour Lane.  Not saying there aren't people selling it, but you'd have to ask for it.  Secondly, the dealers really *aren't* being aggressive, by most people's standards.  They're really not.  You should go to Jamaica if you want to see what a *really* aggressive drug dealer is like.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 21, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> oh dear oh dear oh dear
> 
> it looks like next time i'm out  i won't have to worry about being mugged  by  crack heads  but if i'm not carefull  rushcrof roader might shout at me



ooh yes, I am scary me.   
Common Phil, we all want to know - do you live in Brixton?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I think the "aggressive street crack dealers" are a bit of a myth, tbh.  First of all, as several other people have already said, I have *never* been offered crack on Coldharbour Lane.  Not saying there aren't people selling it, but you'd have to ask for it.  Secondly, the dealers really *aren't* being aggressive, by most people's standards.  They're really not.  You should go to Jamaica if you want to see what a *really* aggressive drug dealer is like.



you don't live here do you?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> it looks like next time i'm out  i won't have to worry about being mugged  by  crack heads  but if i'm not carefull  rushcrof roader might shout at me



Actually there *is* a drunken guy who hangs round the tube station shouting "fuck off" at people.  Could it be him?


----------



## pooka (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well I have never found the behavior of the dealers "belligerent," and I truly think this is a matter of cultural difference.  White, middle-class English people will tend to experience certain kinds of behavior as "belligerent" which other people would not.  In fact, I would say that white, middle-class English people have the lowest "belligerence tolerance" of anyone in the whole world.  Wouldn't you agree?.



I'm not sure that stereotype fits with the traditional 'queue patiently and never complain' image that the English middle classes have generally. But in Brixton, pissed-offness with street dealing cuts across ethnicity. If anything, middle-class whites have hung back, for fear of being branded racist or indeed questioning their own motives along the lines you've outlined. Black Brixtonites, especially those with kids, of a religious disposition or first generation into this country, tend to be much  more forthright.




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> But anyway, even assuming that what you say is true, surely it is obvious that these problems would be instantly eliminated by the idea which I have proposed: the creation of a "tolerance zone" for drugs and prostitution, possibly in an abandoned housing estate.  Take it from me, that is the only solution, and it will *have* to be implemented eventually.  Might as well do it now if you ask me, get it over with like.



We don't have any 'abandoned' ie vacant council estates - in fact, there's a housing shortage. Moreover, politically it ain't gonna happen any time soon - see the current furore over allowing prostitutes to set up in pairs. Not to mention the ire of folk patiently waiting on housing lists who would be watching dealers, prostitutes and their pimps 'jump the queue'. Meanwhile, we have a problem in central brixton.....


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Actually there *is* a drunken guy who hangs round the tube station shouting "fuck off" at people.  Could it be him?



YOU DON'T LIVE HERE DO YOU PHIL!??


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 21, 2006)

*sigh*

there are some perfectly  fine low profile daelers in brixton   and  9 times out of 10  going down coldharbour lane   is no problems  and only a  few people even  offer drugs

but when you  live in brixton and regularly  go through these areas  you do come across some very nasty types  and   the continual  offers  of drugs can where you down  

mind you  the dealers arn't half as bad as the old taxi touts


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

pooka said:
			
		

> We don't have any 'abandoned' ie vacant council estates - in fact, there's a housing shortage.



I know.  That is why, as I've said before, an existing estate would have to be evacuated, and the residents re-housed and financially compensated.  This would cost a great deal of money, but *far* less than it costs to run the existing system of prohibition, enforcement and imprisonment.  We did the calculations earlier in the thread, and found that the "tolerance zone" would begin to pay for itself in less than a year.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> YOU DON'T LIVE HERE DO YOU PHIL!??



Funny, that's what the loony at the tube station shouts too...


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I know.  That is why, as I've said before, an existing estate would have to be evacuated, and the residents re-housed and financially compensated.  This would cost a great deal of money, but *far* less than it costs to run the existing system of prohibition, enforcement and imprisonment.  We did the calculations earlier in the thread, and found that the "tolerance zone" would begin to pay for itself in less than a year.




STOP IGNORING THE QUESTION PHIL - YOU DON'T LIVE IN BRIXTON DO YOU?
We will all assume you are preaching poppycock from some distant shore unless you answer the question in your next post.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I know.  That is why, as I've said before, an existing estate would have to be evacuated, and the residents re-housed and financially compensated.  This would cost a great deal of money, but *far* less than it costs to run the existing system of prohibition, enforcement and imprisonment.  We did the calculations earlier in the thread, and found that the "tolerance zone" would begin to pay for itself in less than a year.



???? they would be re-housed?   where?  and  why arn't the current people seeking housing being put into these places??

you really are a bit nuts if you think this is a valid plan

what  next  a floating sea colony  where  all the  druggies  and other   unlawfull types hang out?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> ???? they would be re-housed?   where?  and  why arn't the current people seeking housing being put into these places??
> 
> you really are a bit nuts if you think this is a valid plan
> 
> what  next  a floating sea colony  where  all the  druggies  and other   unlawfull types hang out?



You speak as if this is some weird idea that I have just come up with.  In reality, however, "tolerance zones" for drugs and prostitution exist in many countries today, usually in the form of a walled compound (Denmark, Mexico), or a park (Germany, Switzerland) or a certain area of the city (Holland, Brazil).  In fact, since drugs and prostitution have only been illegal for a very short period of human history, it is *prohibition* that should be regarded as the crazy (and failed) experiment.  Personally, I think a former housing estate would be the best bet for Brixton, but I don't really mind.  Some form of "tolerance zone," however, is a *must:* it really is the only solution.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2006)

Do you ever wonder why no one on here takes you seriously?


----------



## wiskey (Jan 21, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> YOU DON'T LIVE HERE DO YOU PHIL!??



i really hope not - brixton needs phil less than it needs dealers*




( i keep trying to keep up with this thread but he's making it impossible for me. sorry)


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 21, 2006)

I agree that a lot of what phildwyer says is ill-informed rubbish, but he has at least provoked a lot of people to express how they feel and provide evidence and arguments aginst his simplistic and out-of-touch idiocy. He has also said *some* things which are less stupid, usually after doing a u-turn and backpedalling furiously from previous comments. He also probably expresses the prejudices of some people out there who would like to characterise any police actions as racist and oppressive due to 'systemic', 'subconcious' or 'institutional' racism, 'yuppification' and 'capitalism'. It is no bad thing that someone hoists this idea so that it can be shot down, rather than having it fester in some peoples' minds like a rotting rat under the floorboards.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I agree that a lot of what phildwyer says is ill-informed rubbish, but he has at least provoked a lot of people to express how they feel and provide evidence and arguments aginst his simplistic and out-of-touch idiocy. He has also said *some* things which are less stupid, usually after doing a u-turn and backpedalling furiously from previous comments. He also probably expresses the prejudices of some people out there who would like to characterise any police actions as racist and oppressive due to 'systemic', 'subconcious' or 'institutional' racism, 'yuppification' and 'capitalism'. It is no bad thing that someone hoists this idea so that it can be shot down, rather than having it fester in some peoples' minds like a rotting rat under the floorboards.



Well *you're* the one who suggested creating a "tolerance zone" in an industrial estate.  Then you changed your mind and furiously backpedalled.  You were right the first time.  Anyone who really thinks police enforcement is the way to solve the problem of drug dealing is a fool.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 21, 2006)

no you daft twit   i was  critisizing  this sudden aquisition of housing  for this purpose  not the  legal question 


you must think we have masses of housing estates  just sitting around unused


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 21, 2006)

"Crimes Against the Person" include Aggravated Bodily Harm, Grievous Bodily Harm, Rape, Other Violence, Common Assault, Offensive Weapons, Snatches, Domestic Violence, Racial Motivated Crime, Homophobic Crime and Transphobic Related Crime, Harassment, Pick Pocketing, Robbery Of The Person, Other Sexual Offences and attempts of any of the these.

In 2003-04 Coldharbour ward saw 2588 "crimes against the person" with another 2985 in neighbouring Vassal and Ferndale combined.

Of the victims of "crimes against the person" within these three wards:

• 1/3rd of the known victims are aged between 20 and 29 years
• 47% were male and 53% were female
• Of those where the ethnicity was known, 43% were white-skinned European and 43% were African-Caribbean. This indicates that our African-Caribbean community are over represented when compared to the population data for Lambeth as our African-Caribbean population is 25.8%
• There were 5818 cases referred to Victim Support in the calendar year 2003
• 88% of referrals were adults, 47% were male 53% were female. 48% of adults were classed as white-skinned European

source: LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH COMMUNITY SAFETY AUDIT 2004

I hope phildwyer takes these figures on board before spouting any more shite.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Do you ever wonder why no one on here takes you seriously?



Either contribute to our discussion or go away.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 21, 2006)

Phil, you don't live here. Why do you think you are qualified to comment on Brixton issues?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> no you daft twit   i was  critisizing  this sudden aquisition of housing  for this purpose  not the  legal question
> 
> you must think we have masses of housing estates  just sitting around unused



No I don't, that is why I said we would have to buy the current residents out and re-house them elsewhere.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> "Crimes Against the Person" include Aggravated Bodily Harm, Grievous Bodily Harm, Rape, Other Violence, Common Assault, Offensive Weapons, Snatches, Domestic Violence, Racial Motivated Crime, Homophobic Crime and Transphobic Related Crime, Harassment, Pick Pocketing, Robbery Of The Person, Other Sexual Offences and attempts of any of the these.
> 
> In 2003-04 Coldharbour ward saw 2588 "crimes against the person" with another 2985 in neighbouring Vassal and Ferndale combined.
> 
> ...



Perhaps you could explain what these figures have to do with our discussion, for I'm afraid I have no idea.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well *you're* the one who suggested creating a "tolerance zone" in an industrial estate.  Then you changed your mind and furiously backpedalled.  You were right the first time.  Anyone who really thinks police enforcement is the way to solve the problem of drug dealing is a fool.


Yet again you are misrepresenting what I have posted here.

Previously on u75 I have posted that displacing dealers etc to an area that is deserted at night through police action would be preferable to leaving them to operate in residential areas. This point was in response to the oft quoted line of "there is no point arresting them - the problem will just get shifted down the road". I was pointing that shifting the problem down the road may well mean that the negative impacts on residents and other peole using the area is lessened.

I never proposed a "legal zone" - I just pointed out that displacing the problem may lessen the impacts.

On this thread I have followed this point up by saying that 'displacing the problem' to a different area will still have negative impacts - to quote:






			
				TeeJay said:
			
		

> For what its worth I have sometimes said that it would be better if the dealers were operating in an area that was not being used at night-time - such as an industrial estate - but in fact nearby Somerleyton Road is lined on one side by industrial units, but on the other by an estate, and editor has said that it is the one of the only roads in London that he won't walk down at night. While it may mean less people are impacted by dealers/users because they have moved away from a main street and away from a residential road, in other ways it increases the risk of attacks and violence because it is down a dark and deserted road, and there are still people who will be impacted.
> 
> I think that it would be good if the supply of drugs (and sex) was largely separated:
> 
> ...


As you can clearly I haven't back pedalled or change my mind - I have outlined a series of options:

1. Leaving dealers and users in resdiential areas and busy town centre locations.
2. Using policing to displace this activity away from residential and town centres areas - to industrial estates or other areas which are not used at night time.
3. Seeing distribution move off the streets and into private homes and premises 
4. Seeing distribution become legalised, licensed and regulated. 

I am arguing that the negative impacts and risks can hopefully be reduced at each stage. Is this clear enough for you or are you simply determined to be a complete and utter moron throughout this whole thread and to deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent what people have said?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Perhaps you could explain what these figures have to do with our discussion, for I'm afraid I have no idea.


You can say that again!

Look at which groups are over-represented amongst the victims!


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Look at which groups are over-represented amongst the victims!



Young black people, of course, just like anywhere else in the world.  I'm sorry, I still don't see your point.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No I don't, that is why I said we would have to buy the current residents out and re-house them elsewhere.



please note the bit where i ask  where you plan to put the people who would need to be re housed....  or can't you answer that?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Previously on u75 I have posted that displacing dealers etc to an area that is deserted at night through police action would be preferable to leaving them to operate in residential areas. This point was in response to the oft quoted line of "there is no point arresting them - the problem will just get shifted down the road". I was pointing that shifting the problem down the road may well mean that the negative impacts on residents and other peole using the area is lessened.
> 
> I never proposed a "legal zone" - I just pointed out that displacing the problem may lessen the impacts.



I never proposed a "legal zone" either, I proposed a "tolerance zone," which  is *exactly* what you are proposing here.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> please note the bit where i ask  where you plan to put the people who would need to be re housed....  or can't you answer that?



I've answered it about a million times, please read the thread first.  We would have to build them new houses.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 21, 2006)

where?

you certianly wouldn't be able to find space in london?

or are you plannin  an enforce  subburbia with the innercities left as drug gettos?

it a bloody stupid plan


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Either contribute to our discussion or go away.



Do you live in Brixton?  Yes/no will do.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 21, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Do you live in Brixton?  Yes/no will do.



we know that one - its a big fat NO!!!


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> where?
> 
> you certianly wouldn't be able to find space in london?
> 
> ...



Whatever.  You obviously haven't thought about it at all, or looked into the hundreds of places in the world where it works very successfully indeed.  The only objection you can think of is piddling in the extreme.  I conclude that you are not sincerely interested in finding a solution to the problems of Brixton, and are quite happy for things to continue as they are.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Do you live in Brixton?  Yes/no will do.



I've answered it about a million times, read the fucking thread.  You *always* do this Blagsta, you jump in to a well-developed discussion with inane one-liners that have already been dealt with hundreds of posts ago.  Read the thread.  Once you have done so, you are welcome to contribute.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 21, 2006)

Phildwyer isn't actually a complete fucking idiot - he is actually a university professor - but he is deliberately winding people up. Having said that I do think he is more at home with medieval literature and theology has problems with logic, numeracy and an untreated personality disorder (or some kind of serious issue at the very least).

I would advise people to take everything he says with a dash of disinfectant to ward against infectious brain rot.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 21, 2006)

Phil - you are an awfully silly man.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> untreated personality disorder (or some kind of serious issue at the very least).



Er... glass houses... stones... that sort of thing...


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Phil - you are an awfully silly man.



Er... glass houses... stones... that sort of thing...


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 21, 2006)

He's just a cunt.

And to think a few posts ago I was trying to say he has made a slight contribution to this thread, if only to show people how utterly wrong certain claims are.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Er... glass houses... stones... that sort of thing...


Oh, believe me, I'm aware of my daftness.
You aren't


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Er... glass houses... stones... that sort of thing...



[phildwyer mode]You want to rehouse dealers in glass houses? Eh? Well do you? Racist![/phildwyer mode]


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> He's just a cunt.



Er... glass houses... stones... that sort of thing...


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Er... glass houses... stones... that sort of thing...


What disorder or issues do you think I have then and what evidence do you have to back this up?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> What disorder or issues do you think I have then and what evidence do you have to back this up?



Mais non!  It was *you* who first accused *me* of having a "disorder," n'est-ce pas?  I therefore throw your questions back at you.  Teejay, the point is, you can't insult someone and then become upset when they return the very same insult to you.  See what I mean?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Mais non!  It was *you* who first accused *me* of having a "disorder," n'est-ce pas?  I therefore throw your questions back at you.


I already went into that last night. I will quote some of the relevant posts below


> Teejay, the point is, you can't insult someone and then become upset when they return the very same insult to you.  See what I mean?


I am describing your behaviour to people on this thread.

I stand by my comments.

Now please explain what you were referring to and back it up. Or are you admitting that it was just something you said for effect, merely an insult and you are now backing away from it? 

QUOTES:



			
				TeeJay said:
			
		

> I have noticed that every so often you start posting in a very provocative and attention seeking way - as if you are drawing energy from the number of people who respond to your posts. You seem to revel in having and holding an audience and get a buzz if people start getting angry at you. You trim the sails of your argument not by any consistent direction or logic, but simple to sustain the moment of the shit-storm you've stirred up.
> 
> It's true that everyone needs social interaction, feedback and validation of their worth but you need to get this from your daily life and work and through stable personal relationships. It is pointless trying to deal with your low levels of self-esteem and your insecurity by constantly trying to create situations in which you are the centre of attention.
> 
> Why bother pd?






			
				TeeJay said:
			
		

> pd - you have lots of interesting things to say without having to go through all this attention-seeking. By constantly changing your argument and deciding to think up outrageous ideas really lets yourself down because you do have some intelligent things to say amongst the deliberate silliness. Laying into people for made-up sins (eg racism) is such a pointlessly nasty thing to do      but you are by all accounts likeable, intelligent and funny when people have met you. Why do you give in to the urge to behave like this to people haven't met? Again you are letting yourself down.






			
				TeeJay said:
			
		

> OK, I am going to leave this for now.
> 
> I don't think I am doing you or myself any favours in getting sucked into your continued attention-seeking behaviour here.
> 
> You are still doing it: saying whatever you think will sustain *you* being the central focus of this thread, trimming the sails of your argument to try and catch as much wind as possible.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Now please explain what you were referring to and back it up. Or are you admitting that it was just something you said for effect, merely an insult and you are now backing away from it?



I'm not going to discuss your mental health on this thread.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'm not going to discuss your mental health on this thread.


You already have. I am now asking you to back up what you said.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You already have. I am now asking you to back up what you said.



I have not discussed your mental health on this thread, nor am I going to.  You *have,* however, discussed mine--in so wildly inaccurate and strange a manner that, quite frankly, I cannot but suspect that... but no.  You won't trick me so easily.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I have not discussed your mental health on this thread, nor am I going to.  You *have,* however, discussed mine--in so wildly inaccurate and strange a manner that, quite frankly, I cannot but suspect that... but no.  You won't trick me so easily.




yeh, you won't get fool'd again!


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You already have. I am now asking you to back up what you said.



What did I say?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 21, 2006)

It is very easy to check what you said.  

(post #935 for a start)


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> It is very easy to check what you said.
> 
> (post #935 for a start)



OK, this is what I said in post #935:




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> Er... glass houses... stones... that sort of thing...



How is that a comment on your mental health?


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'm not going to discuss your mental health on this thread.



Happy to discus yours. 
Lets see: Attention seeking, compulsive, narssastic, insecure, obsessive...


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> How is that a comment on your mental health?


It is in the context replying to my comment, isn't it?

You admitted as much in your following posts saying _"Teejay, the point is, you can't insult someone and then become upset when they return the very same insult to you."_

The very same insult?

I was commenting on you and you say you used "the very same insult"...namely _"untreated personality disorder (or some kind of serious issue at the very least)"_ - you have even kindly quoted the exact words.

You are still now attention seeking, but I think that's quite enough for now. I'm off to eat some fancy food that I might describe to you in detail when I get back, along with some witticisms, a few random insults, accusations of racism and a moronic plan to raze Phildelphia to the ground and rebuild it in New Mexico, or somesuch phildwyerisms.


----------



## snadge (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Funny, that's what the loony at the tube station shouts too...




and it's what I'll shout at you as well you fuckin' cunt


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> It is in the context replying to my comment, isn't it?
> 
> You admitted as much in your following posts saying _"Teejay, the point is, you can't insult someone and then become upset when they return the very same insult to you."_
> 
> ...



Precisely my point!  It was *you* who accused *me* of having a "disorder," and I merely muttered about glass houses.  So it seems a bit much for *you* to get all offended, *I* should be the one offended.  Fortunately, though, I am able to rise above it.  I am also going for something to eat now, probably a Mexican chorizo con salsa caliente loco.  Which reminds me, when I get back, if I can be bothered, I will go into more detail about the history of "zonas de tolerancia" in Latin America.  It really is quite fascinating, and it certainly provides a model that Brixton should emulate immediately  The advantages are numerous.  Anyway, catch you later.


----------



## snadge (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I've no idea what you're on about.  Is this what you want?
> 
> "According to a MORI poll of a representative sample of 2,055 Lambeth residents, opposition (or indifference) to the trial was just 8% overall. Opposition amongst different ethnic group was 10% (Black), 7% (White), 7% (Asian). These are not significant differences given the sub-sample sizes."
> 
> So it would seem, interestingly enough, that opinion on these boards is significantly more reactionary and authoritarian than public opinion in Brixton as a whole.



and that shite doesn't back your shite up

you want lamping......


----------



## snadge (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Precisely my point!  It was *you* who accused *me* of having a "disorder," and I merely muttered about glass houses.  So it seems a bit much for *you* to get all offended, *I* should be the one offended.  Fortunately, though, I am able to rise above it.  I am also going for something to eat now, probably a Mexican chorizo con salsa caliente loco.  Which reminds me, when I get back, if I can be bothered, I will go into more detail about the history of "zonas de tolerancia" in Latin America.  It really is quite fascinating, and it certainly provides a model that Brixton should emulate immediately  The advantages are numerous.  Anyway, catch you later.



fuck me philly boy, if I ever, ever meet you I would be sorely tempted to fucking knock you out....

just for your absolute stereotyping and jesus complex


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> fuck me philly boy, if I ever, ever meet you I would be sorely tempted to fucking knock you out....
> 
> just for your absolute stereotyping and jesus complex


hold on, hold on! 

there's a fucking queue, you know! 







you'll have to wait yr turn!


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Precisely my point!  It was *you* who accused *me* of having a "disorder," and I merely muttered about glass houses.  So it seems a bit much for *you* to get all offended, *I* should be the one offended.


I accused you and you accused me. I have provided evidence and details. You are refusing to.

Wait a minute! What am I still talking to this clown for?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I accused you and you accused me. I have provided evidence and details. You are refusing to.



Very well.  If you wish, I will diagnose what I take to be your problem.  I am usually pretty good when it comes to this sort of thing.  But first, are you really sure that this is your wish?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 21, 2006)

I am asking you to back up what you said.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I've answered it about a million times, read the fucking thread.  You *always* do this Blagsta, you jump in to a well-developed discussion with inane one-liners that have already been dealt with hundreds of posts ago.  Read the thread.  Once you have done so, you are welcome to contribute.



No, you don't live in Brixton.  So shut the fuck up eh?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I am asking you to back up what you said.



Oh Christ, alright then.  I think you're bipolar.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> No, you don't live in Brixton.  So shut the fuck up eh?



Hang on a second, who said only people who live in Brixton could comment on its problems?  *You* shut the fuck up, you rude bugger.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Hang on a second, who said only people who live in Brixton could comment on its problems?  *You* shut the fuck up, you rude bugger.



You're telling people who _actually live here_ what we should think about where we live and how we should deal with the everyday experience of it, *and you don't live here*.

You're a patronising little shit.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You're telling people who _actually live here_ what we should think about where we live and how we should deal with the everyday experience of it, *and you don't live here*.
> 
> You're a patronising little shit.



Fuck off Blagsta, you haven't contributed to this thread *at all,* and I've come up with what I think is a pretty good idea for solving Brixton's problems.  You know perfectly well that I spend a lot of time in Brixton, why shouldn't I have my say?  Fuck you, I had no beef with you, why are you sticking your fucking oar in?


----------



## brix (Jan 21, 2006)

Aren't any of you lot getting bored with this yet?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Fuck off Blagsta, you haven't contributed to this thread *at all,* and I've come up with what I think is a pretty good idea for solving Brixton's problems.  You know perfectly well that I spend a lot of time in Brixton, why shouldn't I have my say?  Fuck you, I had no beef with you, why are you sticking your fucking oar in?



Errr...I live in Brixton.  I work in Brixton (for a drug service as it goes).  I think I have a better idea of what life is like here than you do.  I also have to put up with you being a patronisng twat with great regularity on here.  Do yerself a favour and piss off.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh Christ, alright then.  I think you're bipolar.


That isn't backing up what you said.

I said you _"have problems with ... an untreated personality disorder (or some kind of serious issue at the very least)."_ and I backed it up with examples of why I was saying this, and you followed this by admitting you were returning _"the very same insult"_.

You have not backed up your claim with anything.

I have been open about having had problems with bipolar disorder in the past (c. 1999/2000) but I am not now on any medication and I am not having problems with it. Apart from quoting this back to me, you can't provide anything to back up your claim that I am having problems with bipolar, can you? 

I am talking about your behaviour and posting on this thread and elsewhere on u75 in recent months. 

I want you to back up your claim that I currently have problems with bipolar with concrete examples.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I think I have a better idea of what life is like here than you do.



I don't think so.  I think I was hanging out in Brixton while you were still in Tunbridge Wells.  But we'll never know, will we, because you haven't deigned to favour us with any of your plans for addressing Brixton's problems.  Unlike me.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 21, 2006)

Anyone want to start a thread about what should be done to sort out Philadelphia?

Or should that be Phildwyeradelphia?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I think I was hanging out in Brixton while you were still in Tunbridge Wells.



Have you been smoking crack?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 21, 2006)

We used to have pb-man.

Now we have pd-man!


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 21, 2006)

And of course tobyjug facts are old hat.

Make way for The Phildwyer Theory!


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2006)

btw phildwyer, I have made my views on drug problems very clear on other threads, threads which you have participated in, so don't give me that shit.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> That isn't backing up what you said.
> 
> I said you _"have problems with ... an untreated personality disorder (or some kind of serious issue at the very least)."_ and I backed it up with examples of why I was saying this, and you followed this by admitting you were returning _"the very same insult"_.
> 
> ...



I can't be bothered Teejay, to be honest, but you do come across as a bit of a nutter on here.  Anyway, I don't intend to make an issue of your health problems.  All I did was say "glass houses" when you accused me of having a "disorder," which seems a fairly mild response to me.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> btw phildwyer, I have made my views on drug problems very clear on other threads, threads which you have participated in, so don't give me that shit.



Yeah, but I didn't come on those threads and tell you to shut the fuck up, did I?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I can't be bothered Teejay, to be honest, but you do come across as a bit of a nutter on here.



Says the man who thinks money is Satan (or whatever it is you think)


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yeah, but I didn't come on those threads and tell you to shut the fuck up, did I?



and...what?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I can't be bothered Teejay, to be honest, but you do come across as a bit of a nutter on here.


'nuff said.  

phildwyer you are a funny, funny man.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Anyone want to start a thread about what should be done to sort out Philadelphia?



I would be delighted if you did that Teejay.  Philly does indeed have some very similar problems to Brixton, and Mayor Street (yes that is his name) has tried some interesting, but absolutely crap, methods of dealing with them.  Brixton could learn a great deal from his mistakes.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 21, 2006)

I think he just wants a cuddle.  

(edit: pd not mayor street that is)


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 21, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> and...what?



And fuck off.  Since you ask.  Well, no, actually, I won't go that route.  Really Blagsta, why can you not just contribute to this thread in a constructive manner?  What is your opinion of "tolerance zones" for drugs and prostitution, as they have been tried in Europe and Latin America, for example?  Do you feel that such an experiment would alleviate Brixton's difficulties?  You see how hard I'm trying to be constructive here?


----------



## colacubes (Jan 21, 2006)

PD

Your views are entirely shit.  You argue from a false position of knowledge in that you think that your views are valid but YOU DON'T LIVE HERE and consequently have no reall idea of the issues that those of us who do live here face.

Just as an aside I'd like to say thanks for saying that my views were similar to Eva Braun's earlier in the thread.  It's always comforting to get compassionate views when you've been threatened with sexual assault by crackheads outside your front door.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2006)

*phildwyer*

So you're being constructive by calling everyone racist and dismissing their everyday experience?  By talking about moving people out of a housing estate?  By creating "tolerance zones"?  They haven't really worked in other countries have they?  Needle Park worked well eh?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

nipsla said:
			
		

> Just as an aside I'd like to say thanks for saying that my views were similar to Eva Braun's earlier in the thread.  It's always comforting to get compassionate views when you've been threatened with sexual assault by crackheads outside your front door.



You misunderstand darling.  You asked me if I thought you were a racist, I said I did not and that, on the contrary, you made Rosa Parkes look like Eva Braun.  Perhaps you don't know who Rosa Parkes was, is that the problem?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So you're being constructive by calling everyone racist and dismissing their everyday experience?  By talking about moving people out of a housing estate?  By creating "tolerance zones"?  They haven't really worked in other countries have they?  Needle Park worked well eh?



Who have I called a racist?  As to Needle Park, to which one do you refer?  There have been several, and some of them have indeed been successful.  Of course, "success" here is a relative term.  It depends on the alternative which, in the case of Brixton, would appear to be an intolerable (to many) level of drug dealing in public places.  I would also refer you to the Red Light District in Amsterdam, Christiania in Copenhagen etc etc.  They seemed to work alright, wouldn't you say?


----------



## colacubes (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You misunderstand darling.  You asked me if I thought you were a racist, I said I did not and that, on the contrary, you made Rosa Parkes look like Eva Braun.  Perhaps you don't know who Rosa Parkes was, is that the problem?


 
Don't call me darling you patronising twat.  

I'm perfectly aware who Rosa Parkes was thanks.  I'm also highly aware of the level of sarcasm in that post.

You still haven't dealt with the substantive issue (what a surprise   ) that you think anyone who opposes aggressive drug dealing is a racist.  And that I should have to accept threats of sexual assault from people smoking crack on my doorstep.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

nipsla said:
			
		

> You still haven't dealt with the substantive issue (what a surprise   ) that you think anyone who opposes aggressive drug dealing is a racist.  And that I should have to accept threats of sexual assault from people smoking crack on my doorstep.



But I do not think that you should have to accept such threats.  I think such threats are entirely unacceptable, by you or anyone else.  I think whoever made such threats is an absolute cad, who should be reported to, and detained by, the appropriate authorities.  But tell me, do you not think that if crack smoking was to be restricted to a designated "tolerance zone," the likelihood of your encountering such threats would be greatly diminished?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Whatever.  You obviously haven't thought about it at all, or looked into the hundreds of places in the world where it works very successfully indeed.  The only objection you can think of is piddling in the extreme.  I conclude that you are not sincerely interested in finding a solution to the problems of Brixton, and are quite happy for things to continue as they are.



my opinion is that brixton would not be inproved by the implication of a walled in drug tollerence zone   not because of any issues  about how well the sceme would function (although  to claim straight off that it would be a success is obviously not takin into account all the posible factors involved)  but rather a issues  of practicality  ...  such a scheme  would cost billions  and would   involve  the entier population of an estate   to agree to move  to new housing (some what unlikly don't you think?) and the construction of masses of new housing is some unknown location  with all the services  that go along with that

so  first off it would  be far better to  build an area in witch drugs were to be tollerated   rather than  take a current are  and turf the residents out...

and  who will pay theses  billions?   even if it suposedly  is self payin  i can't see any  goverment of private industry  forking out that money

and  what about  the crimes related to the drug industry?  the  scams  and the begging   that this thread is  about  wouldn't be stoped by making  drugs tolerated ....  unless they were to be free as well    which   is   another issues  again

do you still think my arguments are piddling?

do you still stand by your conclution? or was that simply you ignoring every one else once you form an idea?

from the content of your previous posts i doubt i will get a satifactory reply to this  but   i will keep an open mind and not jump to conclutions like others do eh?


----------



## colacubes (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But I do not think that you should have to accept such threats.  I think such threats are entirely unacceptable, by you or anyone else.  I think whoever made such threats is an absolute cad, who should be reported to, and detained by, the appropriate authorities.  But tell me, do you not think that if crack smoking was to be restricted to a designated "tolerance zone," the likelihood of your encountering such threats would be greatly diminished?



Quite possibly Phil.  BUT that area would become a no go zone for anyone else.  And frankly that seems a bad idea in the real world.

Possibly the chances of me being accosted by a crackhead threatening to sexually assault me outside my front door would lessen (which frankly I would be very happy about).  However, these so called "tolerance zones" would become problematic in terms of policing, crime etc.  

I know you have this fabulous "beyond the terrordome" idea of a tolerance zone.   However, in the real world your idea of emptying an estate to make this happen is just not possible in social or economic terms.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ...What is your opinion of "tolerance zones" for drugs and prostitution, as they have been tried in Europe and Latin America, for example?  Do you feel that such an experiment would alleviate Brixton's difficulties?...


It could be argued that central Brixton already is a "tolerance zone" in that there are levels of drug dealing, drug use, prostitution (although this isn't in exactly the same places) and other criminal acts that would not be allowed to happen in most other parts of London or elsewhere in the UK.

Leaving aside the "housing estate" part your suggestion has *some* merit in that separating these activities from residential streets and a busy town centre might well reduce the number of people who were negatively impacted. *However* conversely it might backfire in that a more isolated location could see more violence, abuse and harmful behaviour than currently. It's worth noting the increased danger on streets like Somerleyton and others for example where a lack of lighting, passing traffic and CCTV mean that getting mugged is a far bigger danger, to go by comments on these boards.  

I would argue that dealing needs to be "stabilised" and made less chaotic, as well as separated to some degree from other activities. 

My suggestion of an approach that would see it end up moving off the streets and into private homes and premises isn't just about a physical separation of users/dealers and the public, or a cosmetic one of 'out-of-sight-out-of-mind' (although that is part of it). It is also about self-policing by venues, users and dealers in a self-interested way: if they keep a low profile, avoid trouble and respect the surrounding community then they will have a longer operational life span. *However* there is still a problem with this suggestion - that people with addictions will still steal or mug for money, that criminals will still control the trade to a very large degree and that disputes with no legal way of being settled will often be settled violently. 

The further suggestion - for the longer term - of seeing distribution become legalised, licensed and regulated is to further minimise harm both to users and the wider community. This final suggestion combines both a physical separation, a cosmetic 'clean up' (out of sight), self-policing by venues but also addresses gangsterism, health issues and induced property crime. 

Phildwyer, hopefull you can see that your proposals only lie part way along the spectrum of proposals in my view. They have problems in the details (ie the housing estates etc) but also only deal with some of the issues involved IMO.

I also believe that *any* solution will need to be policed at least at the margins. You mention tolerance zones in Amsterdam or elsewhere, but of course these are policed, so it isn't a question of 'police' versus 'no police' or 'law' versus 'no law'.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> my opinion is that brixton would not be inproved by the implication of a walled in drug tollerence zone   not because of any issues  about how well the sceme would function (although  to claim straight off that it would be a success is obviously not takin into account all the posible factors involved)  but rather a issues  of practicality  ...  such a scheme  would cost billions  and would   involve  the entier population of an estate   to agree to move  to new housing (some what unlikly don't you think?) and the construction of masses of new housing is some unknown location  with all the services  that go along with that
> 
> so  first off it would  be far better to  build an area in witch drugs were to be tollerated   rather than  take a current are  and turf the residents out...
> 
> ...



Thank you.  And thank you for your construtive response.  Too many on this thread are eager to descend into a swamp of vitriol as soon as their instinctive, visceral assumptions about "dealers" are challenged, and it is gratifying to learn that their reaction is not universal.  As to the issue of expense, yes, my idea would cost billions.  But the present system of attempting to deal with the problem, which is manifestly a complete failure, also costs billions.  A good deal more, as I have previously shown, than my plan.

Who should pay?  The taxpayer.  What of the crimes related to the drug trade?  Well, in the long term, the drugs should indeed be free.  But even in the interim, providing a safe and tolerant environment for the taking of drugs would greatly reduce the sense of neglect and alienation that drives many drug users to perceive themselves, and to act, as enemies of society.  Drug users should be regarded as what they are: the *victims* of the drug trade, and they should be treated as such.

As to the reluctance of an estate's residents to move, that would surely depend on the level of compensation offered them.  Actually, my "tolerance zone" would not necessarily have to be on a housing estate, it could easily be on a former industrial estate, as Teejay once suggested, until his madness enveloped him again.  Or in a park, as PK once suggested, until his rage against "criminals" overcame his reason.  I am open to all sensible suggestions on this matter.  But I will repeat that "tolerance zones" are an absolute *necessity,* and will inevitably become a reality before too long.  Why delay their construction with all this unnecessary bickering and pointless nit-picking, that's what I'd like to know?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ...Actually, my "tolerance zone" would not necessarily have to be on a housing estate, it could easily be on a former industrial estate, as Teejay once suggested, until his madness enveloped him again...


pd - what the fuck are you talking about with "madness enveloped him again"?

Less than an hour ago you said: _"Anyway, I don't intend to make an issue of your health problems."_ and declined to back up your comment about me being bipolar. 

Since you have changed your mind I would like you to back this up please.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 22, 2006)

where  will the people  get the money to buy  the  as of yet non free drugs?  

the people who now rely on scams and begging   will most liglty stay in the streets (where they get the money) and  the drug delears  will most  lightly come to them 

also the people who are agresivly going after targets  to force them into drug buying  will also  not  stick to this drug tolerence zone

and  i can imagine any goverment persuading the genral public to pay for this


i am all for   a rethink on the legality of drugs  but this sceme  is  compleatly unrealistic


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Teejay and Nipsla have both made excellent points.  I shall address only the ones regarding the nature of my "tolerance zone" here since, quite frankly, it is high time I was in the pub.  I envisage a fully-staffed police station in the "zone," as well as a needle exchange, a first-aid center, an STD clinic and a drug-treatment center.  Every effort should be made to discourage the use of hard drugs, and the message should be that the state is attempting to assist people in getting off them.  But, if people are determined to take hard drugs, the state is sufficiently rich and compassionate to do its best to ensure that they are not harmed--and do not harm others--as a result of their habits.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> pd - what the fuck are you talking about with "madness enveloped him again"?
> 
> Less than an hour ago you said: _"Anyway, I don't intend to make an issue of your health problems."_ and declined to back up your comment about me being bipolar.
> 
> Since you have changed your mind I would like you to back this up please.



The problem is, Teejay, that you intersperse your conciliatory posts with abusive ones, and I often respond to the abusive ones before I have read the conciliatory ones.  I suppose I probably do the same.  Anyway, I don't think you're literally mad, you're actually extremely intelligent and you have obviously thought deeply about these issues, as I have conceded in public before.  One day, I hope quite soon, we will be laughing merrily about these tiffs over a pint in the Albert.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 22, 2006)

so your sceame doesn't take into account any sort of reality  it's just you playing the drug expantion pack of sim city on  cheat mode


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 22, 2006)

A cheaper version:

Dealers to set up little night-time stalls on Electric Avenue between dusk and dawn - a kind of "Brixton Sex and Drugs Market", and the flats can all be red light rooms, crack & smack houses and illegal gambling dens. More "lightweight" cannabis cafes and pills/powders would be sold in venbues around the perimeter.  There would be police stationed at all the entrances and "community peacekeepers" patrolling inside and all dealers have to pay a "tax" to be allowed to operate inside. 

Phildwyer can have the job of selling the idea to all the residents and businesses in the area.

Anyone want to predict what would happen? Would violent crime go down? Or would it be a nasty hell hole with even more attacks, robberies, rapes, beatings, shootings, overdoses and poisonous shite than there is at the moment? Would the impacts on Brixton be contained or would it inevitably spill out into surrounding areas?

What do people think?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> so your sceame doesn't take into account any sort of reality  it's just you playing the drug expantion pack of sim city on  cheat mode



But the idea of "tolerance zones" has been tried, and has succeeded in reducing drug-related crime, in many places, all over the world, for ages.  As I've said, it is *prohibition* that is the exceptional experiment, and it has certainly proved a failure.  Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Dealers to set up little night-time stalls on Electric Avenue between dusk and dawn - a kind of "Brixton Sex and Drugs Market", and the flats can all be red light rooms, crack & smack houses and illegal gambling dens. More "lightweight" cannabis cafes and pills/powders would be sold in venbues around the perimeter.  There would be police stationed at all the entrances and "community peacekeepers" patrolling inside and all dealers have to pay a "tax" to be allowed to operate inside.



Sounds not a million miles from the current situation if you ask me.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The problem is, Teejay, that you intersperse your conciliatory posts with abusive ones, and I often respond to the abusive ones before I have read the conciliatory ones.  I suppose I probably do the same.


The last thing I said was "I think he just wants a cuddle." and before that "you are a funny, funny man". I then made a serious post without saying anything about you at all. You subsequently responded to other people's later posts indicating that you had progressed past my earlier ones...  

...and then out of the blue you start bringing up something that you had said you were leaving alone an hour before.   

The only thing I had posted in the meantime was the post beginning _"It could be argued that central Brixton already is a "tolerance zone"..."_

I can't understand why you are claiming I had interspersed _"...conciliatory posts with abusive ones..."_. I clearly had not.  

Unless you are saying that despite saying that you were going to leave the subject alone, in fact you are going to keep bringing it up every few posts?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But the idea of "tolerance zones" has been tried, and has succeeded in reducing drug-related crime, in many places, all over the world, for ages.  As I've said, it is *prohibition* that is the exceptional experiment, and it has certainly proved a failure.  Wouldn't you agree?



tollerence zones are an intresting idea   but they project you proposed is totally unfeasable   and the results unknown

i am all for change  but  i at least have some snce of reality


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 22, 2006)

Phildwyer - you are demanding changes in national laws, whereas all that is available at the moment are local responses.

What do you suggest local residents, Lambeth council and Lambeth police do now, given that none of them have the power to change UK drugs laws in the way you are demanding? (At best they might get a bit more help from Ken Livingstone and the Met. Even if changes were on the books they would be a few years off at least. What should be done in the mean time?)


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> The last thing I said was "I think he just wants a cuddle." and before that "you are a funny, funny man". I then made a serious post without saying anything about you at all. You subsequently responded to other people's later posts indicating that you had progressed past my earlier ones...
> 
> ...and then out of the blue you start bringing up something that you had said you were leaving alone an hour before.
> 
> ...




Aaaaargh!  You're trying to drive *me* mad now, aren't you?  And to keep me from me evening pint as well?  Look, your posts nos. 970, 972, 973, 979 and 981 all contain clear and manifest jibes against me, and they are indeed interspersed with more reasonable offerings.  Maybe you just shouldn't get offended when people call you "mad," its not necessarily a literal reference to your medical condition you know.  You're not literally mad, OK?  You're just *not.*  But people often call other people "mad" in the course of a heated argument like the one we've been having.  There's no point in taking it so seriously.  Jesus.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> What do you suggest local residents, Lambeth council and Lambeth police do now, given that none of them have the power to change UK drugs laws in the way you are demanding? (At best they might get a bit more help from Ken Livingstone and the Met. Even if changes were on the books they would be a few years off at least. What should be done in the mean time?)



I think both Red Ken and the Met would be highly sympathetic to my proposal.  I suggest that the residents of Brixton band together to campaign for the creation of "tolerance zones."  Some of them--perhaps yourself--could run for public office on this basis, and I bet you'd get elected too.  Believe me, this is the future in any case, so you might as well start planning for it now.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Aaaaargh!  You're trying to drive *me* mad now, aren't you?  And to keep me from me evening pint as well?  Look, your posts nos. 970, 972, 973, 979 and 981 all contain clear and manifest jibes against me, and they are indeed interspersed with more reasonable offerings.  Maybe you just shouldn't get offended when people call you "mad," its not necessarily a literal reference to your medical condition you know.  You're not literally mad, OK?  You're just *not.*  But people often call other people "mad" in the course of a heated argument like the one we've been having.  There's no point in taking it so seriously.  Jesus.


I thought you had said you were dropping the subject, yet an hour later and without me having posted anything nasty about you (I had "dropped it" as well) you simply start up again. Yes sure if you look back on his thread you will find me slagging you off, but I saw you say you were dropping it, I acknowledged this, then off you go again and start right up out of the blue. Why? OK, there is no good reason.

You say I shouldn't take remarks literally, but you made very specific and literal remarks, referring to my medical history which you know about because I have told you and I also post about it on other threads (eg drugs forum and health forum etc) where the issue comes up a fair amount. 

You got really angry about my remarks about you (my remarks were serious by the way). You threw remarks back at me and I asked yo to back them up. This isn't someone letting slip a casual mischosen word. You knew what you were typing and knew who you were talking to. 

If you are going to drop it, then keep it dropped.

If you bring it up I will take you to task over it like I am doing now.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I think both Red Ken and the Met would be highly sympathetic to my proposal.  I suggest that the residents of Brixton band together to campaign for the creation of "tolerance zones."  Some of them--perhaps yourself--could run for public office on this basis, and I bet you'd get elected too.  Believe me, this is the future in any case, so you might as well start planning for it now.


Hey, guess what I have already been heavily involved with the Lambeth Green party which has a platform of cannabis cafes and shooting galleries/needle exchanges and I have also helped put on (along with LGP people) the annual cannabis festival in brockwell park. I was also part of the group that first set up E-testing stalls in London clubs and at parties (the very first one was on a 'Team Lambeth' flat-bed truck we had hired outside The Fridge) and had a "Just Say Know" campaign.

Green Party Drugs Group

Thanks for the "advice" tho'.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I thought you had said you were dropping the subject, yet an hour later and without me having posted anything nasty about you (I had "dropped it" as well) you simply start up again. Yes sure if you look back on his thread you will find me slagging you off, but I saw you say you were dropping it, I acknowledged this, then off you go again and start right up out of the blue. Why? OK, there is no good reason.
> 
> You say I shouldn't take remarks literally, but you made very specific and literal remarks, referring to my medical history which you know about because I have told you and I also post about it on other threads (eg drugs forum and health forum etc) where the issue comes up a fair amount.
> 
> ...



Oh for fuck's sake Teejay, you truly are impossible.  Im--fucking--possible, do you hear me?  You prodded and probed me into discussing your mental health, which I was very reluctant to do, by constantly and repeatedly *asking* me to say what I thought was wrong with you.  OK, so I told you.  Then you insulted me again and again, and when I responded by saying that your "madness had enveloped you" (which is hardly a specific or literal reference to your problems) you freaked out *again.*  How many times do you want me to say it: I don't think you're mad.  A little eccentric perhaps, and maybe a tad too quick to take offence, and possibly a bit too eager to engage in stupid and pointless flame wars on the internet.  And bipolar.  But not *mad.*  OK?  Are we cool now?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 22, 2006)

*Short Term Policies*

* Re-legalise cannabis without further delay. Dutch 'coffee shops' or ‘pot pubs’ system to be permitted.
* In the short term recreational drugs, such as speed and ecstasy, would be decriminalised.
* No advertising or sponsorship for any drug (alcohol, tobacco or any other).
* Treat heroin addiction as a health issue and not a crime problem.
* We would ensure immediate funding for research into Ibogaine and its ability to interrupt opiate addiction without the withdrawal effects.
* We would also repeal Public Entertainment (Drugs Misuse) Act (the Barry Legg Act) which has held Back to news harm reduction in clubs. 

*Medium Term Policies*

* In the medium term we aim to take the drug trade out of criminal control and made available in a legal environment. The supply and profits of drug use should not remain in criminal hands. The details of how this system should be regulated and licenced will be decided by a Royal Commission, but the supply and profits of drug use should not remain in criminal hands.
* Prohibition does not reduce cannabis use by young people. A study of use of cannabis by 15 year olds= shows that in Holland, 29% have used it. Yet in the UK, 41% of 15 year olds have used cannabis. (Source: Dutch Institute of Health and Addiction, Council of Europe ESPAD Report, 1995 [Last available year.])

Full detailed policy: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/drugs.html


----------



## Hayek (Jan 22, 2006)

Was this by any chance areound Clapham Junction sort of area?

I was approached in very similar circumstances when I lived aroudn there, nearly a year ago now. She said she needed to get back to Sevenoaks. I was set to hand over money, then I asked her if she wanted to use my mobile to call someone. She said no, she just wanted the money. Now, thought I, if she was what she was pretending to be, surely she could, should and would want to call a friend/relative/parent. She then launched into a sob story which sounded highly suspect, and at the same time was looking for new victims.

I actually offered her a lift to Sevenoaks as I was going to be driving that way anyway (almost true), and she said "forget it" and carried on looking for others. 

Over the next few weeks I saw her several times. She must have been beaten up by her boyfriend, mugged or otherwise stranded at Clapham Junction at least 3-4 times a week, and that's just when I saw her! Never needed to call anyone, never needed a lift, only ever wanted money.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Hayek said:
			
		

> Was this by any chance areound Clapham Junction sort of area?



No.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh for fuck's sake Teejay, you truly are impossible.  Im--fucking--possible, do you hear me?  You prodded and probed me into discussing your mental health, which I was very reluctant to do, by constantly and repeatedly *asking* me to say what I thought was wrong with you.


I was demanding that you backed up your claims. I was happy to let you drop it. It seems like you just can't drop it.





> OK, so I told you.  Then you insulted me again and again, and when I responded by saying that your "madness had enveloped you" (which is hardly a specific or literal reference to your problems) you freaked out *again.*


That comment of yours came out of the blue, a whole hour after it had been dropped and you said you wouldn't talk about it again, and with no hostile posts by me. I had not started insulting you "again and again" after you dropped the subject. You have no excuse to bring it up again. Why did you?





> How many times do you want me to say it: I don't think you're mad.  A little eccentric perhaps, and maybe a tad too quick to take offence, and possibly a bit too eager to engage in stupid and pointless flame wars on the internet.  And bipolar.  But not *mad.*  OK?  Are we cool now?


If you are going to claim that I have problems with bipolar I am going to insist that you back this up with some evidence. Why have you yet again brought this up after saying you wouldn't?

If you want to drop it then simply retract anything you can't back up and cease and desist from making the same claims in future.

Simple. Not im--fucking--possible. You get me?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> If you are going to claim that I have problems with bipolar I am going to insist that you back this up with some evidence. Why have you yet again brought this up after saying you wouldn't?



Because you *asked* me to, you nutter!


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 22, 2006)

Hayek said:
			
		

> Was this by any chance areound Clapham Junction sort of area?


Not a million miles away - probably the same person trying a different patch.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Because you *asked* me to


I didn't ask you to slander me, I demanded that you back up your claims.


> you nutter!


I've reported this abuse and will continue to report similar abuse by you in future.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Abuse reported.



Oh have it your way then, you weird, bizarre, eccentric, unusual, eclectic, idiosyncratic, strange, odd, peculiar, unique, singular and above all BALD person.  I'm going down the pub.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 22, 2006)

seeing as  we couldn't even keep the low tolerence with canabis thing going  i servearly doubt  this will get very far

and again it doesn't  address many of the problems caused by drug related crime  such  as the ones  this thread  was originally about


----------



## editor (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh have it your way then, you weird, bizarre, eccentric, unusual, eclectic, idiosyncratic, strange, odd, peculiar, unique, singular and above all BALD person.


Can you stop this please? What's his hair (or lack of) got to do with anything?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Can you stop this please?



Yes, I can.  Its not easy, but I'm sure I can.  A couple of beers will probably help.  And some counselling.  Ta-ra for now.


----------



## stat (Jan 22, 2006)

when i'd just moved to brighton i saw a young lady who would sit near the cash machine just gently sobbing whilst hugging her knees.  got me the first time, got used to it after i saw her every day at a different bank.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 22, 2006)

*Phildwyer :#944*
I'm not going to discuss your mental health on this thread. 
*Phildwyer #946*
I have not discussed your mental health on this thread, nor am I going to. 
*Phildwyer #962*
I think you're bipolar. 
*TeeJay: #968*
I want you to back up your claim that I currently have problems with bipolar with concrete examples
*Phildwyer #975*
I can't be bothered Teejay, to be honest, but you do come across as a bit of a nutter on here. Anyway, I don't intend to make an issue of your health problems.
*Phildwyer: #992*
...it could easily be on a former industrial estate, as Teejay once suggested, until his madness enveloped him again. 
*TeeJay #993*
...what the fuck are you talking about with "madness enveloped him again"? Less than an hour ago you said: "Anyway, I don't intend to make an issue of your health problems." and declined to back up your comment about me being bipolar. 
*Phildwyer #996*
...I don't think you're literally mad...
*TeeJay #1001*
...despite saying that you were going to leave the subject alone, in fact you are going to keep bringing it up every few posts? 
*Phildwyer #1004*
Maybe you just shouldn't get offended when people call you "mad," its not necessarily a literal reference to your medical condition you know. You're not literally mad, OK? You're just *not.* But people often call other people "mad" in the course of a heated argument like the one we've been having. There's no point in taking it so seriously. Jesus. 
*Teejay #1006*
If you are going to drop it, then keep it dropped. If you bring it up I will take you to task over it like I am doing now.
*Phildwyer #1008*
How many times do you want me to say it: I don't think you're mad. A little eccentric perhaps, and maybe a tad too quick to take offence, and possibly a bit too eager to engage in stupid and pointless flame wars on the internet. And bipolar. But not *mad.* OK? Are we cool now? 
*TeeJay #1012*
If you are going to claim that I have problems with bipolar I am going to insist that you back this up with some evidence. Why have you yet again brought this up after saying you wouldn't? 
*Phildwyer #1013*
Because you *asked* me to, you nutter!

At what point are you actually "not going to discuss [my] mental health on this thread" pd?

Edit: Aha! I see a moderator has intervened.

You can therefore ignore this post. Sorry it took me a while to compose so I didn't notice what had been going on...


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Just shut up Teejay, pleeeease?  Will you now shut up, please?  Maniac that you are, you are doing my *head* in, yeah?  If you do, I will too.  Thank you.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Who have I called a racist?



Errr...everyone on here who doesn't like being hassled by dealers.




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> As to Needle Park, to which one do you refer?



Errr...the one commonly known as "Needle Park", y'know the one in Zurich.




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> There have been several, and some of them have indeed been successful.  Of course, "success" here is a relative term.  It depends on the alternative which, in the case of Brixton, would appear to be an intolerable (to many) level of drug dealing in public places.  I would also refer you to the Red Light District in Amsterdam, Christiania in Copenhagen etc etc.  They seemed to work alright, wouldn't you say?



Hmmmm...as you say, it depends on what you mean by "work".  Last time I was in Amsterdam, there were junkies lying about everywhere and lots of mugging.

The problem I have with your "tolerance zone" is it smacks too much of just letting people rot, giving up on them, "oh they're only black and druggies, fuck 'em".  You're looking for easy solututions to a very difficult problem, just like the people on the other thread who advocated some kind of vigilante action - you're 2 sides of the same coin.
*THERE ARE NO EASY ANSWERS*.  But what might begin to address the problem would be - legalising drugs, putting more money into treatment, putting more money into training (I've yet to see any evidence of DANOS standards being implemented in most services), more detox units and rehabs.  Sort out the housing problem in London by re-introducing some sort of Fair Rent Act, put more money into affordable (and I mean _affordable_) social housing, speed up the housing benefit system, sort out the benefits trap, scrap New Deal, fund access to training and education, make jobcentres more friendly, train the staff properly and stop them fucking about with people's benefits.  Put more money into mental health services, schools etc.  Unfortunately I don't see any of this happening anytime soon...

See, I want to see some solutions, not to just let people go to hell away from public eyes.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But the idea of "tolerance zones" has been tried, and has succeeded in reducing drug-related crime, in many places, all over the world, for ages.



I'm not so sure they have been a success.  Got any links?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Errr...the one commonly known as "Needle Park", y'know the one in Zurich.



Actually, there have been at least ten parks "commonly known as Needle Park."  The original one was in New York City, at 72nd and Broadway.  There was a film about it starring Al Pacino.  It was his first-ever starring role.  I am surprised you haven't seen it, it is pretty good, in one scene his dog jumps off the Staten Island ferry while he is shooting up in the bathroom.  I did think of suggesting that Brockwell Park should be turned into a "Needle Park," but then I thought that might annoy people.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> The problem I have with your "tolerance zone" is it smacks too much of just letting people rot, giving up on them, "oh they're only black and druggies, fuck 'em".  You're looking for easy solututions to a very difficult problem, just like the people on the other thread who advocated some kind of vigilante action - you're 2 sides of the same coin.
> *THERE ARE NO EASY ANSWERS*.  But what might begin to address the problem would be - legalising drugs, putting more money into treatment, putting more money into training (I've yet to see any evidence of DANOS standards being implemented in most services), more detox units and rehabs.  Sort out the housing problem in London by re-introducing some sort of Fair Rent Act, put more money into affordable (and I mean _affordable_) social housing, speed up the housing benefit system, sort out the benefits trap, scrap New Deal, fund access to training and education, make jobcentres more friendly, train the staff properly and stop them fucking about with people's benefits.  Put more money into mental health services, schools etc.  Unfortunately I don't see any of this happening anytime soon...
> 
> See, I want to see some solutions, not to just let people go to hell away from public eyes.



I want solutions too.  I did *not* propose "just letting people rot," I made it very clear that my "tolerance zone" would contain a drug treatment center, a needle exchange and a first-aid clinic.  I also made it clear that I favour the complete legalization of all drugs, and that my "tolerance zone" was envisaged as an intermediate step towards that goal.  But I am afraid I do not think that your suggested improvements to benefits, jobcenters, housing and education will help the drugs problem one iota.  People do not take drugs because they are poor--in fact, being poor is the most effective way of *stopping* oneself from taking drugs.  Look at Switzerland, where everybody is rich, and yet they have a *massive* rate of heroin and cocaine addiction.  Because they can *afford* it, among other reasons.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Errr...everyone on here who doesn't like being hassled by dealers.



No-one likes being "harrassed" by anyone.  But the point is that what constitutes "harrassment" varies greatly between cultures.  White, middle-class Engish people, especially those who are new to Brixton, will perceive "harrassment" where there is none.  Does that make them racists?  Not necessarily, no.  I went out of my way to re-assure Nipsla that she was not a racist because she didn't like being threatened with rape by a man smoking crack on her doorstep.  I wouldn't like that either.  I doubt that anyone would, although you never know.  But is it racist shout "fuck off" at a youth whose only crime has been to say "skunk" a bit too near you?  Of course it is, and no-one can tell me otherwise.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 22, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure they have been a success.



IIRC, there was a big clampdown in Zürich a few years ago. Even Swiss citizens get "deported" out of Zürich back to their home cities.

Personally I'm in favour of "clean rooms" (I hate the term "shooting galleries") but less in favour of whole estates being turned over though I'd go for zones of tolerance on prostitution.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Actually, there have been at least ten parks "commonly known as Needle Park."  The original one was in New York City, at 72nd and Broadway.  There was a film about it starring Al Pacino.  It was his first-ever starring role.  I am surprised you haven't seen it, it is pretty good, in one scene his dog jumps off the Staten Island ferry while he is shooting up in the bathroom.  I did think of suggesting that Brockwell Park should be turned into a "Needle Park," but then I thought that might annoy people.



You're a moron.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I want solutions too.  I did *not* propose "just letting people rot," I made it very clear that my "tolerance zone" would contain a drug treatment center, a needle exchange and a first-aid clinic.  I also made it clear that I favour the complete legalization of all drugs, and that my "tolerance zone" was envisaged as an intermediate step towards that goal.  But I am afraid I do not think that your suggested improvements to benefits, jobcenters, housing and education will help the drugs problem one iota.  People do not take drugs because they are poor--in fact, being poor is the most effective way of *stopping* oneself from taking drugs.  Look at Switzerland, where everybody is rich, and yet they have a *massive* rate of heroin and cocaine addiction.  Because they can *afford* it, among other reasons.



Amazing!  Not only do you not live in Brixton, you don't even live in the UK.  Yet you want to tell someone who does live in Brixton and works for a drug service, what will and won't work?

You truly are a wanker of the first order.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No-one likes being "harrassed" by anyone.  But the point is that what constitutes "harrassment" varies greatly between cultures.  White, middle-class Engish people, especially those who are new to Brixton, will perceive "harrassment" where there is none.  Does that make them racists?  Not necessarily, no.  I went out of my way to re-assure Nipsla that she was not a racist because she didn't like being threatened with rape by a man smoking crack on her doorstep.  I wouldn't like that either.  I doubt that anyone would, although you never know.  But is it racist shout "fuck off" at a youth whose only crime has been to say "skunk" a bit too near you?  Of course it is, and no-one can tell me otherwise.



Its racist to shout "fuck off" now is it?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> IIRC, there was a big clampdown in Zürich a few years ago. Even Swiss citizens get "deported" out of Zürich back to their home cities.
> 
> Personally I'm in favour of "clean rooms" (I hate the term "shooting galleries") but less in favour of whole estates being turned over though I'd go for zones of tolerance on prostitution.



I'm in favour of shooting galleries or some such too.  But the idea of turnign over an entire area is just daft.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Amazing!  Not only do you not live in Brixton, you don't even live in the UK.  Yet you want to tell someone who does live in Brixton and works for a drug service, what will and won't work?



Yes I do.  You know why?  Because whatever you're doing for this "drug service" obviously isn't working.  That is, I suppose you may be helping some individuals, but you are not having much impact on the drug problem as a whole, are you?  And furthermore, you seem to be entirely devoid of any ideas about how that wider problem might be addressed.  And moreover, when such ideas are suggested to you, you respond only with raging insults and furious obscenities.  It does no good to go on about "affordable housing" and nicer jobcenters and what not.  That will not affect the drug problem *at all.*


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes I do.  You know why?  Because whatever you're doing for this "drug service" obviously isn't working.  That is, I suppose you may be helping some individuals, but you are not having much impact on the drug problem as a whole, are you?  And furthermore, you seem to be entirely devoid of any ideas about how that wider problem might be addressed.  And moreover, when such ideas are suggested to you, you respond only with raging insults and furious obscenities.  It does no good to go on about "affordable housing" and nicer jobcenters and what not.  That will not affect the drug problem *at all.*



I'll tell you what the biggest problems are for people who want to quit and sort their lives out - housing, benefits and employment.  Leading lots of people to relapse.  So don't fucking come on here, telling me what will and won't work when you obviously don't have the first clue and you don't even live in the UK you patronising little twat.


----------



## snadge (Jan 22, 2006)

> But is it racist shout "fuck off" at a youth whose only crime has been to say "skunk" a bit too near you? Of course it is, and no-one can tell me otherwise.



at no point was the colour of the dealer mentioned, you seem to have made that assumption into fact now.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I'm in favour of shooting galleries or some such too.  But the idea of turnign over an entire area is just daft.



Well, how many shooting galleries do you want?  One would certainly not suffice.  I think you'd need at least twenty in London alone.  And then, it would obviously be best if the users could purchase their drugs in the vicinity too.  Also, wouldn't you want to have a first-aid clinic, needle exchange, HIV testing center and addiction counselling on site as well?  So if you add all those together, you are soon talking about an "enitre area."  I'm sure we  would appreciate any suggestions you may have as to where this area ought to be located.  But I doubt you have any that are better than mine.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I'll tell you what the biggest problems are for people who want to quit and sort their lives out - housing, benefits and employment.  Leading lots of people to relapse.



How?  How do these things, or the lack thereof, lead people to relapse?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> How?  How do these things, or the lack thereof, lead people to relapse?



Try using your brain for once.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, how many shooting galleries do you want?  One would certainly not suffice.  I think you'd need at least twenty in London alone.  And then, it would obviously be best if the users could purchase their drugs in the vicinity too.  Also, wouldn't you want to have a first-aid clinic, needle exchange, HIV testing center and addiction counselling on site as well?  So if you add all those together, you are soon talking about an "enitre area."  I'm sure we  would appreciate any suggestions you may have as to where this area ought to be located.  But I doubt you have any that are better than mine.



You don't actually know anything about drug treatment and drug services do you?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Try using your brain for once.



Try answering the question for once.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Try answering the question for once.



This is like communicating with a 5 year old.  OK, here goes - the lack of affordable housing in London leaves a lot of people living in hostels where there is a lot of drug use, leading people to relapse.  Lots of people live in insecure accomodation making people feel insecure in their lives, they can get turfed out onto the street at a moments notice, leading people back into crime and drugs.  If people's benefits get stopped for spurious reasons this can cause people to become homeless or get back into crime and drugs.  Boredom and lack of structure are major factors in relapse.  I could go on, but don't see why I should, this is all really obvious stuff if you stop to think a minute.  But you don't do you, you just want easy answers.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> This is like communicating with a 5 year old.  OK, here goes - the lack of affordable housing in London leaves a lot of people living in hostels where there is a lot of drug use, leading people to relapse.  Lots of people live in insecure accomodation making people feel insecure in their lives, they can get turfed out onto the street at a moments notice, leading people back into crime and drugs.  If people's benefits get stopped for spurious reasons this can cause people to become homeless or get back into crime and drugs.  Boredom and lack of structure are major factors in relapse.  I could go on, but don't see why I should, this is all really obvious stuff if you stop to think a minute.  But you don't do you, you just want easy answers.



There are *no* "easy answers."  I suppose what you say here may have some validity, but it does not speak to the vast numbers of rich and middle-class junkies, who rarely come to the attention of drug workers such as yourself.  The true reason for drug addiction is the lack of moral values in our society.  And by that I do not mean that junkies are any less moral than other people, I mean that our society lacks a comprehensive moral creed that would give people a *reason* not to take drugs.  Without a *reason* not to take drugs, people *will* take them.  It is as simple as that.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I think both Red Ken and the Met would be highly sympathetic to my proposal.  I suggest that the residents of Brixton band together to campaign for the creation of "tolerance zones."  Some of them--perhaps yourself--could run for public office on this basis, and I bet you'd get elected too.  Believe me, this is the future in any case, so you might as well start planning for it now.


I'm wondering how sincere you are about this since you have just posted on another thread:






			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> I never vote, it is a mug's game.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> There are *no* "easy answers."  I suppose what you say here may have some validity, but it does not speak to the vast numbers of rich and middle-class junkies, who rarely come to the attention of drug workers such as yourself.  The true reason for drug addiction is the lack of moral values in our society.  And by that I do not mean that junkies are any less moral than other people, I mean that our society lacks a comprehensive moral creed that would give people a *reason* not to take drugs.  Without a *reason* not to take drugs, people *will* take them.  It is as simple as that.



Yep, you're definitely a moron.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yep, you're definitely a moron.



I think you should stop contributing to this thread now Blagsta.  At least temporarily.  It is clear by now that you have *no* ideas about how to address the drug problem, and you are evidently incapable of holding a discussion without recklessly spraying insults around.  Why don't you go off and have a think about what I have said, and come back with a more considered respomse at a later time?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I think you should stop contributing to this thread now Blagsta.  At least temporarily.  It is clear by now that you have *no* ideas about how to address the drug problem, and you are evidently incapable of holding a discussion without recklessly spraying insults around.  Why don't you go off and have a think about what I have said, and come back with a more considered respomse at a later time?



Have you noticed how no one ever agrees with you.  Ever.  No, I guess you don't.  You're too wrapped up in your own self importance.  I called you a moron 'cos you clearly are.  You wank on about stuff you know fuck all about.  Its bizarre.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Have you noticed how no one ever agrees with you.  Ever.  No, I guess you don't.  You're too wrapped up in your own self importance.  I called you a moron 'cos you clearly are.  You wank on about stuff you know fuck all about.  Its bizarre.



No really Blagsta, I seriously think you should stop contributing to this thread now.  I strongly advise it.  You are doing *nothing* to further the debate, you are only becoming annoyed and, to be blunt, making yourself look foolish.  You are welcome to return once you have cooled down a little, and perhaps come up with one or two suggestions about how the drugs problem might be addressed more effectively than at present.  Thank you in advance.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2006)

Careful, you'll have someone's eye out with that.


----------



## snadge (Jan 22, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Careful, you'll have someone's eye out with that.




I see he didn't address my point of his philly fact, plucked out of thin air!


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> I see he didn't address my point of his philly fact, plucked out of thin air!



I'm not taking the piss snadge, but most of the time I genuinely can't understand what you're saying.  Could you translate it into human?


----------



## snadge (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'm not taking the piss snadge, but most of the time I genuinely can't understand what you're saying.  Could you translate it into human?



here


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> here



Nope, I'm afraid I still can't understand you.  Could you have another go?  Get someone else to write it for you if you like.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> I see he didn't address my point of his philly fact, plucked out of thin air!



He's projecting an awful lot too.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> He's projecting an awful lot too.



Blagsta, can you understand what snadge is on about, and if so, could you translate it for me?  Ta.


----------



## pk (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> On the contrary, it is you who are confused.  You used to be a drug dealer, but now you believe that drug dealers should be locked up.  Now, of course, you were young, your ideas have changed, all that's fair enough.  But many of the dealers on Coldharbour Lane are also young, *their* ideas may change as well.  How can you advocate ruining their lives by arrest and imprisonment?  You were lucky to get out of the game without a criminal record, why not extend the same chance to today's generation of dealers?



I never, ever dealt crack... nor would I have anything to do with anyone selling or using crack.

There's a fucking huge difference between "drug dealer" and "crack dealer" and if you don't know this then you have no business commenting on the issue.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I never, ever dealt crack... nor would I have anything to do with anyone selling or using crack.
> 
> There's a fucking huge difference between "drug dealer" and "crack dealer" and if you don't know this then you have no business commenting on the issue.



There's not such a big difference between "crack dealer" and "coke dealer" though, is there?  Not that I'm criticizing you for what you did in the past, just pointing out a fairly obvious piece of hypocrisy.  By the way, do *you* know what snadge is on about, and if so, can you translate it for me?  Ta.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Blagsta, can you understand what snadge is on about, and if so, could you translate it for me?  Ta.



never mind snadge, its you everyone has difficulty following.  Remind me again about your proof of god?


----------



## pk (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I think the "aggressive street crack dealers" are a bit of a myth, tbh.



You're a fucking twat, Dwyer.

You know nothing about this issue, or the drug, or its effects.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> never mind snadge



But I *do* mind him!  I want to know what he's trying to say, and I can't understand him.  What's he on about?  Please tell me if you know, it might be important, and he evidently can't tell me himself.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2006)

You seem to have lost the plot phil.  Maybe you should leave the thread until you find it again.  Hint: it may be up your arse.


----------



## snadge (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But I *do* mind him!  I want to know what he's trying to say, and I can't understand him.  What's he on about?  Please tell me if you know, it might be important, and he evidently can't tell me himself.



I'm calling you a liar, for making up "facts"


----------



## pk (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> There's not such a big difference between "crack dealer" and "coke dealer" though, is there?  Not that I'm criticizing you for what you did in the past, just pointing out a fairly obvious piece of hypocrisy.  By the way, do *you* know what snadge is on about, and if so, can you translate it for me?  Ta.



To clarify, there is a huge difference between what I did and selling crack.

Stick to Milton, because issues surrounding the crack problem are way beyond your comprehension, clearly.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You seem to have lost the plot phil.  Maybe you should leave the thread until you find it again.  Hint: it may be up your arse.



Well, I take it that you can't understand him either.  Fair enough really.  But this means that we'll have to continue to deal with him popping up every few posts and making his incoherent demands that I do something, and then getting frustrated again when I can't do it because he can't tell me what it is.  He wants *something* very badly though, that much I can tell, and he's not likely to shut up until he gets it.  Oh well.


----------



## snadge (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, I take it that you can't understand him either.  Fair enough really.  But this means that we'll have to continue to deal with him popping up every few posts and making his incoherent demands that I do something, and then getting frustrated again when I can't do it because he can't tell me what it is.  He wants *something* very badly though, that much I can tell, and he's not likely to shut up until he gets it.  Oh well.



  

what guff eh!


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> I'm calling you a liar, for making up "facts"



Bravo snadge!  It took you a couple of hours of doubtless intense effort, but you perservered and got there in the end.  Jolly good show.  Now, if I am to help you out here, I need you to be a little bit more specific.  Which facts, specifically, do you feel I have "made up?"  Take your time, no hurry.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> To clarify, there is a huge difference between what I did and selling crack.



Is there, PK?  Correct me if I'm wrong, and I apologize in advance if that is the case, but didn't you say that you used to deal coke?  Well, obviously, some of your customers went home and made it into crack.  That's just a fact.  Again, I'm not judging you for the dealing, or even for your hypocrisy, just pointing it out to you.


----------



## snadge (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Bravo snadge!  It took you a couple of hours of doubtless intense effort, but you perservered and got there in the end.  Jolly good show.  Now, if I am to help you out here, I need you to be a little bit more specific.  Which facts, specifically, do you feel I have "made up?"  Take your time, no hurry.



jeez philly you really are a prize twat

did you say this?   ( which is obvious to all you did) 



> But is it racist shout "fuck off" at a youth whose only crime has been to say "skunk" a bit too near you? Of course it is, and no-one can tell me otherwise.



then can you point to rushcroftroader's statement that the offender is actually coloured.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, I take it that you can't understand him either.  Fair enough really.  But this means that we'll have to continue to deal with him popping up every few posts and making his incoherent demands that I do something, and then getting frustrated again when I can't do it because he can't tell me what it is.  He wants *something* very badly though, that much I can tell, and he's not likely to shut up until he gets it.  Oh well.



More projection eh?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> then can you point to rushcroftroader's statement that the offender is actually coloured.



Ah, OK, I get it.  Thank God for that.  Now, you are right in your suggestion that Rushcroft Roader did not say he was "coloured," but I *know* that he was.  Let me save you the aggravation of trying to ask me how I know that.  Well, first of all, I know that 95% of the dealers in the area where this incident took place are black.  But that is not how I *know* that this one was.  I know that because, if he was not, Rushcroft Roader would most definitely have corrected me whan I said that he was.  See?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2006)

No phil, you _assumed_.


----------



## pk (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> obviously, some of your customers went home and made it into crack.  That's just a fact.



Erm, no... they did not.

That is a fact.

I know more about the close circle of people involved than you ever will.

I'm surprised you don't lump crack dealers in with your critiques of capitalism.. after all - it's people making profit from misery in the nastiest way possible.

Why do you idolise these crack dealers in such a bizarre way?


----------



## snadge (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Ah, OK, I get it.  Thank God for that.  Now, you are right in your suggestion that Rushcroft Roader did not say he was "coloured," but I *know* that he was.  Let me save you the aggravation of trying to ask me how I know that.  Well, first of all, I know that 95% of the dealers in the area where this incident took place are black.  But that is not how I *know* that this one was.  I know that because, if he was not, Rushcroft Roader would most definitely have corrected me whan I said that he was.  See?



you are the most circular debater I have ever had the misfortune to engage.

you are so determined to carry a rascism issue across an issue that doesn't care about race, I'm gobsmacked, you don't actually care about this issue as long as you sicken everyone with your personal cod statistics.

you come out with ridiculous anologies and solutions, you disgust me, you are what it takes to become a successful politician.

I'm leaving this thread to your ego


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> you are so determined to carry a rascism issue across an issue that doesn't care about race, I'm gobsmacked, you don't actually care about this issue as long as you sicken everyone with your personal cod statistics.



I'm sorry snadge, you've lost me again here.  Anyone?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'm sorry snadge, you've lost me again here.  Anyone?



Its quite clear - he's saying that you seem determined to racialise an issue that cuts across races and you make up stats to "prove" your point.


----------



## snadge (Jan 22, 2006)

> Rushcroft Roader did not say he was "coloured," but I *know* that he was



philly thinks he's god and I claim my £5


----------



## pk (Jan 22, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> you are the most circular debater I have ever had the misfortune to engage.
> 
> you are so determined to carry a rascism issue across an issue that doesn't care about race, I'm gobsmacked, you don't actually care about this issue as long as you sicken everyone with your personal cod statistics.
> 
> you come out with ridiculous anologies and solutions, you disgust me, you are what it takes to become a successful politician.



How can Phildwyer be so wildly confused regarding such a seemingly simple concept? 

Simple.

He thinks that crack dealing is an intellectual issue, rather than a scientific one.

Rather than accept the devastating consequences of crack addiction on both the individual and society as a whole, he would sooner push for a ideological solution - ignoring the facts and factors involved in the physical and emotional dependancy.

Added to that a habit for inventing 'facts' - he has no case whatsoever.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Its quite clear - he's saying that you seem determined to racialise an issue that cuts across races and you make up stats to "prove" your point.



Oh, I see, thanks.  You've probably had a bit more practice in speaking snadgese than me.  Could you just do this bit for me too, its been bothering me a bit? 




			
				snadge said:
			
		

> you are what it takes to become a successful politician.



Thanks again!


----------



## pk (Jan 22, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> No phil, you _assumed_.



Same way he *assumed* that people who may or may not have been given a bit of cocaine during a visit to my house, almost a decade ago, were rushing home and turning it into crack.

Which is utter bollocks, I know it, you know it, only Phildwyer assumes differently... in fact most of the "facts" he has provided are based on weak assumption.

What the fuck does a twat in Philadelphia know about day to day life in Brixton anyway?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh, I see, thanks.



No problem.  I must say, for a supposed "academic", you seem to have problems with the English language.




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> You've probably had a bit more practice in speaking snadgese than me.



No, I'm not that aware of his posts to be honest.  It was actually fairly obvious.  Aren't you going to respond then?




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> Could you just do this bit for me too, its been bothering me a bit?




He's saying that you'd make a good politician as you seem to be very good at chatting utter shit.




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> Thanks again!



No probs!


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Same way he *assumed* that people who may or may not have been given a bit of cocaine during a visit to my house, almost a decade ago, were rushing home and turning it into crack.



I do assume it, yes.  I can't know it for sure and, whatever you may say to the contrary, neither can you.  But that didn't stop you selling it to them, did it?


----------



## snadge (Jan 22, 2006)

phillys not talking to me, he seems to be doing the "tell him this" approach.

I'm going to repost this though



> Rushcroft Roader did not say he was "coloured," but I *know* that he was




philly thinks he's god and I claim my £5


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> He's saying that you'd make a good politician as you seem to be very good at chatting utter shit.



I see.  I sort of agree with him about that actually--the politician bit, not the chatting utter shit bit of course.  He's not really that dumb is he, old snadge, once you can understand what he's trying to say?  He's probably a bit underestimated around here, I think he makes a lot of sense.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> phillys not talking to me, he seems to be doing the "tell him this" approach.



Blagsta, help!


----------



## snadge (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Blagsta, help!



and you wonder why I tell you to fuck off etc

I'm thinking along the lines that you are a high class troll, you don't care about the issue at all.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> and you wonder why I tell you to fuck off etc.



Hang on snadge, Blagsta will be along to translate in a minute, and I'll get back to you then.  You can understand me alright, can you?


----------



## pk (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I do assume it, yes.  I can't know it for sure and, whatever you may say to the contrary, neither can you.  But that didn't stop you selling it to them, did it?



I can know it for sure - I knew everyone involved personally - as unlike the crack marketplace traders on the streets you seem to idolise I never sold anything to anyone I didn't know.


----------



## snadge (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Hang on snadge, Blagsta will be along to translate in a minute, and I'll get back to you then.  You can understand me alright, can you?



perfectly


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I can know it for sure - I knew everyone involved personally



Means nothing, people tend to hide their use of crack.


----------



## snadge (Jan 22, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I can know it for sure - I knew everyone involved personally - as unlike the crack marketplace traders on the streets you seem to idolise I never sold anything to anyone I didn't know.



phillys diluting the issue with this tack....

don't take the bait...


----------



## pk (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Means nothing, people tend to hide their use of crack.



You just seem to want to fetishise crack as a commodity...


----------



## pk (Jan 22, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> phillys diluting the issue with this tack....
> 
> don't take the bait...



I don't care anymore - he's an arsehole, it's been proved, and now he's trying to compare what I may or may not have done with the actions of an aggressive crack dealer.

 

Fuck him.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I don't care anymore - he's an arsehole, it's been proved, and now he's trying to compare what I may or may not have done with the actions of an aggressive crack dealer.



To be perfectly honest, I think the most significant difference between you and the "aggressive crack dealers" you want to lock up is the colour of your skin.


----------



## snadge (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> To be perfectly honest, I think the most significant difference between you and the "aggressive crack dealers" you want to lock up is the colour of your skin.



here we go again, circular argument about to bite it's own tail....


----------



## pk (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> To be perfectly honest, I think the most significant difference between you and the "aggressive crack dealers" you want to lock up is the colour of your skin.



You're the one judging people by the colour of their skin here, just remember that.

I know I will.

Your ideology is fucked, mate... and your fetishism of crack in the otherwise fairly normal drug marketplace is just plain stupidity.

Especially when you don't have anything to do with Brixton.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Your ideology is fucked, mate... and your fetishism of crack in the otherwise fairly normal drug marketplace is just plain stupidity.



What the devil are you on about?  What "fetishism of crack in the otherwise farily normal drug marketplace?"  It doesn't mean *anything.*  You're going all snadge on me.


----------



## snadge (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What the devil are you on about?  What "fetishism of crack in the otherwise farily normal drug marketplace?"  It doesn't mean *anything.*  You're going all snadge on me.



you're going all previous on everyone else though.


----------



## pk (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What the devil are you on about?  What "fetishism of crack in the otherwise farily normal drug marketplace?"  It doesn't mean *anything.*  You're going all snadge on me.



Apologise for calling me a racist, and a pervert.... and apologise for all your other Faust myths on this thread... because you're full of shit.


----------



## snadge (Jan 22, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Apologise for calling me a racist, and a pervert.... and apologise for all your other Faust myths on this thread... because you're full of shit.



add apologise to everyone for the same


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 22, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Fuck him.



 

Not even with yours, mate!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 22, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> add apologise to everyone for the same



You're about as likely to get an apology from ol' son of Norman St. John Stevas (the only person I can think that Phil rivals for sheer pompous self-satisfaction) as you are to get a full English breakfast at the Hare Krishna headquarters at Letchmoor Heath.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> You're about as likely to get an apology from ol' son of Norman St. John Stevas (the only person I can think that Phil rivals for sheer pompous self-satisfaction) as you are to get a full English breakfast at the Hare Krishna headquarters at Letchmoor Heath.



Has the world gone mad?  I don't understand anything *anyone* says on this thread any more.  First it was just snadge, but now everyone is talking gibberish.  Hare Krishna?  Norman St. John Stevas?  What are you talking about Panda?


----------



## colacubes (Jan 22, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> add apologise to everyone for the same



You lot are all far more patient than me.  You'll be waiting a while.

I don't mind though 'cos Phil "reassured" me that I wasn't a racist earlier in the thread.  Which has given me peace of mind


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Apologise for calling me a racist, and a pervert.... and apologise for all your other Faust myths on this thread... because you're full of shit.



You can kiss my black ass.  Or you could if I had one.  No you couldn't.


----------



## snadge (Jan 22, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> You're about as likely to get an apology from ol' son of Norman St. John Stevas (the only person I can think that Phil rivals for sheer pompous self-satisfaction) as you are to get a full English breakfast at the Hare Krishna headquarters at Letchmoor Heath.



  


actually a little story about hare krishna

a friend of mine who went a little squiggly joined the movement, I met up with him a few years later and he was proper hareed like, he was properly hare krishnad up to fuck, he was explaining the virtues of the way to me and I, as I am listened to him, when it came to my turn to speak my friend started to make faces and say strange words to break up what I was trying to say, I was uber confused to say the least.

I chucked him out of my house as he become quite offensive, the last I heard was that he was quite a mouthpiece for the organisation.

reminds me of philly a little.


----------



## snadge (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You can kiss my black ass.  Or you could if I had one.  No you couldn't.



and that is wishfull thinking


----------



## pk (Jan 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Has the world gone mad?  I don't understand anything *anyone* says on this thread any more.  First it was just snadge, but now everyone is talking gibberish.  Hare Krishna?  Norman St. John Stevas?  What are you talking about Panda?



You're just out of your depth.

It's like you're stuck in the Seventeenth century or something...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 22, 2006)

nipsla said:
			
		

> You lot are all far more patient than me.  You'll be waiting a while.
> 
> I don't mind though 'cos Phil "reassured" me that I wasn't a racist earlier in the thread.  Which has given me peace of mind



You mean he's not even apologised for being a patronising twat for calling you "darling"?

The man has the manners of a goat!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 22, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> actually a little story about hare krishna
> 
> a friend of mine who went a little squiggly joined the movement, I met up with him a few years later and he was proper hareed like, he was properly hare krishnad up to fuck, he was explaining the virtues of the way to me and I, as I am listened to him, when it came to my turn to speak my friend started to make faces and say strange words to break up what I was trying to say, I was uber confused to say the least.
> 
> ...




The gibberish or the adherence to religion?


----------



## snadge (Jan 22, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> The gibberish or the adherence to religion?



take your pick...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 22, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> You're just out of your depth.
> 
> It's like you're stuck in the Seventeenth century or something...



I feel quite sorry for him if he;

a) Can't follow a simple comparison of his own pomposity to that of Norman St. John Stevas and 

b) the likelihood of Snadge getting an apology from him for *anything* being comparable to the likelihood of the (vegan) Krishnites serving a full English breakfast.


Anyway, he isn't stuck in the seventeenth century at all, just firmly up his own flatulent arse. 

I'm surprised that with Phil having such a big head there's any space left up his rectum for Phil to be able to talk out of it, but he somehow manages.


----------



## surfcatCO (Jan 22, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> I feel quite sorry for him if he;
> 
> a) Can't follow a simple comparison of his own pomposity to that of Norman St. John Stevas and
> 
> ...





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2006)

Anyway, to try to steer us back on topic, can I take it that we're all agreed on the necessity of "tolerance zones" for drugs and prostitution now?  In that case, perhaps we can move on to the issue of where these "zones" should be located.  I have suggested an evacuated housing estate, but I will concede that there are certain difficulties with my plan.  But I can't really see any alternative.  I'd like to hear from snadge on this issue, assuming someone can translate his words for the rest of us.  But anyone else should feel free to make a suggestion as well.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 23, 2006)

er no

1.) it is by no means clear that  tolerence zones will have any impact on agresive dealing  , people running scams or drug related theft/mugging

2.) it is by no means  clear that tolerence zones  are  sucsesfull  as all the other worldwide projects have had mixed results

3.) the project you proposed has a near 0 chance of being funded


----------



## snadge (Jan 23, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Anyway, to try to steer us back on topic, can I take it that we're all agreed on the necessity of "tolerance zones" for drugs and prostitution now?  In that case, perhaps we can move on to the issue of where these "zones" should be located.  I have suggested an evacuated housing estate, but I will concede that there are certain difficulties with my plan.  But I can't really see any alternative.  I'd like to hear from snadge on this issue, assuming someone can translate his words for the rest of us.  But anyone else should feel free to make a suggestion as well.




you are the only poster here that agrees on your disused housing estate "tolerance zone".

you seem to be of the ilk of repeating a mantra enough times so it must be true.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Anyway, to try to steer us back on topic, can I take it that we're all agreed on the necessity of "tolerance zones" for drugs and prostitution now?



You appear to have massive trouble following an argument.  How the fuck did you become an academic?


----------



## pooka (Jan 23, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You can kiss my black ass.  Or you could if I had one.  No you couldn't.



A man with no bum?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> No, you don't live in Brixton.  So shut the fuck up eh?




Says drug using carpet bagger from up north.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I notice you're unsure, yet sure I mentioned it. ???
> 
> Used to sell bits and pieces, about a decade ago - but NEVER, EVER stood in the fucking street trying to sell it to passers-by.
> 
> ...




Says ex drug dealer who don't know how long a decade is.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> This is your answer to _everything_. We wouldn't get the hassle if it wasn't for all the fucking drugs tourists.
> 
> Please, find your own dealer and buy your stuff in your own neighbourhood.




No one sells near where I live.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Unfortunately.




self hating wierdo.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> Do you think if we ignore him, he might go away?




How long have you lived in Brixton? Where were you brought up?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> fuck me philly boy, if I ever, ever meet you I would be sorely tempted to fucking knock you out....
> 
> just for your absolute stereotyping and jesus complex




You are not going to hit anyone, stop being a silly boy.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I didn't ask you to slander me, I demanded that you back up your claims.
> I've reported this abuse and will continue to report similar abuse by you in future.




What a wanker.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I never, ever dealt crack... nor would I have anything to do with anyone selling or using crack.
> 
> There's a fucking huge difference between "drug dealer" and "crack dealer" and if you don't know this then you have no business commenting on the issue.




Semantics.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

After reading the weekends contributions, the story remains the same.

To sum up:

Carpet bagging gentrifiers, the majority white middle class, hate, fear and wish to "do something" with regard to the largely black suppliers of weed on Brixtons streets.

With a lot of abuse towards phil thrown in.

Charming.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 23, 2006)

How long does one need to live in an area before no longer being dismissed as a "newbie" and therefore having no or at least less right to hold an opinion on local issues?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> How long does one need to live in an area before no longer being dismissed as a "newbie" and therefore having no or at least less right to hold an opinion on local issues?



Well when the person concerned is shouting abuse at another poster and dismissing their view out of hand because they don't live there, it's reasonable to point out that the abuser is a carpet bagger.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> .........it's reasonable to point out that the abuser is a carpet bagger.




I was asking about any particular poster. I asked a simple direct question:
How long do you have to live in an area before you are entitled to an opinion?

We've had some discussions on gentrification of inner city areas on Urban before. I'd suggest you give the issues some thought before using the term "carpet bagger" at anyone you happen to disagree with.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> I was asking about any particular poster. I asked a simple direct question:
> How long do you have to live in an area before you are entitled to an opinion?
> 
> We've had some discussions on gentrification of inner city areas on Urban before. I'd suggest you give the issues some thought before using the term "carpet bagger" at anyone you happen to disagree with.




Gentrification has been discussed elsewhere you know! Urban is not the sole debating forum on this planet. 

A general conclusion from most debates I have been involved with is that the gentrifiers (or carpet baggers as I prefer)  move into an area and then want to drive the sections of the community away that are a drag on ever increasing houseprices..


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Semantics.


no they are NOT. there is a WORLD between the stude supp'ing his loan by shifting an ounce or so a week, and yer full blown crack-megashi8fter.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> no they are NOT. there is a WORLD between the stude supp'ing his loan by shifting an ounce or so a week, and yer full blown crack-megashi8fter.




It's reasonable to point out that when a nice middle class white poster calls for the killing of street dealers (who are largely black and just sell weed) that he is a hypocrite of the first order if he has served up class a's.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> A general conclusion from most debates I have been involved with is that the gentrifiers (or carpet baggers as I prefer)  move into an area and then want to drive the sections of the community away that are a drag on ever increasing houseprices..





Your argument is flawed.

Firstly you cannot lump everyone into the gentrification process of inner city areas into one pot. Some if not the majority of people unwillingly involved are in fact anti gentrification. “Carpet bagger” as a term is someone who jumps onto an already established phenomena for their own personal gain while making little / no contribution. I don’t think applies to many / most Brixton Urbanites.

I don’t know which Brixtonites on this thread own or rent their homes.
But there are certainly tenenats on this thread who have an objection to street dealing despite the fact that “cleaning up” Brixton might potentially increase their rents. 

For those that own their homes, none of the Urbanites I know seem fixated with the increasing value of their property for personal financial gain themselves let alone wanting to “drive away” sections of the community to have an upward push on the prices of their home.


I’ll ask the question a 3rd time, “carpet bagger” or not, how long should someone live in a community before they have the right to voice an opinion?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

This thread really is becoming very funny. My _interpretation_ is that drugs are OK for nice middle class people to take but not for anyone else. It's starting to read like the letters page of the daily mail. Scratch a liberal eh?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

```
I’ll ask the question a 3rd time, “carpet bagger” or not, how long should someone live in a community before they have the right to voice an opinion?
```

I don't think you can give an indication of this. Anyone can comment on any issue they like. How their comments will be interpreted often depends on the credentials of who is making them. Hence Blagsta et al think that only Brixton residents can have opinions about Brixton that have any validity. 

I too look at the person making the comment and wonder how long they have lived in the area. In my opinion, lots of the so called benefits of Brixtons gentrification are outweighed by the pushing out of many of the long term residents (and their little ways) that upset the new arrivistes so much.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 23, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> no they are NOT. there is a WORLD between the stude supp'ing his loan by shifting an ounce or so a week, and yer full blown crack-megashi8fter.



No Jezza, that's not the situation.  PK was dealing *coke*--I've no idea what quantities, but he was a *coke dealer.*  As you know, many people will buy coke and make crack with it, and I've no doubt that some of PK's customers did just that.  An yet now, he advocates vigilante justice, not against "yer full blown crack-magashifter" but against black youths selling bits and pieces on Coldharbour Lane.  I don't know what word you use for that attitude, but where I come from it is known as hypocrisy of such dimensions as to approach the psychotic.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 23, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You appear to have massive trouble following an argument.  How the fuck did you become an academic?



Frankly Blagsta, I think that *you* have seriously misjudged your vocation as a "drugs worker."  You evidently have no ideas about how to solve the problem, and you react to perfectly sensible suggestions as to how that might be done with comical rage against what you see as encroachments on your territory, either professional or geographical.  That suggests to me a profound insecurity.  But prove me wrong: suggest where these tolearance "zones" might be located, I'm truly interested in your opinion.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

When the abuse does not obscure the rational argument (IE most of the time) Blagsta coms out with some quite well informed opinion regarding drugs and so on. Tis a pity that on this thread abuse has been predominent rather than reason.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> When the abuse does not obscure the rational argument (IE most of the time) Blagsta coms out with some quite well informed opinion regarding drugs and so on. Tis a pity that on this thread abuse has been predominent rather than reason.



I agree, to be fair.  Maybe he's just having a bad weekend.  But enough of this, its *snadge* we really want to hear from innit?  Come on snadge, haven't the cops rousted you from your doorstep by now?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

Why do you want to hear from Snadge? He will just say something silly or threaten to hit you.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Why do you want to hear from Snadge? He will just say something silly or threaten to hit you.



Haven't you got it yet?  Snadge is in fact Brian Paddick, who has cunningly adopted the most unlikely disguise he can think of: an illiterate, maniacal, street-sleeping dwarf.  Under this alias, he is able to send us coded messages revealing his true intentions towards the borough of Lambeth.  Hence "snadge's" idiosyncratic grammar and syntax.  I worked it out ages ago, surprised it took you so long...


----------



## Isambard (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> In my opinion, lots of the so called benefits of Brixtons gentrification are outweighed by the pushing out of many of the long term residents.



That is true. 

I think the majority of those Brixtonites on here who are against the street dealing are fairly established long term residents of the area and are against gentrfication. I wouldn't describe them as "arrivistes".

I find it quite scary that you set the hurdle so high it seems people will "never" enjoy the right to speak about their local community as their motives will always be questioned. "No dogs, no Irish, no newbies" huh?

I don't want to get involved in the dicussion of individual posters, but I'll pose another question. Or make it a statement. 

Anyone who has ever taken a illegal drug has in the eyes of the law probably been a "dealer" at some time anway. Split a pill with a mate? Pass round some speed? Everyone's done it.






			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> Snadge is in fact Brian Paddick, who has cunningly adopted the most unlikely disguise he can think of: an illiterate, maniacal, street-sleeping dwarf.



Can you please cut the personal abuse?   Ta.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Haven't you got it yet?  Snadge is in fact Brian Paddick, who has cunningly adopted the most unlikely disguise he can think of: an illiterate, maniacal, street-sleeping dwarf.  Under this alias, he is able to send us coded messages revealing his true intentions towards the borough of Lambeth.  Hence "snadge's" idiosyncratic grammar and syntax.  I worked it out ages ago, surprised it took you so long...



Snadge does seem to possess a sense of the absurd, which is a start and a redeeming feature IMO.

Potty mouthed on this thread though!

Note to all Nimbyists:

Bought weed from friendly dealer on saturday but will try to organise purchase of an ounce for this month. better price and all that.


----------



## brix (Jan 23, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> Can you please cut the personal abuse?   Ta.



I agree! All the abuse is getting boring now.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 23, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> Anyone who has ever taken a illegal drug has in the eyes of the law probably been a "dealer" at some time anway. Split a pill with a mate? Pass round some speed? Everyone's done it.



And that is why they should not be calling for police, still less vigilante, action against other dealers.  What psychological phenomenon, what ideological mishap, do you think is required to prevent them from recognizing the *hypocrisy* of this stance?   For they most certainly do *not* recognize it, as this thread proves.  I have my own theories, as you know....


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> That is true.
> 
> I think the majority of those Brixtonites on here who are against the street dealing are fairly established long term residents of the area and are against gentrfication. I wouldn't describe them as "arrivistes".
> 
> ...



Have another read of the posts. Everyone has the "right" to say what they want about anything. Some peoples opinion may be undermined by their actions or previously expressed opinions.


Oh and slagging phil for abuse is just silly in the context of this thread, have you not noticed the abuse he has recieved?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Oh and slagging phil for abuse is just silly in the context of this thread, have you not noticed the abuse he has recieved?



Indeed.  Snadge has threatened serious physical violence against me more than once.  You can probably tell how scared I am.


----------



## brix (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Oh and slagging phil for abuse is just silly in the context of this thread, have you not noticed the abuse he has recieved?



I'm bored with the abuse in general.  I'm interested in the opinions expressed but you have to sort through so much childish mud-slinging to get to the points that people are making.  It's very dull.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

brix said:
			
		

> I'm bored with the abuse in general.  I'm interested in the opinions expressed but you have to sort through so much childish mud-slinging to get to the points that people are making.  It's very dull.




What we need is some sort of Opera browser that does not display the swear words!


----------



## Isambard (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Oh and slagging phil for abuse is just silly in the context of this thread, have you not noticed the abuse he has recieved?



Have I agreed with some of the stuff said to him or about him?
No.

I just happened to see his unpleasantries and asked him to stop them.
His use of supposed homelessness as a term of abuse and the abuse based on body size probably brush against the FAQs anyway.


The fixation (bordering on obscession)  on what some individuals may or may not have done in the past has done little to improve debate on the issues.


----------



## pooka (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> To sum up:
> 
> Carpet bagging gentrifiers, the majority white middle class, hate, fear and wish to "do something" with regard to the largely black suppliers of weed on Brixtons streets.
> Charming.



Carpet baggers? But we celebrate the fact that we live in a place with people from all over the globe - not just emigre northerners as you seem to imply Blagsta is. According to this, a quarter of London's population were born abroad. Presumably if you dismiss someone from up the M1 as a 'carpet-bagger', then those 1.75m have no right of opinion?

As for it being only middle-class whites who are pissed of with street dealing, can I suggest you go to the next meeting of these people, stick you hand up and say as much - see what response you get.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 23, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> I just happened to see his unpleasantries and asked him to stop them.  His use of supposed homelessness as a term of abuse and the abuse based on body size probably brush against the FAQs anyway.



Whereas threats of physical violence don't "brush against" the FAQ, they knock it over in the gutter and trample on its head.  I didn't see you asking snadge to "stop" then.  Where is your sense of perspective?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Haven't you got it yet?  Snadge is in fact Brian Paddick, who has cunningly adopted the most unlikely disguise he can think of: an illiterate, maniacal, street-sleeping dwarf.  Under this alias, he is able to send us coded messages revealing his true intentions towards the borough of Lambeth.  Hence "snadge's" idiosyncratic grammar and syntax.  I worked it out ages ago, surprised it took you so long...




On the same theme, it's entirely possible that "phildwyer" isn't Phil Dwyer, but really Dr David Starkey, hence the unsupported accusations, the reactionary arguments the general muddledness of thinking and the switching of arguments halfway through a point if it becomes convenient.  

Piss off back to Highbury, you Tudor-loving dwarven ponce!


----------



## Isambard (Jan 23, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I didn't see you asking snadge to "stop" then.  Where is your sense of perspective?



I don't remember seeing them, probably wouldn't have agreed with them.
It was your personal abuse and your earlier post that has very serious potential implications for an individual poster that I called you on.

Don't give me the "mummy mummy but all the other boys do it" routine huh.

Anyway:

Whole estates turned over to a "zone of tolerance" doesn't seem to have won a majority in favour, what about "shooting galleries" ?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

No one is obsessed least of all phil. 


```
The fixation (bordering on obscession) on what some individuals may or may not have done in the past has done little to improve debate on the issues.
```

It's perfectly reasonable to comment on peoples behaviour if it's relevant. I brought it up anyway not phil.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Says drug using carpet bagger from up north.



Pardon?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Pardon?



Which bit do you deny?!


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> After reading the weekends contributions, the story remains the same.
> 
> To sum up:
> 
> ...



Have you been reading the same thread I have?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Which bit do you deny?!



You've lost me.


----------



## pk (Jan 23, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Have you been reading the same thread I have?



Ignore Cherrybaby - he's/she's a previously banned troublemaker with nothing to add.

Possibly Annakey, I dunno.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You've lost me.




You are a carpet bagger
from up north not Brixton
who takes drugs (or used to)
is a hypocite.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Well when the person concerned is shouting abuse at another poster and dismissing their view out of hand because they don't live there, it's reasonable to point out that the abuser is a carpet bagger.



What the hell is a "carpetbagger"?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> This thread really is becoming very funny. My _interpretation_ is that drugs are OK for nice middle class people to take but not for anyone else. It's starting to read like the letters page of the daily mail. Scratch a liberal eh?



Have you been smoking crack yourself?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 23, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> Whole estates turned over to a "zone of tolerance" doesn't seem to have won a majority in favour, what about "shooting galleries" ?



You'd need quite a few of them though, wouldn't you?  About twenty for the whole of London, I'd say.  And it would be best if the drugs were also purchased in the vicinity, to encourage people to use the galleries, as they would be "jonesing" for their "fix" and unwilling to travel far. Then you'd need lots of attendent facilities, police, doctors, HIV-testers, counsellors on site, if it was to work.  That will take space too.  And do you have any idea how many junkies and hookers there are in London? An estate is about right if you ask me, and a large one at that.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> What the hell is a "carpetbagger"?



Someone who moves to a chaotic or poor area to take advantage of advantageous business opportunities.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Ignore Cherrybaby - he's/she's a previously banned troublemaker with nothing to add.
> 
> Possibly Annakey, I dunno.



I have much to add. You just seem to want to abuse people verbally and call for others to be assaulted or worse. The reality is though you are a big softy and you know it. Nothing wrong with that (in fact I prefer it) but you should stop calling for people to be killed because they deal drugs on the street, expecially given your context. 

Try engaging in the discussion rather than throwing abuse about and claiming nonsense.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Have you been smoking crack yourself?



Never touched it. Are you on MDMA today?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 23, 2006)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Someone who moves to a chaotic or poor area to take advantage of advantageous business opportunities.



Originated after the US Civil War, to refer to Northerners moving to and taking advantage of poor areas in the South.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Hence Blagsta et al think that only Brixton residents can have opinions about Brixton that have any validity.




Aaaah, you haven't been following the thread properly.  My objection to phil is that he is telling people what their everyday experience of Brixton is like, without actually having that everyday experience himself.  That is patronising.  But hey, you don't care, you're only here to shit stir.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Frankly Blagsta, I think that *you* have seriously misjudged your vocation as a "drugs worker."  You evidently have no ideas about how to solve the problem, and you react to perfectly sensible suggestions as to how that might be done with comical rage against what you see as encroachments on your territory, either professional or geographical.  That suggests to me a profound insecurity.  But prove me wrong: suggest where these tolearance "zones" might be located, I'm truly interested in your opinion.



What are you on about now?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Aaaah, you haven't been following the thread properly.  My objection to phil is that he is telling people what their everyday experience of Brixton is like, without actually having that everyday experience himself.  That is patronising.  But hey, you don't care, you're only here to shit stir.




I care a lot actually. You stressed earlier that you felt phil's views had little of no validity because he did not live in Brixton. You kept emphisising  his lack of Brixton credentials instead of debating the points raised. You don't come from Brixton either do you? Or even London?

I ask you again, are you on MDMA today? Or was it yesterday?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> [*]You are a carpet bagger



Whats one of them?




			
				cherrybaby said:
			
		

> [*]from up north not Brixton



Nope, I'm not from up north.




			
				cherrybaby said:
			
		

> [*][*]who takes drugs (or used to)



Not for over a year.




			
				cherrybaby said:
			
		

> [*][*][*]is a hypocite.



We're all hypocrites in one way or another.  What's your point, caller?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2006)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Someone who moves to a chaotic or poor area to take advantage of advantageous business opportunities.



Aaaah, right.  In that case, cherrybaby, you're way off the mark.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> I care a lot actually. You stressed earlier that you felt phil's views had little of no validity because he did not live in Brixton. You kept emphisising  his lack of Brixton credentials instead of debating the points raised.



Yep, you only want to shit stir and haven't read a word have you?




			
				cherrybaby said:
			
		

> You don't come from Brixton either do you? Or even London?



Dunno where you got that idea from.  I'm a Londoner, was born in London, grew up here and have lived here most of my life.




			
				cherrybaby said:
			
		

> I ask you again, are you on MDMA today? Or was it yesterday?



Not for over a year, thanks.  You?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

But bang on the head about the hypocrisy.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 23, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And it would be best if the drugs were also purchased in the vicinity, to encourage people to use the galleries, as they would be "jonesing" for their "fix" and unwilling to travel far. Then you'd need lots of attendent facilities, police, doctors, HIV-testers, counsellors on site, if it was to work.



One or 2 counsellors, one or 2 health workers. Certainly not the police.

Something like a cafe might be good. Keep the front as maybe a cafe/drop in centre with advice and referals and have a clean room at the back.

I'd be worried that the police would hang around the edge of the zone of tolerance / building maybe and try to nick people as there would be drugs in the vicinity.

Though I do know one drop in centre / methadone centre that is very near to a tube station hot spot for street dealing and apprently the users don't get drawn into that "scene"........


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> But bang on the head about the hypocrisy.



So you're wrong about everything apart from the fact that everyone is a hypocrite from time to time.  Well done.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So you're wrong about everything apart from the fact that everyone is a hypocrite from time to time.  Well done.



Oh come on, you ain't from Brixton are you? 

You "used" to take drugs but now don't.   

You agree with PK!


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Oh come on, you ain't from Brixton are you?



No, I'm not.  I am from London though and I live in Brixton.  So what?




			
				cherrybaby said:
			
		

> You "used" to take drugs but now don't.



and...what?




			
				cherrybaby said:
			
		

> You agree with PK!



I don't actually, I think he's way over the top when it comes to these debates and he knows it.


So, to recap - you're wrong again.  What's your point, caller?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

My point is:

You should not have slagged phil for not living in Brixton, he can comment if he wants
Play the ball not the man.


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> You are a carpet bagger
> from up north not Brixton
> who takes drugs (or used to)
> is a hypocite.


You seem very free and easy with the personal critiques, even if they are laughably inaccurate.

So how about you? Where are you from? Have you ever taken drugs? Are you a hypocrite?

Or can you only dish it out from behind a comfort blanket of anonymity?

Oh, and have you ever - perchance - posted here before under a different name?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> You seem very free and easy with the personal critiques, even if they are laughably inaccurate.
> 
> How about you? Where are you from? Have you ever taken drugs? Are you a hypocrite?
> 
> ...




Read the thread dumbass, the answers are all there if you can be bothered to look.


----------



## pooka (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> My point is:
> 
> You should not have slagged phil for not living in Brixton, he can comment if he wants
> Play the ball not the man.




I think phil can comment all he wants (even as a man with no bottom*), as anyone can, but he has to accept that his knowledge of the realities of day to day life in Brixton, or who is or who isn't tolerant of street dealing (and their motives), is going to be lacking when compared to people who live and/or work here day in, day out.

* How does he, err, sit?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

pooka said:
			
		

> I think fill can comment all he wants (even as a man with no bottom*), as anyone can, but he has to accept that his knowledge of the realities of day to day life in Brixton, or who is or who isn't tolerant of street dealing (and their motives), is going to be lacking when compared to people who live and/or work there day in, day out.




They may have less validity yes, but shouting at him that he has no right to express those opinions is wrong. Threatening to hit him is even more foolish.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> My point is:
> 
> You should not have slagged phil for not living in Brixton, he can comment if he wants
> Play the ball not the man.



You haven't been reading have you?  I had a go at phil because he is telling people who live here what their everyday experience is and what they should feel about it, and ignoring the views of the people who live here, from his comfy position as an academic on the other side of the atlantic.  Personally I find that offensive and patronising.


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Read the thread dumbass, the answers are all there if you can be bothered to look.


How about you answer the questions, please?


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> How about you answer the questions, please?



Again, read the thread to answer your questions.


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Again, read the thread to answer your questions.


Let me reword it: I've received a number of reported posts about your conduct here with people suggesting that your posts - and knowledge of posters - suggest that you are not the newbie that your join date suggests.

Seeing as I haven't time to trawl through a 48 page thread, I'd like you to tell me if you've posted here under a different name please.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> So who the fuck are you?



A lack of politeness is a poor show.


----------



## pk (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> A lack of politeness is a poor show.



So is wriggling out of answering a simple question - have you posted here before?


----------



## pk (Jan 23, 2006)

Oh look, he's run away again... he'll be back again in 30 minutes... "what question? I didn't see it!"


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> So is wriggling out of answering a simple question - have you posted here before?



That syndicate, what was it again?


----------



## pk (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> That syndicate, what was it again?



Have you posted here before?

Try answering the question and you won't look like such a cowardly dickhead.


----------



## pk (Jan 23, 2006)

*Cherrybaby's clearly found something else to do for a while*


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Have you posted here before?
> 
> Try answering the question and you won't look like such a cowardly dickhead.



So for the record, that syndicate of yours, what did it trade in?

Come on and answer you cowardly custard.


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> A lack of politeness is a poor show.


I've no idea where you're getting that quote from. Could you give it some context please?

Talking of impoliteness, I'd say that you calling me a "dumbass" less than an hour ago is a good example as of someone putting on a "poor show", as is your continuing refusal to answer a civil question.


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

Well if you refrained from being rude as I have shown with the quote above, then you may have got a polite, prompt response.


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Well if you refrained from being rude as I have shown with the quote above, then you may have got a polite, prompt response.


Please answer my questions.

I'm not going to ask again, politely or otherwise.


----------



## Jessiedog (Jan 23, 2006)

Oh dear.......

 






































*cracks a new bag of doggie treats*

 

Woof


----------



## cherrybaby (Jan 23, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Please answer my questions.
> 
> I'm not going to ask again, politely or otherwise.




Read the thread, I won't bother saying this again.


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Read the thread, I won't bother saying this again.


I think it's time to put you out of your misery as I can't bear to see you squirm any longer.

It's obvious by your 'too-knowing' references to other posters, the host of reported posts you've generated and your never-ending wriggle here that you're another tedious returner looking for attention.

So it's bye bye! (again)


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 23, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> One or 2 counsellors, one or 2 health workers. Certainly not the police.
> 
> Something like a cafe might be good. Keep the front as maybe a cafe/drop in centre with advice and referals and have a clean room at the back.
> 
> I'd be worried that the police would hang around the edge of the zone of tolerance / building maybe and try to nick people as there would be drugs in the vicinity.



Well obviously the police wouldn't nick people going in or out of the "zone," for that would defeat the purpose.  And I do think the police should patrol *within* the "zone" itself, because otherwise it would surely be rife with crime.  it would be fine to have cafes, and even pubs, there too, as you suggest.  But a sinlge "clean room" simply would not be enough.  At least fifteen, and probably more like twenty would be required.  In addition, I would like to see prostitution confined within the same "zone," so you'd have to have rooms for them, a la Amsterdam.  So I really don't see how anything smaller than a medium-sized estate could possibly be contemplated.


----------



## pk (Jan 23, 2006)

cherrybaby said:
			
		

> Read the thread, I won't bother saying this again.



You won't be able to say it again, either.

 *pk in "smug mode"*

What "syndicate" was he on about anyway? - I have no idea... anyone else?


----------



## Isambard (Jan 23, 2006)

No one has ever suggested that one facility would be enough. In the case of London, I could certainly imagine one facility per Borough or so and that would top 30. Making local facilities available would hopefully reduce the feeling among (say) some Brixton residents that all the problems of other areas are being dumped on them.

There’s certainly a link between drug abuse and prostitution.

To try and prevent the 2 feeding off each other I’d opt for the physical sepeartion of clean shooting facilities / counselling and areas where prostitution is tolerated. To avoid the negative effects of kerb crawling etc on local residents etc I’d suggest moving the areas for permissible street prostitution to the edges of towns, industrial estate etc. I think a certain level of police presence would be essential because of the relative danger to women who do street prostitution.

Hotel and brothel prostitution are safer; there’s a debate to be had how much that should be tolerated or even fully legalised in towns and cities. It is of course clear that women who are abusing drugs are most likely to operate as prostitutes at the “lower” end of the scale.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2006)

On and off, I've read pages 5 to 48 of this thread over the last few days. Nightmare!!! I don't really want to say much (for now) on the substance of the debate, because I agree with a lot of the substantive points that Blags, TeeJay, etc. made more than I do phildwyer's and I really, *really* haven't got the time to get on the wrong side of _him_ 

<edit to add> and Isambard is talking good sense too.

Strikes me that the mask of 'cherrybaby' has been slipping quite badly in the recent pages  -- he seems to know -- or claim to know -- far too many personalised details of various posters for a newbie.

But the biggest clue was that 'scratch a liberal' sideswipe. Think about it.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 23, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> No one has ever suggested that one facility would be enough. In the case of London, I could certainly imagine one facility per Borough or so and that would top 30. Making local facilities available would hopefully reduce the feeling among (say) some Brixton residents that all the problems of other areas are being dumped on them.
> 
> There’s certainly a link between drug abuse and prostitution.
> 
> ...



I think it would be better to concentrate *all* the drug dealing and prostitution in one space.  Problems with having thirty or more different spaces include the fact that the activities you are trying to confine will leak out, that nowhere in London would be far from a "tolerance zone," and that providing the police and services necessary would be far more expensive.  I wouldn't separate the drugs from the prostitution either, becuase most prostititues are junkies, and they would have to keep going from the prostitution "zone" to the drugs "zone" and back.   No, better to combine it all in one place.  I have in mind a combination of Amsterdam's Red Light District and Zurich's Needle Park, and I believe that an evacuated housing estate is the only possible venue for such a place.


----------



## flimsier (Jan 23, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> On and off, I've read pages 5 to 48 of this thread over the last few days. Nightmare!!! I don't really want to say much (for now) on the substance of the debate, because I agree with a lot of the substantive points that Blags, TeeJay, etc. made more than I do phildwyer's and I really, *really* haven't got the time to get on the wrong side of _him_
> 
> <edit to add> and Isambard is talking good sense too.
> 
> ...



You're obsessed. 

edited: Actually, why don't you tell us who it is then?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 23, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> You're obsessed.
> 
> edited: Actually, why don't you tell us who it is then?



Yes, do!  Are you implying he's Ernesto?


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> edited: Actually, why don't you tell us who it is then?


What does it matter? The poster has been banned. 

Can't you stay on topic now?


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes, do!  Are you implying he's Ernesto?


Does it really matter what his _guess_ is?


----------



## flimsier (Jan 23, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Does it really matter what his _guess_ is?



It matter because he is speculating, _again_ about someone with no right of reply on here.

And getting it wrong. Again.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> You're obsessed.
> 
> And wrong.



Why are you so sure? Do **YOU** know 'cherrybaby' is/was?

And noone else was ever obsessed in the past with 'liberal' baiting, far more obsessed than I and others ever were with finding it a complete pain in the arse?

In attacking me, and ignoring what the poster I named is getting up to, you're as good as defending the indefensible.

Such as : people who remain obsessed with returning here under various new IDs to have suspiciously overfamiliar digs at particular posters?

And you don't think cherrybaby's been behaving badly in this thread?

I MAY (possibly) be wrong about the ID -- it's not in my power to prove it either way --  I'm certainly not wrong about the trolling. If 'cherrybaby' isn't who I think it is, he'd be better off avoiding said person's usual tricks ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2006)

Just seen the above exchange. Will edit or delete if thats what's instructed.

Until then : I still think flimsier's conviction that it wasn't who I speculated it was is less firmly based than he imagines.


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> It matter because he is speculating, _again_ about someone with no right of reply on here.


If that's the case, why did you actively _pursue_ the matter and try and coax a name out of him instead of just ignoring it?

Mind you, don't you think that if a certain admin from another board didn't make a habit of regularly re-registering here just to stir up shit again and again there'd be a less distrustful atmosphere?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2006)

If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will PM me telling me why 

The editor's right -- it was a speculative guess on my part. Which flimsier is wrong to ASSUME is entirely without foundation.


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> If 'cherrybaby' isn't who I think it is, he'd be better off avoiding said person's usual tricks ...


cheerybaby is banned so there's no point speculating any further, to be honest.


----------



## pk (Jan 23, 2006)

If it was Daffy the Twat, then he is the obsessed one...

All this talk of "syndicates"... perhaps he was consulting his "files" - you remember, the archives of these boards which must be in the gigabytes...

And Flimsier has the nerve to accuse others of being obsessed... bless him, he's like a little lost dog without his Master...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2006)

*>>editor*

OK ....

Sorry for derail.


----------



## flimsier (Jan 23, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Why are you so sure? Do **YOU** know 'cherrybaby' is/was?
> 
> And noone else was ever obsessed in the past with 'liberal' baiting, far more obsessed than I and others ever were with finding it a complete pain in the arse?
> 
> ...



Yes, I know who it is, so why are you accusing someone when you don't know? Especially when they can't reply.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 23, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I think it would be better to concentrate *all* the drug dealing and prostitution in one space.  Problems with having thirty or more different spaces include the fact that the activities you are trying to confine will leak out, that nowhere in London would be far from a "tolerance zone," and that providing the police and services necessary would be far more expensive.




o in theory you’d have to travel from Uxbridge or Walthamstow to (say) Brixton to get the benefit of access to safe clean facilities where you could take your drugs, exchange needles, access counselling and health services? 

The fact is that the “anti-social” drug use is already widespread, not just across London but across many towns and cities. It can’t be “contained” in one or even half a dozen empties housing estates. 

Providing health and counselling services at more local facilities would be not necessarily more expensive than doing it en masse. The whole compensation / forced re-settling issue doesn’t even occur. The provider of the centre just rents appropriate premises. A café down my street has been turned into a drop in centre specificly aimed at women drug users.






			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> becuase most prostititues are junkies




That is debateable. Off the top of my head, of the first 5 prostitutes I can think of I know, only 1 was abusing Class As.






			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> I have in mind a combination of Amsterdam's Red Light District and Zurich's Needle Park



You do know that there is more prostitution in Amsterdam than the famous red light district and as has already been pointed out to you, Zurich / Switzerland has had a re-think on its tolerance of a central point for people to do heroin etc.


----------



## flimsier (Jan 23, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will PM me telling me why
> 
> The editor's right -- it was a speculative guess on my part. Which flimsier is wrong to ASSUME is entirely without foundation.



Err, completely without foundation.


----------



## flimsier (Jan 23, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> If that's the case, why did you actively _pursue_ the matter and try and coax a name out of him instead of just ignoring it?
> 
> Mind you, don't you think that if a certain admin from another board didn't make a habit of regularly re-registering here just to stir up shit again and again there'd be a less distrustful atmosphere?



Because it was obvious who he was referring to, and he was being a cunt in doing so.


----------



## pk (Jan 23, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Yes, I know who it is, so why are you accusing someone when you don't know? Especially when they can't reply.



You know who it was?? Who?

Yap yap!!

Little mongrel Flimsier, tail wagging, waiting once again to be fed scraps from the table...

Awww, how sweet...

Shame you're doing your best to assist certain twat members of the trollinggang to disrupt these boards - hey, why don't you disassociate yourself from your twat persona here permanently?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2006)

Can this thread be locked now? It's well boring.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2006)

You are refusing to concede that I might have had grounds to think so though. 

Even *if* I am wrong about the particular ID in this instance.

If it's not one banned ex Urbanite, it's another, as you seem to have just conceded.


----------



## flimsier (Jan 23, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Shame you're doing your best to assist certain twat members of the trollinggang to disrupt these boards - hey, why don't you disassociate yourself from your twat persona here permanently?



I'll do that when you do so.

As for the first bit, what the fuck are you talking about?

Who? Not ern. That's enough for you to know.


----------



## flimsier (Jan 23, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> You are refusing to concede that I might have had grounds to think so though.
> 
> Even *if* I am wrong about the particular ID in this instance.
> 
> If it's not one banned ex Urbanite, it's another, as you seem to have just conceded.



Do you wake up in a cold sweat worried about ern being about?


----------



## pk (Jan 23, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> I'll do that when you do so.
> 
> As for the first bit, what the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> Who? Not ern. That's enough for you to know.



I've never trolled thetrollinggang boards - unlike Daffy the Twat.

So you don't want to reveal who it is??

Maybe it's Bradfords biggest numpty instead then... either way - you're complicit in the trolling, so maybe Urban75 is no longer the place for you anymore....


----------



## pk (Jan 23, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Do you wake up in a cold sweat worried about ern being about?



 

Yeah, that's likely...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Because it was obvious who he was referring to, and he was being a cunt in doing so.




And cherrybaby was behaving entirely impeccably in this thread, no doubt.

If I'm wrong about cherrybaby being ex poster x, then that's only (it seems) because it was ex poster y instead. Presumably someone banned from these forums in the past for whatever badly behaved reason -- behaviour you almost never see fit to criticise. It's all the mods fault as far as you're concerned.


----------



## flimsier (Jan 23, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> And cherrybaby was behaving entirely impeccably in this thread, no doubt.
> 
> If I'm wrong about cherrybaby being ex poster x, then that's only (it seems) because it was ex poster y instead. Presumably someone banned from these forums in the past for whatevcr badly behaved reason -- behaviour you almost never see fit to criticise. It's all the mods fault as far as you're concerned.



So your apology to poster x?


----------



## pk (Jan 23, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I don't actually, I think he's way over the top when it comes to these debates and he knows it.



Blagsta - I don't think I've been "way over the top" on this thread at all, actually... do you?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Do you wake up in a cold sweat worried about ern being about?



Do you, about the sainted one getting unfairly criticised? You seem ever determined to spring to his defence.


----------



## pk (Jan 23, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> So your apology to poster x?



Yap yap!... grrrr....how dare anyone criticise my master... yap yap!

As if anyone's going to take YOUR word for it that it wasn't Daffy the Twat... if it were anyone else, you'd be the last to know...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 23, 2006)

Is any of this really helping anything at all? I think the answer to that is "no".


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2006)

This thread had strayed way beyond its original discussion

Bin please!


I reckon a thread should get binned as soon as goes beyong arguing into arguing about arguing


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> So your apology to poster x?



How about his to me? And to all the other Urbanites he's serially pissed off?He owes plenty of apologies all round, for his past conduct.

Conduct you implicitly condone by ONLY ever attacking his critics.  Principally myself, as if I'm the one you seem to think principally responsible for getting him banned from here. His own behaviour had sod all to do with it no doubt ...


----------



## pk (Jan 23, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Is any of this really helping anything at all? I think the answer to that is "no".



I think after this topic was derailed to a laughable degree by the plainly bonkers Phildwyer... at 50 pages long it's now at a suitable juncture for slagging off Flimsier's uncanny imitation of a lapdog... I reckon.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Is any of this really helping anything at all? I think the answer to that is "no".



Apologies. I'm off home now.

But you can see for yourself that I'm not solely responsible for continuing the off topic theme -- I wanted to abandon it a while ago.

Don't bin it - not necessary. I can stay away for the moment.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2006)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> This thread had strayed way beyond its original discussion
> 
> Bin please!
> 
> ...



I do sincerely apologise to you (on flimsier's behalf) for you finding all this boring ...  

Off home now ...


----------



## Crispy (Jan 23, 2006)

Last in, and stamping up and down on it to crush it all in as well.


----------



## tarannau (Jan 23, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Last in, and stamping up and down on it to crush it all in as well.



I have never been last in the bin. ME ME ME>...


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2006)

After you....


----------



## tarannau (Jan 23, 2006)

No good sirrah. Let's elevate the politeness quotient of the Brixton forum. After you...


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2006)

It's very mild for this time of year isn't it?


----------



## tarannau (Jan 23, 2006)

Yes, 'tis, tisn't it? 

I have big bollies, I mean brollies, to cover every eventuality.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 23, 2006)

Oh, hang on. Can I sort out the recyclables first?


----------



## Isambard (Jan 23, 2006)

Is a bit disapointed how this thread has turned out.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2006)

May I apologise YET AGAIN  on behalf of other people who've been trolling, derailing and disrupting this thread?? My apologies (in the abssence of any from those who should be giving them) are issued on behalf of these trolls and their self-appointed kneejerk-defender,  the latter with his demands from me for apologies to an (admittedly misidentified) banned ex poster, accusations of 'obsession'  and such like?

Obviously ***all my fault*** for failing to ignore said disruptors .....

  x 1000

Fucking fence sitting 'neutrality' in such cases really pisses me off. 
It's quite fucking clear who's really responsible!


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> Is a bit disapointed how this thread has turned out.




Agreed. So apply responsibility where it really belongs ....


----------



## Crispy (Jan 23, 2006)

*Tamps down the final layer of WoW-mulch*

This thread'll compost up nicely


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 23, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> May I apologise YET AGAIN  on behalf of other people who've been trolling, derailing and disrupting this thread?? My apologies (in the abssence of any from those who should be giving them) are issued on behalf of these trolls and their self-appointed kneejerk-defender,  the latter with his demands from me for apologies to an (admittedly misidentified) banned ex poster, accusations of 'obsession'  and such like?




Now I'm *really* confused.  Who are the trolls, who is their self-appointed kneejerk defender, who is the misidentified banned ex-poster, as whom was he misidentitifed, by whom, and why are you apologizing on his behalf, rather than apologizing *to* him as, according to you, he has asked you to do?  And why did he ask you to do that anyway?  If you'd just clear up these small matters we can all move on...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2006)

I'm not going to argue with you. Have a nice .... next few hours ....


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> *Tamps down the final layer of WoW-mulch*
> 
> This thread'll compost up nicely



I've had my rant. All over


----------



## pk (Jan 23, 2006)

Just for the record - I don't apologise for anything I may have said on this thread whatsoever.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 23, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Just for the record - I don't apologise for anything I may have said on this thread whatsoever.



Dude, someday, we'll have a few beers and an arm wrestling match.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 24, 2006)

*Turns over a few forkfuls to give the rosebeds a boost for spring*


----------



## Isambard (Jan 24, 2006)

WoW, no worries mate, see you for a real ale-ification next week if that isn't too "carpet-bagging"


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Just for the record - I don't apologise for anything I may have said on this thread whatsoever.



Did anyone ask you to?


----------



## pk (Jan 24, 2006)

Phildwyer the crackhead said:
			
		

> Did anyone ask you to?



Er, yeah, you did, unless you were enjoying le high of le crack that much you forgot all your previous posts, specifically post number 303...




			
				Phildwyer the king of white-pipes said:
			
		

> And finally, either justify this claim or retract it, *with an apology*.



Are you going to apologise for asking if anyone asked me to apologise when it was you demanding an apology?

Well?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

pk the crack dealer said:
			
		

> Are you going to apologise for asking if anyone asked me to apologise when it was you demanding an apology?



I'll certainly think about it.


----------



## editor (Jan 24, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Are you going to apologise for asking if anyone asked me to apologise when it was you demanding an apology?


I wouldn't fancy trying to say that after ten pints, least understand it.


----------



## pk (Jan 24, 2006)

editor the dread-smoker said:
			
		

> I wouldn't fancy trying to say that after ten pints, least understand it.



Typing it is far easier, thanks to the wonders of modern word processing computer technology, and the edit function.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 24, 2006)

i notice this



			
				Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> 1.) it is by no means clear that tolerence zones will have any impact on agresive dealing , people running scams or drug related theft/mugging
> 
> 2.) it is by no means clear that tolerence zones are sucsesfull as all the other worldwide projects have had mixed results
> 
> ...


never got responded to


----------



## pk (Jan 24, 2006)

phildwyer the one who is so cracky-up he thinks insects are crawling through his skin said:
			
		

> I'll certainly think about it.



You do that.

He who dares, Rodders, he who dares my son...


----------



## pk (Jan 24, 2006)

Shipping-large-amounts-of-Chang-to-Brixton-in-order-to-pay-for-his-all-consuming-Manga-addiction said:
			
		

> i notice this
> 
> never got responded to



He's all piped up like a Hamlin playa, you get mi?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 24, 2006)

*walk around muttering "chang? chang?" to people*


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> *walk around muttering "chang? chang?" to people*



Where does that come from anyway?  Is it from *Charlie* Chan or what?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 24, 2006)

errr  never heard of it before to be honest

perhaps it's related to cake


----------



## Andy the Don (Jan 24, 2006)

51 pages & still going strong..

If people put this much effort into sorting out the girl the thread is about, as they have conducting their own little battles. She would be off the streets, clean, housed, have had adult eductaion & in employment by now..


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 24, 2006)

sitting at home  watching anime and ocationally posting on this thread  is probably not enough effort  to give her all that ...  give it another 100 or so pages though and i mayu have expended the amout of effort  it would take to get her a sandwitch (and a nice m&s one too  not  a crap corner shop one)


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 24, 2006)

Andy the Don said:
			
		

> 51 pages & still going strong..
> 
> If people put this much effort into sorting out the girl the thread is about, as they have conducting their own little battles. She would be off the streets, clean, housed, have had adult eductaion & in employment by now..



A tad harsh I feel!


----------



## Isambard (Jan 24, 2006)

Andy the Don said:
			
		

> If people put this much effort into sorting out the girl the thread is about, as they have conducting their own little battles. She would be off the streets, clean, housed, have had adult eductaion & in employment by now..




The girl isn't in that situation as a result of whatever we do on here and little we can do can fundamentally the situtation immediately. She is there and otehrs like there stay there becasue of the society we live in.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2006)

Andy the Don said:
			
		

> 51 pages & still going strong..
> 
> If people put this much effort into sorting out the girl the thread is about, as they have conducting their own little battles. She would be off the streets, clean, housed, have had adult eductaion & in employment by now..



You think?  How touchingly naive.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> sitting at home  watching anime and ocationally posting on this thread  is probably not enough effort  to give her all that ...  give it another 100 or so pages though and i mayu have expended the amout of effort  it would take to get her a sandwitch (and a nice m&s one too  not  a crap corner shop one)



I don't think she'd be too pleased if you lot all turned up and tried to buy her a sandwich. Try it if you like though, let me know how it goes.


----------



## Andy the Don (Jan 24, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You think?  How touchingly naive.



"Some say I'm dreamer.."


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 24, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I don't think she'd be too pleased if you lot all turned up and tried to buy her a sandwich. Try it if you like though, let me know how it goes.



you think she more of a  soup and salad person?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 24, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> WoW, no worries mate, see you for a real ale-ification next week if that isn't too "carpet-bagging"



Missed this earlier.

Yep, we're definitely up for the 2nd, see you then. Sorry I lost it a bit last night, but you know how it goes


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I don't think she'd be too pleased if you lot all turned up and tried to buy her a sandwich. Try it if you like though, let me know how it goes.



She'd be even less pleased if you came along and patronised her to death I reckon.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 24, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> She'd be even less pleased if you came along and patronised her to death I reckon.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> you think she more of a  soup and salad person?



I suspect she's more of a smack'n'crack person, but PK would be the one to help her out there.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 24, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> <Deleted libellous allegation>



<snip> OUT-FUCKING RAGEOUS !   

I just want to save this in case Phildwyer sneakily tries to remove it.
I'll delete later.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 24, 2006)

*Bang out of order, that!*




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> <slanderous, out of order abuse temporarily deleted -- in the vain hope that phil might consider deleting the original stuff from post 1280>



Careful now!!


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 24, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> <snip> OUT-FUCKING RAGEOUS !
> 
> I just want to save this in case Phildwyer sneakily tries to remove it.
> I'll delete later.



Same -- I'll delete if necessary, but that the LAST EVER time you'll be able to pose on this thread as an unfairly injured, unreasonably attacked innocent, pd.

Bang out of order!


----------



## Isambard (Jan 24, 2006)

I VERY rarely report posts. I usually save it for out and out fascists and racist shit on the boards. I reported that one.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Same -- I'll delete if necessary, but that the LAST EVER time you'll be able to pose on this thread as an unfairly injured, unreasonably attacked innocent, pd.
> 
> Bang out of order!



Check out PK's post 1259 from last night.  And in general, William, you should read the whole thread before commenting on people's behavior.  I've never been the instigator or the escalator of the insults round here. As you'll see if you check out the history.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 24, 2006)

*From post 1204, page 49*




			
				William of Walworth said:
			
		

> On and off, I've read pages 5 to 48 of this thread over the last few days. Nightmare!!!



Suggest YOU read this thread properly.   

I have, and in general, you've caused far more offence than you've attracted, IMO.

I also know I'm not alone in concluding that.

And stop trying to divert -- that was an OUTRAGEOUS thing you posted just above, on any level. Nothing justifies it. 


(Yes, I did see pk's post, and that was out of order AS WELL)


----------



## Isambard (Jan 24, 2006)

In post 1259 PK asked if you were smoking crack. It's become a fairly common, more and more mild insult for someone beleived to be talking rubbish.

It is is NOT the same as alleging someone is currently dealing heroin and crack on the streets of Brixton! 

Jesus, you are dangerous!


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> And stop trying to divert -- that was an OUTRAGEOUS thing you posted just above, on any level. Nothing justifies it.



Have youl also reported post 1259?  If not, I'd like to know why.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 24, 2006)

Phildwyer's post 1280 above, reported.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> In post 1259 PK asked if you were smoking crack.



Liar.  PK headed that post "Phildwyer the crackhead."  An allegation which he repeated in several following posts.  I trust you've reported him too?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 24, 2006)

Fuck's sake (for the _n_th time today).

If people will _kindly_ stop calling each other crackheads and crack dealers and behave like grownups...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 24, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Liar.  PK headed that post "Phildwyer the crackhead."  An allegation which he repeated in several following posts.  I trust you've reported him too?




Stop trying to wriggle out of it. You have _specifically_ suggested he's (now, currently, and contrary to ALL known facts) a crack and smack dealer

PK is frequently out of order on here, that particular example I just put down to his usual exaggeration/hyperbole. I wouldn't be surprised if someone hasn't reported that by now. If you feel that strongly about it, either take him on directly about it, or report it yourself.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> (Yes, I did see pk's post, and that was out of order AS WELL)



Did you report it?  Did you note that it preceded mine in your evaluation of the situation?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 24, 2006)

A warning's been issued I now see.

I'm not in need of that particular warning. Others might be ...


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> PK is frequently out of order on here, that particular example I just put down to his usual exaggeration/hyperbole. I wouldn't be surprised if someone hasn't reported that by now. If you feel that strongly about it, either take him on directly about it, or report it yourself.



I don't report posts.  But I will retaliate if someone insults me.  William, you *know* you're wrong here: PK chose to escalate the situation by repeatedly calling me a crackhead, and he got what he deserved.  Good.  End of.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 24, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Did you report it?  Did you note that it preceded mine in your evaluation of the situation?




Anything to say about YOUR out of orderness ?

(See also rest of my post above).

I didn't report pk's post. Neither have I defended it. But why should I be the focus of your distraction-seeking faux-indignation though? I'm not the one going round slinging slanderous accusations.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 24, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I don't report posts.  But I will retaliate if someone insults me.  William, you *know* you're wrong here: PK chose to escalate the situation by repeatedly calling me a crackhead, and he got what he deserved.  Good.  End of.



Is that your response to Fridgemagnet too?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> I didn't report pk's post. Neither have I defended it. But why should I be the focus of your distraction-seeking faux-indignation though? I'm not the one going round slinging slanderous accusations.



No, you're the one reporting posts without bothering to put them into context.  PK was looking for a fight, as he very often does, and he found it.  Good.  End of.  He's more than capable of fighting his own battles, incidentally.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 24, 2006)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Isambard (Jan 24, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Liar.  PK headed that post "Phildwyer the crackhead."  An allegation which he repeated in several following posts.



I object to being called a liar. Fuck off.   

There was no such headline when I just read the post 1259.

You accused PK of dealing crack and heroin on the streets of Brixton as of now. PK may well be abrasive and I don't always he agree with his posts.

Your post was malicious and dangerous. Context has NOTHING to do withi it!

Like I said, I generally only report fascist and racist posts so the fact I made a rare trip to the report button for your post shows just how close to the bottom of the barrell it was.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Is that your response to Fridgemagnet too?



My reponse to Fridgemagnet, as always, is to obey his instructions.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> I object to being called a liar. Fuck off.
> 
> There was no such headline when I just read the post 1259.




OK, let's give you the benefit of the doubt.  You're not a liar, you made a mistake.  I take it that you now *do* see the headline of PK's post 1259.  Have you reported it?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 24, 2006)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz



Neutrality of that sort is very irritating you know. Best post nothing, if you really think Isambard (for e.g.  ) and phildwyer are being equally out of order at the moment ...


----------



## Crispy (Jan 24, 2006)

Just let it go guys, let it go. It's all, like, the same in the end man. Y'know? We're all stardust, man, and we'll end up dust, so, like, chill - really chiiill.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Just let it go guys, let it go. It's all, like, the same in the end man. Y'know? We're all stardust, man, and we'll end up dust, so, like, chill - really chiiill.



Crackhead!


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 24, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No, you're the one reporting posts without bothering to put them into context.  PK was looking for a fight, as he very often does, and he found it.  Good.  End of.  He's more than capable of fighting his own battles, incidentally.






			
				Isambard said:
			
		

> You accused PK of dealing crack and heroin on the streets of Brixton as of now. PK may well be abrasive and I don't always he agree with his posts.
> 
> Your post was malicious and dangerous. Context has NOTHING to do withi it!
> 
> Like I said, I generally only report fascist and racist posts so the fact I made a rare trip to the report button for your post shows just how close to the bottom of the barrell it was.



Isambard's right and you're wrong phil. Just accept it. Bottom of the barrell is right.

You've been getting stuck into arguments throughout this thread from beginning to end, if you really think that you're free of any responsibility yourself (however OTT others may also have been) then you're both deluded and arrogant.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 24, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Neutrality of that sort is very irritating you know. Best post nothing, if you really think Isambard (for e.g.  ) and phildwyer are being equally out of order at the moment ...


I'm subscribed to this thread and it keeps popping up at the top. Nothing is being said here that hasn't been said before or is worth saying at all.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz is just a more succinct way of putting it.


Bin bin bin bin


I might suggest to the editor that he changes the rules and bans boring posters and bins boring threads.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Isambard's right and you're wrong phil. Just accept it. Bottom of the barrell is right.
> 
> You've been getting stuck into arguments throughout this thread from beginning to end, if you really think that you're free of any responsibility yourself (however OTT others may also have been) then you're both deluded and arrogant.



What would you do if someone repeatedly called you a crackhead on here?


----------



## Isambard (Jan 24, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I take it that you now *do* see the headline of PK's post 1259.  Have you reported it?




Oh I see it now. 
I don't agree with it and it against the FAQs.
But no, I havent reported it and don't intend to.

Anyway, back to the issue of the thread heh.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> Oh I see it now.
> I don't agree with it and it against the FAQs.
> But no, I havent reported it and don't intend to.



Thank you.  You might also note that the allegation is repeated, and indeed amplified, in several of PK's following posts.  Whether or not you choose to report them is of course a matter for your discretion.  But you will appreciate that I am bound to wonder about your motivation.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 24, 2006)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I might suggest to the editor that he changes the rules and bans boring posters and bins boring threads.



Can of worms, that one!   




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> What would you do if someone repeatedly called you a crackhead on here?



I'd certainly avoid suggesting, slanderously, that they're a crack *dealer*


But from now on, I'll try and stay out of the latest sub-argument ... as far as possible anyway ...


----------



## Isambard (Jan 24, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But you will appreciate that I am bound to wonder about your motivation.



My motivation was that your point was probably the most malicious and dangerous I have read on urban in a long time whereas PK's were "merely" cheap mudslinging that breaks the FAQs.


Is it me or are there seemingly more and more muggings happening in Brixton right now? These are related to crack use right, people not getting he money from begging or robbing houses?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> My motivation was that your point was probably the most malicious and dangerous I have read on urban in a long time whereas PK's were "merely" cheap mudslinging that breaks the FAQs.
> 
> 
> Is it me or are there seemingly more and more muggings happening in Brixton right now? These are related to crack use right, people not getting he money from begging or robbing houses?



I'm afraid I fail to see the moral distinction between calling someone a crackhead and calling them a crack dealer.  As I see it, the pertinant factor in any moral evaluation of the situation must be which party began the escalation.  And it this case, the evidence is perfectly clear: it was PK and not I.  As to your more substantive point: yes, the increase in muggings is a direct result of the crack epidemic.  Have you any suggestions as to how that epidemic might be allevaited?  I certainly have.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 24, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'm afraid I fail to see the moral distinction between calling someone a crackhead and calling them a crack dealer.



Then look in a dictionary.





			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> Have you any suggestions as to how that epidemic might be allevaited?



I've already outlined that I am in favour of small local clean rooms coupled with health and counselling services and tha getting people off destructive use of drugs is about a general change in society. 

I'm in favour of free heroin on prescription for addicts, I'm not so sure on crack. I'd be interested to hearing peoples thoughts on crack.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> I'm in favour of free heroin on prescription for addicts, I'm not so sure on crack. I'd be interested to hearing peoples thoughts on crack.



I don't think it should be given out gratis, but I think it should be decriminalized.  I believe that prohibition *always* increases the prevelence of what it seeks to prohibit.  I further believe that this is in fact its intended purpose.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> I'd certainly avoid suggesting, slanderously, that they're a crack *dealer*



Well, what *would* you do?  Ignore it?  In which case it simply gets repeated again and again.  Deny it?  In which case you find yourself in a "do your still beat your wife" scenario.  Report it?  In which case you look pathetic.  And yet surely you would want to do *something* to make these vile allegations stop.  What *would* you do?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 24, 2006)

Are you have fun having a pointless tiresome argument? Cos no-one else is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I don't report posts.



Correct me if I'm wrong Phil, but couldn't Teejay testify to the *ahem* "incorrectness" of that statement?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What would you do if someone repeatedly called you a crackhead on here?



I'd say PBman was back. he must have called at least 75% of all vaguely leftwing posters on Urban "crackhead" or enquired whether they'd been smoking crack during his time here.

What would I do? Disregard it or say something along the lines of "I may be a crackhead, but *I'm* not the one who pimps his momma to support his habit".


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> What would I do? Disregard it or say something along the lines of "I may be a crackhead, but *I'm* not the one who pimps his momma to support his habit".



And that, Sir, is precisely what I did.  The defence rests.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 24, 2006)

Guys,
PhilDwyer is deliberately winding people up. He is getting off on causing offence. Go through his posts and see what I mean. Don't rise to it. 
Just pretend he isn't there and he will probably go away.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 24, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> Guys,
> PhilDwyer is deliberately winding people up. He is getting off on causing offence. Go through his posts and see what I mean. Don't rise to it.
> Just pretend he isn't there and he will probably go away.



This is known, and it was one of the reasons I avoided (up til the latest windup post) getting into a ruck with him. He tried to wind me up last night in pretending to misunderstand one of my earlier posts, but I REFUSED to respond, not something I'm particularly good at generally 

But it's obvious from earlier in the thread the futilility of getting into rows with him.

The latest spat-posts from him (following the controversial one) simply prove the same point, with zero admission from him that he was in any way out of order, or in any way responsible for anything at all. Everything is always  other peoples' fault.

Apologies to others for failing to disengage this time


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> He tried to wind me up last night in pretending to misunderstand one of my earlier posts, but I REFUSED to respond, not something I'm particularly good at generally



What are you droning on about now?  There was no such incident.  If you really want to let it drop, let it drop.  Don't keep dredging up imagined slights with no evidence to back them up.  It is pointless.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 24, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> This is known, and it was one of the reasons I avoided (up til the latest windup post) getting into a ruck with him. He tried to wind me up last night in pretending to misunderstand one of my earlier posts, but I REFUSED to respond, not something I'm particularly good at generally
> 
> But it's obvious from earlier in the thread the futilility of getting into rows with him.
> 
> ...



hey mate, something we can agree on at last!!


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 24, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What are you droning on about now?  There was no such incident.  If you really want to let it drop, let it drop.  Don't keep dredging up imagined slights with no evidence to back them up.  It is pointless.



Posts are (still) there for all to see.

You might be _slightly_ less unpopular round here if you EVER admitted that you _might_ be wrong about anything, or if you conceded in any way that you _might_ be in part responsible for some of the rucks that happen on threads where you feature prominently, like this one.

As quite an argumentative person myself  I recognise the same trait in others, but you take it to extremes at times. You're also extremely arrogant about your own rectitude, and don't appear to have any kind of awareness of how contentious you come over as sometimes. Or patronising.

Most accurate post (in my view) on this thread was a one-liner, much earlier on,  from pk as it happens, about how thoroughly flawed was your premise that people expressing opposition to crack-related lawlessness were racist (either unconsciously or less so). Arguing that 'case', as you have done at stages, involved a lot of needless insults towards other posters who's opinions about crack in Brixton are no less valid than yours. Labelling people as racist is unnecessarily offensive and very much gets in the way of the reasonable discussion you say you want to happen. Which is why I was reticent about joining in at first -- I don't live in Brixton, I respect the opinions of people who live there and have detailed day to day knowledge of the place, and prefer to learn from their posts even when I don't agree with them ...

Just an honest assessment, and I HAVE read all of this thread and plenty of others, so I've got something to go on.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> As quite an argumentative person myself  I recognise the same trait in others, but you take it to extremes at times. You're also extremely arrogant about your own rectitude, and don't appear to have any kind of awareness of how contentious you come over as sometimes. Or patronising.



Maybe so.  I'm not going to deny that I have a provocative style.  But who cares, really?  What's the big deal?  A lively, even angry, debate is all to the good I reckon.  You seem like a fairly reasonable chap to me (although I truly don't know what you're on about regarding any attempt to provoke you last night).  But when you reported my post without checking the context, you showed me that you were motivated by a degree (probably quite mild) of personal animus, rather than an objective desire to see justice done.  

You know very well that PK is an Internet Brawler, probably the most notorious on these boards (and that is really saying something).  *He* doesn't give a tinker's cuss what I call him, why should you?  He *loves* this stuff, he *lives* for it.  Just look at what he's been up to today on the Dafydd Ellis Thomas thread.  He *loves* it.  And, knowing this as you do, you might have checked back a few posts to see if maybe, just *maybe,* he might have done something to provoke my reaction.  Which, as you now see, he had.  Anyway, no hard feelings, really.


----------



## pk (Jan 24, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Maybe so.  I'm not going to deny that I have a provocative style.  But who cares, really?  What's the big deal?  A lively, even angry, debate is all to the good I reckon.  You seem like a fairly reasonable chap to me (although I truly don't know what you're on about regarding any attempt to provoke you last night).  But when you reported my post without checking the context, you showed me that you were motivated by a degree (probably quite mild) of personal animus, rather than an objective desire to see justice done.



Selling crack outside universities in Philly is a bit much though... not as bad as outside primary schools in Brixton, mind...


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 24, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Selling crack outside universities in Philly is a bit much though... not as bad as outside primary schools in Brixton, mind...



Post reported.

















Not really.













Had you going though, eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> phildwyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



C'mon Phil, answer the question please.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 25, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Labelling people as racist is unnecessarily offensive and very much gets in the way of the reasonable discussion you say you want to happen.



Just to clarify this, if you look back you will see that I clearly state that I don't believe anyone can *be* a "racist."  I *do,* however, believe that certain words and actions can be racist.  In this case, I firmly believe that the level of aniomosity and hatred expressed towards drug dealers on Coldharbour Lane is explicable, in large part, by that fact that they are black.  I also think that many white people experience the dreaded "skunk saying" (the "saying of the skunk," that despicable, outrageous crime) as threatening or harrassing because the people saying it are black.  The example I would proffer is that of Rushcroft Roader, who felt entitled--not just entitled but, in his own word "good"--to yell drunken obscenities at a young skunk-sayer.  I don't think people like him should live in Brixton.  And furthermore, I am entitled to my opinion, and fully justified in expressing it here.


----------



## toggle (Jan 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Just to clarify this, if you look back you will see that I clearly state that I don't believe anyone can *be* a "racist."  I *do,* however, believe that certain words and actions can be racist.  In this case, I firmly believe that the level of aniomosity and hatred expressed towards drug dealers on Coldharbour Lane is explicable, in large part, by that fact that they are black.  I also think that many white people experience the dreaded "skunk saying" (the "saying of the skunk," that despicable, outrageous crime) as threatening or harrassing because the people saying it are black.  The example I would proffer is that of Rushcroft Roader, who felt entitled--not just entitled but, in his own word "good"--to yell drunken obscenities at a young skunk-sayer.  I don't think people like him should live in Brixton.  And furthermore, I am entitled to my opinion, and fully justified in expressing it here.




So you're still on about this idea what someone getting right in your face to sell their product can't be objectionable.

i don't give a fuck whether they are trying to sell skunk or sliced bread. Shouting at me from 6 inches away from my face is something that is threatening and intimidating.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 25, 2006)

toggle said:
			
		

> So you're still on about this idea what someone getting right in your face to sell their product can't be objectionable.
> 
> i don't give a fuck whether they are trying to sell skunk or sliced bread. Shouting at me from 6 inches away from my face is something that is threatening and intimidating.



First of all, how often does anyone really *shout* "skunk" on Coldharbour Lane?  The vast majority of such solicitations are whispered, and with good reason, since they are offers of an illegal commodity.  Secondly, as I have said before, what counts as "threatening and intimidating" varies from culture to culture.  If you have ever been to Jamaica, for example, you will know that anything short of touching someone--and often touching as well--is perfectly acceptable in a sidewalk higgler.  And finally, many white people are quite simply *afraid* of young black men.  They *are,* that is the downright truth.  And I for one would call that fear "racist."


----------



## toggle (Jan 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> First of all, how often does anyone really *shout* "skunk" on Coldharbour Lane?  The vast majority of such solicitations are whispered, and with good reason, since they are offers of an illegal commodity.  Secondly, as I have said before, what counts as "threatening and intimidating" varies from culture to culture.  If you have ever been to Jamaica, for example, you will know that anything short of touching someone--and often touching as well--is perfectly acceptable in a sidewalk higgler.  And finally, many white people are quite simply *afraid* of young black men.  They *are,* that is the downright truth.  And I for one would call that fear "racist."



Are you trying to suggest that I'm racist by considering men shouting in my face a threat?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 25, 2006)

toggle said:
			
		

> Are you trying to suggest that I'm racist by considering men shouting in my face a threat?



*Sigh.*  What's the point?  No, as I said two posts ago, I don't think anyone can *be* a racist.


----------



## toggle (Jan 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> *Sigh.*  What's the point?  No, as I said two posts ago, I don't think anyone can *be* a racist.



So i just have racist thoughts by considering someone shouting in my face a twat?


----------



## editor (Jan 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> First of all, how often does anyone really *shout* "skunk" on Coldharbour Lane?  The vast majority of such solicitations are whispered, and with good reason, since they are offers of an illegal commodity.


They rarely shout it out loud, but they certainly don't whisper it either.

If they did, they wouldn't get heard over the street noise.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 25, 2006)

toggle said:
			
		

> So i just have racist thoughts by considering someone shouting in my face a twat?



I've no idea.  Why are you asking me?  Surely only *you* can answer that question?


----------



## toggle (Jan 25, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> They rarely shout it out loud, but they certainly don't whisper it either.
> 
> If they did, they wouldn't get heard over the street noise.




it feels like a shout when it's 3 inches from your ear


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 25, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> They rarely shout it out loud, but they certainly don't whisper it either.
> 
> If they did, they wouldn't get heard over the street noise.



Alright then, they *say* it.  They say "skunk."  Its true, they do.  They are professional "skunk-sayers."  I can honestly say that I have never heard "skunk" said quite so often as I when I walk down Coldharbour Lane.  Sometimes it seems like every other person is saying "skunk."  It is almost like they don't say anything else.  I've often wondered why they don't have anything better to do than stand around saying "skunk" all day.  I must say that just saying "skunk" all the time doesn't seem like a very rewarding occupation to me.  I suppose it doesn't take much training though.  But anyway, the relevant point here is that I don't *mind* them saying "skunk."  Let them say it all they want, if it pleases them.  Its a free country.  Oh hang on...


----------



## Jessiedog (Jan 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And finally, many white people are quite simply *afraid* of young black men.  They *are,* that is the downright truth.  And I for one would call that fear "racist."



As a matter of interest phil, let's assume that someone has been violently mugged, say 20 times, over the course of two years by a variety of different young, black men and always in the same area just a short distance from their home.

Let's assume that this person has now develloped a fear of the young black men that congregate in this area close to their home.

Would that fear be racist?

Or simply a natural defence mechanism?



Woof


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 25, 2006)

they say it loud enough for me to hear it with my headphones on listening to music


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 25, 2006)

Jessiedog said:
			
		

> As a matter of interest phil, let's assume that someone has been violently mugged, say 20 times, over the course of two years by a variety of different young, black men and always in the same area just a short distance from their home.
> 
> Let's assume that this person has now develloped a fear of the young black men that congregate in this area close to their home.
> 
> ...



As usual, Jessie Dog, you make a most pertinant point.  Let me answer with an anecdote.  You may be aware that, in the USA, there has long been a controversy regarding the reluctance of cab-drivers to pick up young black men.  It is by all accounts virtually impossible to successfully hail a cab in any large American city if you are a young black man.  Well, on one of my recent cab-rides, I decided to investigate this phenomenon.  I questioned my cabbie, who hailed from Pakistan, as follows:

PD: So tell me, Cabbie, is it true that you and your fellows refuse to pick up young black men?

Cabbie: Yes Sir, that is true.

PD: And why is that, pray tell?

Cabbie: Well Sir, every single time I have had trouble with a customer--if they have refused to pay, if they have attempted to rob me, if they have taken drugs in my cab, the culprit has *always,* without any exception, been a young black man.  Therefore, I will no longer pick up anyone answering to that description.

PD: But surely you must be aware that this leaves you open to charges of racism?

Cabbie: I give not a toss about that Sir, I have to feed my family, and I prefer to reduce the chances of being robbed as best as I see fit.

PD: Well Cabbie, I cannot endorse your policy, but I appreciate your honesty.  Here's fifty dollars, get yourself a fine gal. 

Now, what do you say to that?  Personally I cannot find it in myself to call this Cabbie a racist.  Or perhaps he embodies a concept that I like to call "empirical racism."  As to how that policy plays out on Coldharbour Lane, I leave it to you to judge.  I must say, though, that the scenario you outline in your post is most improbable, and furthermore, that there is little personal risk involved in merely walking down Coldharbour Lane with cries of "skunk" ringing in your ears.  So I would say that the fears many have expressed here concerning the "skunk-sayers" are wildly exagerrated.  But I can still see your point.  I consider myself an open-minded man, and I will always listen to reason.  What, in your view, is the proper solution to this most vexing of social dilemmas?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 25, 2006)

do you know i had to read that dialog in a funny voice it was just so hilarious

just give "PD" one of those accent you hear on dubious private decetives in those bad black an white movies


----------



## Jessiedog (Jan 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I must say, though, that the scenario you outline in your post is most improbable,


It was written to make a point.




> and furthermore, that there is little personal risk involved in merely walking down Coldharbour Lane with cries of "skunk" ringing in your ears.  So I would say that the fears many have expressed here concerning the "skunk-sayers" are wildly exagerrated.


Frankly, I spend much of my time when in London after dark in a state of general agitation and anxiety and, if around the streets of Brixton in the wee hours of a Saturday or Sunday morning, am quite petrified.

I doubt I would venture anywhere near the centre of London without a veritable bevvy of Urbanites to look out for me. I don't believe my fear is racist, I'm terrified of virtually everyone.

I believe that much of my fear is probably exagerated and comes from living in a place where street crime is virtually unheard of. That said, I'm so fuckin' stupid, naive and trusting that it's easy for me to get into trouble without even knowing I'm headed there. I was relieved of money twice within 3 days in Brixton back in 2003.    

I find street dealers in Brixton to be VERY threatening. I try to bear in mind that the vast majority of them are just trying to make business and are not out to rob or fight (it's if they DON'T offer me something that I get _really_ worried). I don't care if they are black, white, yellow, brown or green. I'm still scared.



> What, in your view, is the proper solution to this most vexing of social dilemmas?


Legalise and regulate (even crack I think, but am willing to be convinced otherwise). Shooting galleries. Clinics. Tolerance zones. Decent housing, healthcare and welfare. Decent education. Etc.

I think the problem here is that most/all of the above are pipe dreams and simply won't occur.

I concur with the peeps posting here who (tho' I have no doubt many would agree with you on a philosophical level,) point out that in _reality_ these things will not happen. They are seeking to improve things incrementally and have to work within the constraints of reality.

Given limitless resources, solutions are much easier to come by. Given reality, gains are much harder to secure and maintain.

I would, in general, defer to the peeps here who live in/around Brxton. I would imagine they are best placed to identify any immediate, practical measures that would shift things in the right direction.

In the longer term, I don't think there can be a solution without the legalisation of all drugs and ensuring their easy availability, safety, etc.

I don't like the idea of "ghetto-ising" a housing estate. For I'm sure that's what would occur if dealers and whores were dumped in an empty one. I prefer the idea of every chemist and pharmacy selling drugs and bolting on as many shooting rooms, clinics, healthcare centres, etc. next door to them as possible. Similarly, give accomodation over to groups of prositutes (old houses converted into many small rooms for example, clinic attached) try to get them off the streets and into relatively safe places where they can look out for each other.

I have a dream.    But it's just that.

What to do tomorrow, under the existing constraints? I honestly don't know.

My solution is to stay well away unless I am with a group of Urbanite locals who know the area well, know how fuckin' stupid I am and will look out for me.

Doesn't help the people who need it tho'.    

At the end of the day, I believe that the normalisation of drugs and prostitution is critical to finding lasting solutions.



Woof


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Just to clarify this, if you look back you will see that I clearly state that I don't believe anyone can *be* a "racist."  I *do,* however, believe that certain words and actions can be racist.  In this case, I firmly believe that the level of aniomosity and hatred expressed towards drug dealers on Coldharbour Lane is explicable, in large part, by that fact that they are black.  I also think that many white people experience the dreaded "skunk saying" (the "saying of the skunk," that despicable, outrageous crime) as threatening or harrassing because the people saying it are black.  The example I would proffer is that of Rushcroft Roader, who felt entitled--not just entitled but, in his own word "good"--to yell drunken obscenities at a young skunk-sayer.  I don't think people like him should live in Brixton.  And furthermore, I am entitled to my opinion, and fully justified in expressing it here.



I think that your view that its only white people who are pissed off with the dealing in Brixton is racist.  Its like you view black people as somehow quite different from white people and having quite a different experience, as if all black people tolerate drugs and dealers or use drugs themselves.  Its quite offensive actually.


----------



## Jessiedog (Jan 25, 2006)

Are you missing a "black" somewhere there blags, in the latter half of your second sentence, perhaps?



Woof


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 25, 2006)

Jessiedog said:
			
		

> Are you missing a "black" somewhere there blags, in the latter half of your second sentence, perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> Woof



see my edit


----------



## Jessiedog (Jan 25, 2006)

Aye!

That's the one.



Woof


----------



## AverageJoe (Jan 25, 2006)

"PD: So tell me, Cabbie, is it true that you and your fellows refuse to pick up young black men?

Cabbie: Yes Sir, that is true.

PD: And why is that, pray tell?

Cabbie: Well Sir, every single time I have had trouble with a customer--if they have refused to pay, if they have attempted to rob me, if they have taken drugs in my cab, the culprit has *always,* without any exception, been a young black man. Therefore, I will no longer pick up anyone answering to that description.

PD: But surely you must be aware that this leaves you open to charges of racism?

Cabbie: I give not a toss about that Sir, I have to feed my family, and I prefer to reduce the chances of being robbed as best as I see fit.

PD: Well Cabbie, I cannot endorse your policy, but I appreciate your honesty. Here's fifty dollars, get yourself a fine gal. "


hahahahahaha! Where did you get this cab? 

"Where are you going mate"
PD - "The 18th Centrury sir, if you will!"


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 25, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Is it ASBOs that have killed off benign street culture or is it crack dealing and the violent gangsterism that surrounds it?


I'd say it was the latter.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 25, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I think that your view that its only white people who are pissed off with the dealing in Brixton is racist.  Its like you view black people as somehow quite different from white people and having quite a different experience, as if all black people tolerate drugs and dealers or use drugs themselves.  Its quite offensive actually.



Well, you are an easily offended man.  Of course, I have never suggested that "it is only white people who are pissed off with the dealing in Brixton."  In fact I have stated on a couple of occasions that it is *black* people who are most vociferous in their objection (although, as I pointed out, they tend to blame the customers more than the dealers).  But the *kind* of objections that we see on here, and the *tone* of them, and the *rationalizations* offered for them are clearly identifiable as coming from white people.  Rushcroft Roader's drunken abuse of a black youth, for example, was an absolutely *classic* white man's reaction.  Textbook case innit.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Cabbie: I give not a toss about that Sir, I have to feed my family, and I prefer to reduce the chances of being robbed as best as I see fit.
> 
> PD: Well Cabbie, I cannot endorse your policy, but I appreciate your honesty.  Here's fifty dollars, get yourself a fine gal.



Encouraging a presumably married man to engage the service of a prostitute who as "most prostitutes are junkies" will quite possibly spend the money on.............

You really couldn't make it up!


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, you are an easily offended man.  Of course, I have never suggested that "it is only white people who are pissed off with the dealing in Brixton."  In fact I have stated on a couple of occasions that it is *black* people who are most vociferous in their objection (although, as I pointed out, they tend to blame the customers more than the dealers).  But the *kind* of objections that we see on here, and the *tone* of them, and the *rationalizations* offered for them are clearly identifiable as coming from white people.  Rushcroft Roader's drunken abuse of a black youth, for example, was an absolutely *classic* white man's reaction.  Textbook case innit.



What a backtracking, wriggling, lying little shit you are phil.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, you are an easily offended man.  Of course, I have never suggested that "it is only white people who are pissed off with the dealing in Brixton."  In fact I have stated on a couple of occasions that it is *black* people who are most vociferous in their objection (although, as I pointed out, they tend to blame the customers more than the dealers).  But the *kind* of objections that we see on here, and the *tone* of them, and the *rationalizations* offered for them are clearly identifiable as coming from white people.  Rushcroft Roader's drunken abuse of a black youth, for example, was an absolutely *classic* white man's reaction.  Textbook case innit.


What's with all the '*'s?
What's wrong with italics?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 25, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> Encouraging a presumably married man to engage the service of a prostitute who as "most prostitutes are junkies" will quite possibly spend the money on.............
> 
> You really couldn't make it up!



Fear not, Isambard.  I did not really give the man $50, I palmed him off with a sheaf of cleverly-folded pages from the Philadelphia Inquirer, which I always carry about me for the purpose of defrauding cab-drivers.  My aim is to challenge their racist assumption that only young, black men are likely to steal from them.  I wouldn't like to be in his shoes as he zips his flies and discovers that all he can offer the enraged hooker is a pile of worthless newsprint!  Serves him right, the racist, whoremongering dog!


----------



## Jessiedog (Jan 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> My aim is to challenge their racist assumption that only young, black men are likely to steal from them.



But..... But..... But.....

In your own anecdote, that's not what your cabbie said. He said that in the past, every time he picked up a young black guy, something bad happened.

A very different thing.

Make yer mind up, eh?



Woof


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 25, 2006)

Jessiedog said:
			
		

> But..... But..... But.....
> 
> In your own anecdote, that's not what your cabbie said. He said that in the past, every time he picked up a young black guy, something bad happened.
> 
> ...



Er, no he didn't.  He said that every time a bad thing happened, it was a young black man who did it.  *Not* that every time there was a young black man in his cab, something bad happened.  See the difference?   But anyway, his point was that by eliminating young black men from his cab, he had stopped the bad things happening.  Do you brand him a racist for that?  I do not, although I still don't see why I should pay for his prostitutes.


----------



## Jessiedog (Jan 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Er, no he didn't.  He said that every time a bad thing happened, it was a young black man who did it.


Ahhhhh. I've reread properly, you are correct.





> Do you brand him a racist for that?  I do not, although I still don't see why I should pay for his prostitutes.



Heheheheheh!

 

Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Jan 25, 2006)

That said, it might be interesting to explore a wee bit more deeply your cabbies habits before encouraging his sexual denigration.

He probably actually screens many different kinds of people out almost subconciously based upon a pre-existing "sense" depending upon his own preferences and prejudices (it could be particular clothing, religious symbolry, style, clenliness, fashion, mobility, age, ability, ethnic group, etc. or any combination.) This pre-screening may indeed have saved him from potential troubles in the past too. In many ways, the people we like to hang out with and, more's the point, those we don't, can point towards our own biases. And we usually shift our ground over time, sometimes more slowly sometimes quicker.

He's probably just added "young black males" to that list in a conscious fashion 'cos the first three or four, he had a problem with.


Anyway......

Bed.



Woof

I guess iif he picked up what looked like German tourists (whatever that looks like     )and the first four times he did so they bashed him and stole his money he'd be pretty circumspect about similar looking types in future.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 25, 2006)

He's a made up cabbie. Doesn't exist or not *in the way phil's reporting him anyway*.

Note second sentence before reacting to first.

And btw, if I was Ruchcroft Roader (which I'm not), I'd be mightily pissed off with my name being used as a cyber for al the drunken belligerent racists (OK those behaving/thinking/talking from racist motivations including underlying) that phil seems quite happy to smear him as one of, and who he's quite happy to suppose make up the numbers in people hostile to the unlawfulness  and underlying threat surrounding the crack trade in Brixton. The nature of which very many local Brixton residents have testified to, people who as far as I can see behave/post/talk not in the slightest bit racistly despite phil's smear campaign.

One stupid, drunken, OTT outburst by RR, a one off. Yet repeatedly since he posted his story, he's been smeared as  repeatedly doing it ('over and over again' were the words used by phil at one point), and branded as behaving in a  racist way whatever his actual motivation (momentary stupidity?) may or may not have been. It's bang out of order.

And you've as good as branded toggle with the same offence, and yet you STILL don't understand why so many Urbanites are getting pissed off with you.

Leave it with all this 'racism' shit phil. The issue can be discussed without branding and smearing people and what YOU have decided their behaviour amounts to.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 25, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> He's a made up cabbie. Doesn't exist or not *in the way phil's reporting him anyway*.
> 
> Note second sentence before reacting to first.
> 
> ...



Mate, I have long ceased worrying about Phil. Everybody can see him for what he is, and I am not playing his game anymore. He clearly needs to be the centre of attention.
Best not to give him the time of day. 
Thanks for your support though.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 25, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> He's a made up cabbie. Doesn't exist or not *in the way phil's reporting him anyway*.



The only embellishment in my Cabbie story was the purchase of the prostitute.  I assumed that everyone would realize that I was joking about that, but it seems that Isambard was genuinely under the impression that I would give a $50 tip for a cab-driver to hire a hooker.  Ha!  50 cents for a cup of coffee, more like.  Actually it was also an allusion to an Ivor Cutler song, but let it pass let it pass.  Other than that, however, the jist of our conversation was entirely accurate.  His name was Asif.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 25, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> And btw, if I was Ruchcroft Roader (which I'm not), I'd be mightily pissed off with my name being used as a cyber for al the drunken belligerent racists (OK those behaving/thinking/talking from racist motivations including underlying) that phil seems quite happy to smear him as one of, and who he's quite happy to suppose make up the numbers in people hostile to the unlawfulness  and underlying threat surrounding the crack trade in Brixton. The nature of which very many local Brixton residents have testified to, people who as far as I can see behave/post/talk not in the slightest bit racistly despite phil's smear campaign.
> 
> One stupid, drunken, OTT outburst by RR, a one off. Yet repeatedly since he posted his story, he's been smeared as  repeatedly doing it ('over and over again' were the words used by phil at one point), and branded as behaving in a  racist way whatever his actual motivation (momentary stupidity?) may or may not have been. It's bang out of order.



As you seem to concede here, but perhaps then forget in the middle of your post, I have repeatedly said that Rushcroft Roader is *not* a racist, and nor is anyone else.  I *still* believe, though, that to assume it is alright to swear at someone whose only crime is to say "skunk" bespeaks the sense that this person is somehow devoid of normal human feelings, and that this sense springs from the fact that the lad was black.  

Yes, Rushcroft Roader was pissed.  Yes, we've all done stupid things when we were pissed.  I'm not judging him for that.  I am simply asking him, and everyone else, to examine their own motives closely in this racially-sensitive issue (and when a group of mostly white people are attacking a group of mostly black people, the issue *is* inevitably racially charged.  That's just a fact of our society).

As to him doing it "over and over again," I did not mean that he makes a habit of verbally assaulting skunk-sayers.  I meant that he had sworn at this one youth more than once, or repeatedly.  What he said was this:




			
				RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> "F*ck off you prick, go sell your shit somewhere else. You are a f*cking menace. F*ck off."



OK, maybe not "over and over again," but that's quite a lot of obscenity.  Bear in mind also that it was 3am, that Rushcroft Roader was legless, and that the youth was, well, a youth.  I think the rights and wrongs of this situation should be quite clear, and that only the unconscious notion that black youths are dangerous people not susceptible to normal feelings (such as fear when being verbally assaulted at 3am by a drunk) could have obscured those rights and wrongs in the eyes of so many posters here.  And I haven't even begun to discuss his remark that "it felt good."  Probably I'd better not.


----------



## pk (Jan 25, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> Mate, I have long ceased worrying about Phil. Everybody can see him for what he is, and I am not playing his game anymore. He clearly needs to be the centre of attention.
> Best not to give him the time of day.
> Thanks for your support though.



Totally agree.

He's off his cake.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> OK, maybe not "over and over again," but that's quite a lot of obscenity.  Bear in mind also that it was 3am, that Rushcroft Roader was legless, and that the youth was, well, a youth.  I think the rights and wrongs of this situation should be quite clear, and that only the unconscious notion that black youths are dangerous people not susceptible to normal feelings (such as fear when being verbally assaulted at 3am by a drunk) could have obscured those rights and wrongs in the eyes of so many posters here.  And I haven't even begun to discuss his remark that "it felt good."  Probably I'd better not.



Nothing to do with yer skunk man being black, in my view as I read the story. More to do with him being (as far as RR was drunkenly concerned at the time) an extreme annoyance. Yes, sure, an OTT reaction, not one I'd share at all cos I tend to be a 'no thanks I'm fine' sort when called out to by skunk sellers when I head to/from the Albert. A criticism of the OTTness is fair enough as far as that goes. But assigning it to subconsious motives of feeling a youith to be alien (or whatever) *because* he was black -- well that in my mind is bollocks, an attack too far. And unnecessarily provocative, likely to provoke highly understandable pissedoffness, etc.

Same with what yoiu suggested about toggle as well as it goes.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 25, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Nothing to do with yer skunk man being black, in my view as I read the story. More to do with him being (as far as RR was drunkenly concerned at the time) an extreme annoyance. Yes, sure, an OTT reaction, not one I'd share at all cos I tend to be a 'no thanks I'm fine' sort when called out to by skunk sellers when I head to/from the Albert. A criticism of the OTTness is fair enough as far as that goes. But assigning it to subconsious motives of feeling a youith to be alien (or whatever) *because* he was black -- well that in my mind is bollocks, an attack too far. And unnecessarily provocative, likely to provoke highly understandable pissedoffness, etc.
> 
> Same with what yoiu suggested about toggle as well as it goes.



Well, we're not going to agree on this, but I think that Rushcroft Roader found the youth annoying, in part, because he was black.  Jessie Dog has drawn our attention to the existence of empirical racism, and the anecdote of Asif the Cabbie has confirmed it.  It *does* exist, and it *does* influence people's behavior.  Often without them being aware of this fact.  To me (and I've seen a lot of this sort of thing because of the places I've lived), Rushcroft Roader's aggression is an absolutely *classic* case of unconscious racism.  Absolutely textbook example, as I've said before.  Also, I didn't suggest *anything* about Toggle, she asked me if she was a racist and I said I didn't know.  That's all.

Look, would you concede that the fact that the dealers on Coldharbour Lane are black is of *some* significance?  That is, it means *something,* it doesn't mean just *nothing,* it has causes and effects?  I take it that all sensible people will admit that.  Well, then surely we must take that significance into account when discussing Brixton's drug problem.  We can't just say "it doesn't matter if they're green" or whatever.  That's not realistic.  That's brushing the issue under the rug.  

And if we are able to take racial factors into account, we will be far more likely to arrive at a true understanding of the situation.  For example, I contend that the fact that Brixton's drug dealers are disproportionately black suggests that people become drug dealers because of social deprivation.  This in turn will influence my response to and treatment of the dealers, as well as my recommendations as to how they should be treated by the police etc.


----------



## netbob (Jan 25, 2006)

Fucking hell phil are you still going!? 

Congratulations on the staminar, but I do wonder why you care so much?


----------



## pk (Jan 25, 2006)

memespring said:
			
		

> Fucking hell phil are you still going!?
> I do wonder why you care so much?



Because he's a racist??


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, we're not going to agree on this, but I think that Rushcroft Roader found the youth annoying, in part, because he was black.  Jessie Dog has drawn our attention to the existence of empirical racism, and the anecdote of Asif the Cabbie has confirmed it.  It *does* exist, and it *does* influence people's behavior.  Often without them being aware of this fact.  To me (and I've seen a lot of this sort of thing because of the places I've lived), Rushcroft Roader's aggression is an absolutely *classic* case of unconscious racism.  Absolutely textbook example, as I've said before.  Also, I didn't suggest *anything* about Toggle, she asked me if she was a racist and I said I didn't know.  That's all.
> 
> Look, would you concede that the fact that the dealers on Coldharbour Lane are black is of *some* significance?  That is, it means *something,* it doesn't mean just *nothing,* it has causes and effects?  I take it that all sensible people will admit that.  Well, then surely we must take that significance into account when discussing Brixton's drug problem.  We can't just say "it doesn't matter if they're green" or whatever.  That's not realistic.  That's brushing the issue under the rug.
> 
> And if we are able to take racial factors into account, we will be far more likely to arrive at a true understanding of the situation.  For example, I contend that the fact that Brixton's drug dealers are disproportionately black suggests that people become drug dealers because of social deprivation.  This in turn will influence my response to and treatment of the dealers, as well as my recommendations as to how they should be treated by the police etc.



You're rather sneakily and deceptively eliding two entirely separate arguments.

I have never at any point denied that the blackness of some/many drug dealers around Brixton may have some socio-exonomic significance, or that their race may *in part, alongside other factors* be relevant in trying to find an effective workable solution.

What I was arguing against was Urban specific really -- your insistence that Ruchcroft Roader and others are either consciously or consciously motivated by racism.

I don't think pk suggesting you might be a a racist is helpful to the discussion either, but if you added up the number of occasions you've hinted/implied or even stated that racism plays a part in many other posters' attitudes in this thread, is bang out of order, and counterproductive to your own arguments, and *really* counterproducitve to any hope of a decent discussion. 

People are *inevitably* going to get pissed off by that, does that please you?

And no, before you start, I'm not suggesting that certain subjects/reactions can't be mentioned, it's just the inflammatory way you go about it.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 26, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> What I was arguing against was Urban specific really -- your insistence that Ruchcroft Roader and others are either consciously or consciously motivated by racism.



I take it you mean "unconsciously?"  Well William, I find you teetering on the brink of comprehension here, so I will take you through my argument in logical steps.  If you will follow me carefully and calmly, I think that you (and anyone else) will *have* to be convinced.

1.  Do you deny that there is *such a thing* as unconscious racism?  That is, that some people may hold racist attitudes, or may say and do racist things, without being conscious of the fact?  This happens, does it not?

2.  Well, if you admit that there is *such a thing* as unconscious racism, you must also admit that it is possible, in theory, that some posters on Urban may suffer from it.  With me so far?

3.  Let us take the example of Rushcroft Roader, not because he is the only or the worst example, but because we have been discussing him recently.  It is quite obvious that he does not think of himself as a racist.  But after a few drinks, it does not take much to make him explode in violent, aggressive hostility towards a black youth.  Do you think the youth had done anything--*anything* at all--to objectively justify Rushcroft Roader's reaction?  No?  Then we must look elsewhere for the explanation, must we not?  If you will admit this, I do not see how you can dismiss my diagnosis of unconscious racism out of hand.  It seems the only possible explanation to me.  Perhaps you have another? 

4.  Would you deny that if such unconscious racism can be identified, it would benefit the discussion to point it out?  Maybe this is the bit where I have most sympathy with your position, which seems to be that it would be best just to ignore it.  But, after giving the matter lengthy consideration, I must disagree.  I feel that it illuminates the issue as a whole to understand that some people may be arguing based on a position of unconscious racism.  To be specific, those who advocate punitive police or vigilante action against drug dealers are very frequently animated by the unconsious assumption that black people are inherently criminal and dangerous.  Am I right or wrong?

5.  Will it annoy people when their unconscious racism is identified?  At first, of course, it will.  The truth hurts, and no-one enjoys having their most basic assumptions challenged.  In the long term, though, I believe that many people will come to see the logic of my position, and will probably even thank me later for drawing their attention to this personality flaw.  

I would very much like to know how you could disagree with any stage of this argument.   Can you?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 26, 2006)

Just as an aside, I see that PK has finally managed to get himself banned.  I will therefore not be forced to respond to his puny provocations.  So maybe we can have a rational, friendly discussion for a while.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But after a few drinks, it does not take much to make him explode in violent, aggressive hostility towards a black youth.  Do you think the youth had done anything--*anything* at all--to objectively justify Rushcroft Roader's reaction?




Rushcroft Roader had unwillingly put up with what he perceived as harasment and invasion of personal space over a period of time while walking through his local community. On one ocassion his temper boiled over. Perhaps unwisely.

You really don't need to talk to WoW in such a patronising fashion, he's a very clued up bloke. As has been pointed out to you, the way you talk down to people puts them off your argument, whether or not there is some good thought behind them.

Yeah, it seems PK is currently banned. Please don't use the fact to keep having a go at him. It is not just him who has a good go at ruining this thread.


----------



## pooka (Jan 26, 2006)

Of course racism, concious or unconcious, or racial stereotyping is going to be part of the mix of attitudes to in-your face street dealing Brxiton. So are a lot of other things. They'll be different for different people Eg

 - People who don't like being whistled at, followed, threatened, seeing their public space corroded and whose resentment is exacerbated by a fear/resentment of young black men - these people may be black or white, but I guess Phil would argue they are majorly middle class whites;

 - People who don't like being whistled at, followed, threatened, seeing their public space corroded and whose resentment is exacerbated by a fear/resentment of young people hanging about - these may be black or white but will tend to be older people.

 - People who don't like being whistled at, followed, threatened, seeing their public space corroded and whose resentment is exacerbated by a despair of seeing young black people travelling down a road which will take them nowhere, into a prison cell or (_in extremis_
) onto a mortuary slab - this goes across the community, but is strongest amongst older black people -'this is not what we came here for'.

- People who don't like being whistled at, followed, threatened, seeing their public space corroded and whose resentment is exacerbated by the seeing the worst stereotypes of young black men daily reinforced in Brixton Town Centre - this goes across the board, but is especially strong amongst younger black people.

- People who don't like being whistled at, followed, threatened, seeing their public space corroded and whose resentment is exacerbated by the fact that it is damaging their livelihoods - the market traders, of all races.

One could go on. But I think that even phil will see a common thread and why race may be an aspect, but not in the simplistic way phil (remotely) perceives it, and that there is a much stronger common purpose that goes right across the community.


He is right to say that there is a correlation between an individual's (black or white) social circumstances and their propensity to resort to crime - (though we should remember that the majority of people in the same circumstances don't) - but that's not a reason for saying that the community and the police should turn a blind eye and just put up with the consequences. It does say something about what the courts should do when presented with such people and more generally what we should do about those circumstances.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 26, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> Rushcroft Roader had unwillingly put up with what he perceived as harasment and invasion of personal space over a period of time while walking through his local community. On one ocassion his temper boiled over. Perhaps unwisely.
> 
> You really don't need to talk to WoW in such a patronising fashion, he's a very clued up bloke. As has been pointed out to you, the way you talk down to people puts them off your argument, whether or not there is some good thought behind them.
> 
> Yeah, it seems PK is currently banned. Please don't use the fact to keep having a go at him. It is not just him who has a good go at ruining this thread.



Sure, let’s not discuss PK.  There are a couple of other people here who have advocated vigilante justice against drug dealers in Brixton.  Further to the theme of “unconscious racism,” these people provide an even more instructive example than Rushcroft Roader.  They do not seem to be consciously racist.  And yet their argument is identical to that made by the obviously racist leaders of white lynch mobs in the American Deep South during the Jim Crow era.  

They *always* said that they did not lynch people simply for being black, that they lynched only criminals.  It was just that, where they lived, most of the criminals happened to be black.  They would deny that they especially enjoyed lynching black men, they would declare their willingness to lynch white men too, but *in practice,* almost everyone they lynched happened to be black.  Can anyone deny that, if the horrific fantasies of some on here were realized, and there were indeed lynch mobs hunting drug dealers on the streets of Brixton, the same would be true there?  

I’ll try to address the excellent points made by the posters above later on, but I have a couple of other things to do today.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 26, 2006)

So now people who are fed up with street dealers are lynch mobs a la American South?

If anyone sees the plot lying around can they give it back to Phil cos he's clearly fucking lost it.


----------



## toggle (Jan 26, 2006)

he's so far into victim blaming, it's unbelievable. Anyone who feels scared from the antics of these people is, according to his wisdom, deserving of their fear because they are a racist.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well William, I find you teetering on the brink of comprehension here, so I will take you through my argument in logical steps.  If you will follow me carefully and calmly, I think that you (and anyone else) will *have* to be convinced.



As the first bit of your lengthy post is such a piece of sneeringly patronising, insulting arsewipe (not that you're actually capable of any other style of posting) I don't really see why I should bother to go through the rest!

Although I will once you've apologised


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 26, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> Rushcroft Roader had unwillingly put up with what he perceived as harasment and invasion of personal space over a period of time while walking through his local community. On one ocassion his temper boiled over. Perhaps unwisely.
> 
> You really don't need to talk to WoW in such a patronising fashion, he's a very clued up bloke. As has been pointed out to you, the way you talk down to people puts them off your argument, whether or not there is some good thought behind them.
> 
> Yeah, it seems PK is currently banned. Please don't use the fact to keep having a go at him. It is not just him who has a good go at ruining this thread.



Thankyou Isambard, you know the score here ....


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 26, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> So now people who are fed up with street dealers are lynch mobs a la American South**?
> 
> If anyone sees the plot lying around can they give it back to Phil cos he's clearly fucking lost it.



**He'll only weasel out and say 'analagous to' or somesuch, with a 'helpful' little footnote explaining (as to a dim child) what 'analagous' means ...

In any cas, he's very fond of inserting those insulting, non-sequiteurious little sideswipes.

You are pretty much *universally* disliked (and strongly) round these forums (that is among anyone I've ever seen try and engage with you in discussions of all types) so how about addressing the reasons for that unpopularity. Clue : those have fuck all to do with you being right, even on the occasions when you are, and everyone else being wrong, even when they are.

Why all the sneery insults and patonising arrogance? You really are full of nonsense and insultingness seem to be your default mode ...

And pooka isn't like that at all -- he knows a damn sight more about the whole subject than you do it seems.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Just as an aside, I see that PK has finally managed to get himself banned.  I will therefore not be forced to respond to his puny provocations.  So maybe we can have a rational, friendly discussion for a while.



In the interests of balance, you should also consider that one of your more recent defenders/allies on this thread, standing up for your arguments with sneery, OTT attacks on other posters (and from a position of suspiciously high levels of knowledge of lots of those posters, for a so called 'newbie') was also banned recently.

And in that case permanently.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 26, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> As the first bit of your lengthy post is such a piece of sneeringly patronising, insulting arsewipe (not that you're actually capable of any other style of posting) I don't really see why I should bother to go through the rest!
> 
> Although I will once you've apologised



William, the reason I took that tone with you is that you began your previous response to me as follows:




			
				William of Walworth said:
			
		

> You're rather sneakily and deceptively eliding two entirely separate arguments.



And now, in your recent efforts, you express sympathy for Ismabard's deliberate and shameless distoration of my lynch-mob analogy.  Anyway, how about we stop bickering about who's being horrid to whom and address the issues?  Please do go through my lengthy response to you, I'd like to see your answers.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 26, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> So now people who are fed up with street dealers are lynch mobs a la American South?



Wanker and desperate liar.  As I clearly and unmistakeably say, it is people who advocate vigilante justice against drug dealers in Brixton who resemble the lynch mobs of the American South, not "people who are fed up with street dealers" as you maliciously and falsely claim here.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 26, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> And pooka isn't like that at all -- he knows a damn sight more about the whole subject than you do it seems.



What are you talking about?  I haven't responded to Pooka yet, except to observe that his points were "excellent" and that I'd get to them later.  Which I will.  Really, you worry me sometimes...


----------



## Crispy (Jan 26, 2006)

I don't much like Phil's style - it's a bit patronising and twisty.

However, what he has to say about 'unconcious racism' is true - we all have unconcious behaviour patterns that we can't change conciously. If you were brought up in a completely 'white' environment, then people who look 'black' (eg.different) will provoke an unconcious fear of the 'other'. This is normal and it happens to everyone. Because we are civilised people, however, we learn to recognise and control these patterns - and everyone can be friends.

Just how powerful these unconcous patterns are is up for some serious debate. Freud thought that this was what we were almost completely driven by, with the ego having a shaky hand on the controls. I (like to) think that the rational mind has a firmer grip on things.

I also think that, although racism is a factor in this issue, it's not a major one. And, given it's subconcious nature, it's not one we can do much about - just be aware of it.

EDIT : which is kinda what pooka said, now that I've read his post


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 26, 2006)

Round of applause for pooka's post!


----------



## Isambard (Jan 26, 2006)

I think though Crispy most Urban posters if they had that racist baggage would have done their utmost to dump it eh. And I don't think someone with racist baggae would choose to live in Brixton.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 26, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> I think though Crispy most Urban posters if they had that racist baggage would have done their utmost to dump it eh.



In order to dump it, they'd first have to become conscious of it.  Which means someone would have to point it out to them.  Someone like me.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 26, 2006)

What does racist baggage look like?


----------



## Crispy (Jan 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> In order to dump it, they'd first have to become conscious of it.  Which means someone would have to point it out to them.  Someone like me.



Well, no, I worked it out for myself thanks. And yes, I also have a streak of unconscious racism in me. Through a variety of influences (white, suburban, CofE childhood, mainstream media etc) I have picked up a streak of unconscious racism. However, I understand where it came from and how I can't really erase it, so I let my rational mind kick the shit out of my unconsciousness so that I can be a nice guy.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 26, 2006)

I think people can realise they have racist baggage and dump it without necessarily having someone point it out to them. And I think there are better ways of arguing with people carrying soft racist ideas than talking down to them.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 26, 2006)

*Dear Phil,*

Phil, why are you assuming that I am a rascist, despite the fact that you have never met me and know nothing about me - including the colour of my skin. Why do you assume I am white? Have I ever said I am white? No, but you assume my reaction to a skunk dealer was racially motivated. Why? Who is making racial assumptions now?

Phil, if you are reading this then all I have to say is that I believe you are a genuinely unpleasant and lonely individual. 
Whatever your motives are on posting all this bile, it does not detract from the fact that you are cultivating hate and animosity in what you write. 
I do not have to defend myself to you and have no intention of doing so. Your views mean nothing to me and you are clearly playing some sort of elaborate game with us all. I would not be surprised if this is some sort of controlled experiment. 

I am not going to read this thread again. I think anything of use on this subject has already been said. I recommend everyone do the same.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 26, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> I would not be surprised if this is some sort of controlled experiment.



It probably is. His Intelligent Design thread was.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 26, 2006)

probably  he comes out with far too many dubious  assumptions  to take him seriously


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Wanker and desperate liar.  As I clearly and unmistakeably say, it is people who advocate vigilante justice against drug dealers in Brixton who resemble the lynch mobs of the American South, not "people who are fed up with street dealers" as you maliciously and falsely claim here.




Hmmm, abuse *and* hyperbole in the same post.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> In order to dump it, they'd first have to become conscious of it.  Which means someone would have to point it out to them.  Someone like me.



Ah yes, because you're so much more socially evolved than everyone else, aren't you Phil?

Brass neck, no balls *AND* a massive ego all in the same package. Are you sure you're not Hazel Blears MP?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 26, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> Why do you assume I am white?



It is completely obvious.  I could tell you why, but you give the impression that you'd rather I not talk about you any more, and I am quite happy to grant your wish.  But it is *completely* obvious.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 26, 2006)

pooka said:
			
		

> He is right to say that there is a correlation between an individual's (black or white) social circumstances and their propensity to resort to crime - (though we should remember that the majority of people in the same circumstances don't) - but that's not a reason for saying that the community and the police should turn a blind eye and just put up with the consequences. It does say something about what the courts should do when presented with such people and more generally what we should do about those circumstances.



To me, it indicates that drug dealing on the street is not a matter for the police.  It depends on what you mean by "crime;" certainly no-one would argue that muggers should be tolerated because they come from deprived social circumstances.  But simply hustling or higgling is fine, if you ask me.  You are right to say that people may have other reasons for not liking being whistled at, followed and so forth, but I believe that unconscious racism is by *far* the most prevelent.  

Perhaps a close second, and related factor, is simple lack of cultural sensitivity.  Let me explain a bit further what I mean by that.  White, middle-class English people put a higher premium on "personal space" than *any* other group of people in the world.  There is *no-one* who dislikes being whistled at, followed, said "skunk" to and so forth more than your average white, middle-class English person.  And as we all know, recent years have seem a huge influx of white, middle-class English people into Brixton.

Once there, their culturally-biased assumptions about "personal space" often collide with those of the established population.  I can assure you that, in the working-class streets of Kingston and Lagos, where many residents of Brixton have their roots, a quite different sense of personal space holds sway.  The Coldharbour Lane dealers are veritable paragons of restraint and decorum compared to a Jamaican or Nigerian sidewalk vendor on home turf.

So the question becomes, *whose* set of cultural conventions should be the standard for Brixton?  Should the assumptions of white, middle-class English people be imposed on those of other backgrounds?  I say "no," and I also say that any argument that it should sails perilously close to racism.  Yes, racism.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> It is completely obvious.  I could tell you why, but you give the impression that you'd rather I not talk about you any more, and I am quite happy to grant your wish.  But it is *completely* obvious.



My father is from Mayalsia and my mother is from Ireland although she was born in Singapore. 

Prick


----------



## toggle (Jan 26, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> My father is from Mayalsia and my mother is from Ireland although she was born in Singapore.
> 
> Prick


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 26, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> My father is from Mayalsia and my mother is from Ireland although she was born in Singapore.



I'm afraid that doesn't get us very far.  Both Malaysians and Irish can be of any race, and any skin colour.  What do you *look* like, that is the point.  Well?


----------



## brix (Jan 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'm afraid that doesn't get us very far.  Both Malaysians and Irish can be of any race, and any skin colour.  What do you *look* like, that is the point.  Well?



Oh for pity's sake...


----------



## pooka (Jan 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> To me, it indicates that drug dealing on the street is not a matter for the police.  It depends on what you mean by "crime;" certainly no-one would argue that muggers should be tolerated because they come from deprived social circumstances.  But simply hustling or higgling is fine, if you ask me.  You are right to say that people may have other reasons for not liking being whistled at, followed and so forth, but I believe that unconscious racism is by *far* the most prevelent.
> 
> Perhaps a close second, and related factor, is simple lack of cultural sensitivity.  Let me explain a bit further what I mean by that.  White, middle-class English people put a higher premium on "personal space" than *any* other group of people in the world.  There is *no-one* who dislikes being whistled at, followed, said "skunk" to and so forth more than your average white, middle-class English person.  And as we all know, recent years have seem a huge influx of white, middle-class English people into Brixton.
> 
> ...



A disappinting response, phil. You're just reiterating your original assertions and haven't addressed the points I've made. I demonstrated that a strong reaction to aggressive street dealing in illegal drugs (ie a criminal activity, and one who's obviousness declares 'the law doesn't operate here') goes across the board, acknowledging that different parts of the community will have different nuances to that reaction.

You've responded with the same old obsession with white middle class norms of personal space. You've also suggested that this is due to a sudden influx of middle-class whites...not so, that's been happing since the squatters first arrived in the 70's. 

You ask what norms should apply in Brixton? Clearly the ones that the majority of people who live there, work there, come there to enjoy themselves or are just passing though subscribe to. And those norms most certainly don't include aggressive selling of illegal drugs. If you reckon they do, from your vantage thousands of miles away, then you're talking out of your bum, or would be if you had one!

"To me, it indicates that drug dealing on the street is not a matter for the police." Next time you're over, try that line out on Pastor Chris Andre Watson or Ros Griffiths  and also the notion that it's only middle class whites who are annoyed by street dealers. See what reaction you get. (The article is from the NY Times, so the spelling will be comfortable for you)


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Once there, their culturally-biased assumptions about "personal space" often collide with those of the established population.  I can assure you that, in the working-class streets of Kingston and Lagos, where many residents of Brixton have their roots, a quite different sense of personal space holds sway.  The Coldharbour Lane dealers are veritable paragons of restraint and decorum compared to a Jamaican or Nigerian sidewalk vendor on home turf.


When did you visit Lagos? I didn't get harassed by "sidewalk vendors" when I was there in 1990, in the same way as I do by scammers and dealers on CHL.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'm afraid that doesn't get us very far.  Both Malaysians and Irish can be of any race, and any skin colour.  What do you *look* like, that is the point.  Well?


You said you knew that he was white and that it was completely obvious. In other words you are a stupid cunt.


----------



## linerider (Jan 27, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You said you knew that he was white and that it was completely obvious. In other words you are a stupid cunt.


but it was completely obvious that he was a stupid cunt


----------



## Jessiedog (Jan 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> 3.  Let us take the example of Rushcroft Roader, not because he is the only or the worst example, but because we have been discussing him recently.  It is quite obvious that he does not think of himself as a racist.  But after a few drinks, it does not take much to make him explode in violent, aggressive hostility towards a black youth.  Do you think the youth had done anything--*anything* at all--to objectively justify Rushcroft Roader's reaction?  No?  Then we must look elsewhere for the explanation, must we not?  If you will admit this, I do not see how you can dismiss my diagnosis of unconscious racism out of hand.  It seems the only possible explanation to me.  Perhaps you have another?



Well, how's about this?

If every skunk-sayer was white (or yellow, or green, or blue, or whatever) and not a black one ever, EVER, to be seen, but these particular skunk sayers had exactly the same attitude as the ones previously under discussion, do YOU think that RR would behave any differently? Do YOU think that anyone here taking offence at their "sayings" would feel any differently towards them?

It seems that you do.

I can tell you that I DON'T. I would be just as terrified of a green skunk-sayer as a yellow one.

You see, maybe - just perhaps - it's the _behaviour_ that's being objected to and it's nothing to do with their mauveness or their indigoness.



Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Jan 27, 2006)

linerider said:
			
		

> but it was completely obvious that he was a stupid cunt



Don't you mean _*completely*_?



Woof


----------



## pk (Jan 27, 2006)

I'd say it was completely obvious phildwyer is a cunt, as long ago as post 158, when he came out with this:




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> And ain't that the motherloving truth!  Not only that, they are often the same people who bang on about doing *coke* and sharing it with their mates.  Apparently not realizing that in the eyes of the law this makes them *exactly* the same as the "criminals" they want to persecute.  Its straight-up (albeit unconscious) *racism,* as I pointed out at length on another thread recently.



What he fails to grasp is the difference between *crack* and *coke*, the difference between sharing a few lines discreetly in the privacy of your own home and standing on a street corner hustling for profits with the back-up of armed watchers who would sell their own mothers for a hit. 

The other huge flaw in his already shit argument whereby the police are all too keen to uphold the law when it comes to people kerbcrawling for drugs, but they are seemingly less keen to arrest the dealers, presumably for fear of provoking some kind of race war or shootout - is absolute proof of his complete ignorance of Brixton street life.

And that was before he started talking about segregation and walling the dealers in with the prostitutes in his imaginary housing estate, where all drugs are free, there is no money needed for the services of a whore, and medical practitioners are installed in every third house to distribute free condoms/crack pipes/methodone.

phildwyer made a complete cunt of himself 1249 posts ago.

No wonder his books are completely slated...

I'm undecided as to whether he's on a wind up or is as mentally *challenged* as his "everyone is racist except me!" ideas seem to indicate, but at this stage I couldn't give a toss about the twat.

Leave him to it, life's too short.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 27, 2006)

Jessiedog said:
			
		

> Don't you mean _*completely*_?
> 
> 
> 
> Woof


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 27, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You said you knew that he was white



He *is* white!  Notice that he won't answer my question about his skin colour.  There are people of many different hues in Malaysia, in case you didn't know.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> No wonder his books are completely slated...



Not true. If phildwyer is who I believe he is, then there are quite a few good reviews of his books.















...in publications he also contributes to. 


Make of that what you will


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 27, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> What he fails to grasp is the difference between *crack* and *coke*, the difference between sharing a few lines discreetly in the privacy of your own home and standing on a street corner hustling for profits with the back-up of armed watchers who would sell their own mothers for a hit.



Your previous descriptions of your own dealing activities hardly fit the description of "sharing a few lines discreetly in the privacy of your own home," not by a *very* long shot indeed.  And your characterization of the Coldharbour Lane dealers merely reveals your racist stereotyping.  Furthermore, you can have *no idea* whether the coke you used to sell was made into crack by tour customers or not.  Once again, I put it to you that the real difference you see between your own activities and those of the people you would like to kill is that you are white and they are black.  Is this not the truth?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 27, 2006)

Jessiedog said:
			
		

> I would be just as terrified of a green skunk-sayer as a yellow one.



A yellow one wouldn't bother me much.  Actually, some yellow people *have* said "skunk" to me in the past.  I'll grant you that a green one would be pretty scary though.


----------



## robotsimon (Jan 27, 2006)

what sort of people are yellow?


----------



## toggle (Jan 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> He *is* white!  Notice that he won't answer my question about his skin colour.  There are people of many different hues in Malaysia, in case you didn't know.



So you have some sort of strange mental abilities that allow you to tell someone's race through the internet? Unless you do, you have no0 idea what shade his skn is and you are talking utter shite again.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 27, 2006)

robotsimon said:
			
		

> what sort of people are yellow?



Those afflicted with jaundice.  Due to woefully inadequate medical care in the USA, many victims of jaundice are forced to resort to skunk-saying in order to pay for their medication.  But they don't frighten me, as they are obviously too ill to mug me.  Any more questions?


----------



## robotsimon (Jan 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Those afflicted with jaundice.  Due to woefully inadequate medical care in the USA, many victims of jaundice are forced to resort to skunk-saying in order to pay for their medication.  But they don't frighten me, as they are obviously too ill to mug me.  Any more questions?



Are you Charlie Brooker?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2006)

robotsimon said:
			
		

> Are you Charlie Brooker?



Impossible, Charlie Brooker is *funny*.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 27, 2006)

robotsimon said:
			
		

> Are you Charlie Brooker?



I doubt it, I was friends at school with the bloke and he was a MUCH more amusing and pleasant company. 

Edit: DAMN you Violent Panda!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> I doubt it, I was friends at school with the bloke and he was a MUCH more amusing and pleasant company.
> 
> Edit: DAMN you Violent Panda!


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> He *is* white!  Notice that he won't answer my question about his skin colour.  There are people of many different hues in Malaysia, in case you didn't know.


Have you ever met him? Have you ever seen a photograph? Or are you still just talking shite?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 27, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Have you ever met him? Have you ever seen a photograph? Or are you still just talking shite?



No TeeJay, it is a question of his pattern of behavior.  Only a white man would have moved to Brixton, got totally pissed, stumbled home at three in the morning, shouted "fuck off" to a black skunk-sayer, felt good about it at the time, but apprehensive about it in the morning, written to a bulletin board asking whether everyone shouldn't do the same, become offended when his conduct was called racist, demand that everyone ignore the allegation, and finally claim that his father was from Malaysia.  Its *obvious.*


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 27, 2006)

Phil - please shut up and go away.


----------



## toggle (Jan 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Its *obvious.*




Only to someone that has pre concieved notions of what people of certain races behave like. 

Would deciding someone's skin colour based on your perceptions of their behavior be concious or unconcious racism?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No TeeJay, it is a question of his pattern of behavior.  Only a white man would have moved to Brixton, got totally pissed, stumbled home at three in the morning, shouted "fuck off" to a black skunk-sayer, felt good about it at the time, but apprehensive about it in the morning, written to a bulletin board asking whether everyone shouldn't do the same, become offended when his conduct was called racist, demand that everyone ignore the allegation, and finally claim that his father was from Malaysia.  Its *obvious.*



Only if you're either prepared to make a series of racist assumptions, or you're an idiot with an omniscience complex, Phil.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2006)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Phil - please shut up and go away.



You don't understand. He *CAN'T*.

If he does that he'd have to admit to not being omniscient.

Can you really imagine Phil admitting that he was wrong about something?

Neither can I.


----------



## h4k4 (Jan 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Once again, I put it to you that the real difference you see between your own activities and those of the people you would like to kill is that you are white and they are black.  Is this not the truth?



Why are you so obsessed with skin colour?

You really are a racist aren't you?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No TeeJay, it is a question of his pattern of behavior.  Only a white man would have moved to Brixton, got totally pissed, stumbled home at three in the morning, shouted "fuck off" to a black skunk-sayer, felt good about it at the time, but apprehensive about it in the morning, written to a bulletin board asking whether everyone shouldn't do the same, become offended when his conduct was called racist, demand that everyone ignore the allegation, and finally claim that his father was from Malaysia.  Its *obvious.*


You dribbling fool.

Edit: I am really beyond getting angry at this feeble minded rubbish...

...in fact this post just made me laugh.

But yes, this is racist shite. Post reported. Hopefully if he keeps up this racism we will finally get rid of this arsehole and the stink he creates.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 27, 2006)

h4k4 said:
			
		

> And if you think I'd like to kill a person just for selling a few rocks then you're sorely mistaken, or just bullshitting.



PK, if you imagine that you will be able to hide behind this new identity, you are gravely mistaken.  Your raging tantrums betray you too easily.  I can certainly understand your shame regarding your previous identity, under which you fantasized about killing not just drug dealers but Gary Glitter, Osama bin Laden, soccer hooligans, Sr. de Menezes, muggers, Jonathan King, and several contributors to these boards.  But a simple apology and expression of regret would do fine.  There is no need to invent a new persona, one of you is quite sufficient.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 27, 2006)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Phil -- please just shut up and go away






			
				ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> You don't understand. He *CAN'T*.
> 
> *If he does that he'd have to admit to not being omniscient.*
> 
> ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 27, 2006)

robotsimon said:
			
		

> Are you Charlie Brooker






			
				ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Impossible, Charlie Brooker is *funny*.



So are you ....


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 27, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> I doubt it, I was friends at school with the bloke and he was a MUCH more amusing and pleasant company. :


Really? I worked with him briefly on PC Zone.  Always knew he'd go far.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No TeeJay, it is a question of his pattern of behavior.  Only a white man would have moved to Brixton, got totally pissed, stumbled home at three in the morning, shouted "fuck off" to a black skunk-sayer, felt good about it at the time, but apprehensive about it in the morning, written to a bulletin board asking whether everyone shouldn't do the same, become offended when his conduct was called racist, demand that everyone ignore the allegation, and finally claim that his father was from Malaysia.  Its *obvious.*



A great deal of street crime in Brixton - certainly a lot of violent crime in Brixton - is black on black crime. Who is the rascist then Phil, the victim or the assailant? Maybe they are both *subconsiously* *rascist?* 
**


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 27, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Really? I worked with him briefly on PC Zone.  Always knew he'd go far.


You worked on PC Zone? You didn't review videogames did you?


----------



## LDR (Jan 27, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Really? I worked with him briefly on PC Zone.  Always knew he'd go far.


    That's one of the most misogynistic and sexiest game magazines out.

I'm ashamed to say I've had a subscription since it started.  However, I've written to them telling them that there's no need for it.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 27, 2006)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> That's one of the most misogynistic and sexiest game magazines out.
> 
> I'm ashamed to say I've had a subscription since it started.  However, I've written to them telling them that there's no need for it.



yes, awful magazine. *Terrible* in fact.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2006)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> That's one of the most misogynistic and sexiest game magazines out.



Sexiest?

As in it makes you horny?    

Well I never!!


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 27, 2006)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> That's one of the most misogynistic and *sexiest* game magazines out.
> 
> I'm ashamed to say I've had a subscription since it started.  However, I've written to them telling them that there's no need for it.


O rly? O_O


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 27, 2006)

PCGamer > PCZone 

fight fight
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/forums/
v
http://forum.pcgamer.co.uk/index.php


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jan 27, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> PCGamer > PCZone
> 
> fight fight
> http://www.computerandvideogames.com/forums/
> ...



I think you maybe *subconsiously* *prejudiced* against this magazine.


----------



## LDR (Jan 27, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Sexiest?
> 
> As in it makes you horny?
> 
> Well I never!!


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 27, 2006)

h4k4 said:
			
		

> Why are you so obsessed with skin colour?
> 
> You really are a racist aren't you?
> 
> Last edited by h4k4 : 27-01-2006 at 06:58 PM.



Intriguing.  PK, why have you edited out the incriminating bits of your last post?


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Intriguing.  PK, why have you edited out the incriminating bits of your last post?


Whoever he was, I didn't like the cut of his jib for a 'new' poster one bit, so he's banned (there was no IP match, btw, but it's been noted for reference).


----------



## Isambard (Jan 27, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Really? I worked with him briefly on PC Zone.  Always knew he'd go far.



Yeah, we always know he'd go far too.
I've still got some wicked cartoon drawings of me and our classmates.   

His written stuff ripping the shit out of small towns in the Thames Valley is spot on.


----------



## pk (Jan 27, 2006)

h4k4 said:
			
		

> Why are you so obsessed with skin colour?
> 
> You really are a racist aren't you?



I'd like the IP number of "h4k4" PM'ed to me... and any other info you have saved... especially if it looks like it's from the USA.

For fucks sake when is this bullshit going to end??

Has it got to the point where phildwyer is actually inventing an ID because I won't play??

Or something else more sinister??

Either way, fuck it this is just kids stuff now.


----------



## pk (Jan 27, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Whoever he was, I didn't like the cut of his jib for a 'new' poster one bit, so he's banned (there was no IP match, btw, but it's been noted for reference).



Does that mean the IP doesn't match anyone else, or it doesn't match mine?



Can you check your PMs please editor.


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Does that mean the IP doesn't match anyone else, or it doesn't match mine?


It didn't match anyone registered on the site. 

It wasn't a US IP address either and I don't forward IP addresses to other posters.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 27, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Has it got to the point where phildwyer is actually inventing an ID because I won't play??



Hey man, its not me.  Seriously.  The Ed can confirm this.


----------



## pk (Jan 27, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> It didn't match anyone registered on the site.
> 
> It wasn't a US IP address either and I don't forward IP addresses to other posters.



Can you not PM me the company concerned with supplying the IP then?

If some fucker is impersonating me, I want some clues... especially as I've been incriminated twice on this thread by tosspots trying to stitch me up.


----------



## pk (Jan 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Hey man, its not me.  Seriously.  The Ed can confirm this.



Noted.


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The Ed can confirm this.


Indeed I can!

<editor retires to let the bunfight continue>


----------



## Isambard (Jan 27, 2006)

PK: If you want me to go back and edit out where I quoted Phildwyer incriminating you I will do so as I said at the time. I assume the same applies to WoW too.


----------



## pk (Jan 27, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> PK: If you want me to go back and edit out where I quoted Phildwyer incriminating you I will do so as I said at the time. I assume the same applies to WoW too.



If everyone could do this it would be nice.

I'm just off a ban, so I'm not going to say what I want to say about certain people, and I've no proof anyway.

I'm off to the pub. Fucked off.

Anymore "pk" visitations here can be assumed to be someone else... and banned/IP'ed.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 27, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I'm off to the pub. Fucked off.



Oh Lord.  You all realize, of course, what this means we can expect around 11pm GMT?  Batten down the hatches.


----------



## toggle (Jan 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh Lord.  You all realize, of course, what this means we can expect around 11pm GMT?  Batten down the hatches.




yes, you getting shown up as a tit again. nothing new there then.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 28, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> PK: If you want me to go back and edit out where I quoted Phildwyer incriminating you I will do so as I said at the time. I assume the same applies to WoW too.






			
				pk said:
			
		

> If everyone could do this it would be nice.
> 
> I'm just off a ban, so I'm not going to say what I want to say about certain people, and I've no proof anyway.
> 
> ...



Happy to edit post 1282, as soon as phil edits his slanderous and bang out of order 'banter' from post 1280 ... which is a pointless suggestion from me, as he'll only respond by demanding pk edits each and every insulting remark from _his_ posts. Rather than admit that he, phil, can ever be in any way wrong about anything, ever  ...

OK. Post 1282 now edited. For the moment.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 28, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Happy to edit post 1282, as soon as phil edits his slanderous and bang out of order 'banter' from post 1280 ... which is a pointless suggestion from me, as he'll only respond by demanding pk edits each and every insulting remark from _his_ posts.



I would if I thought there was any point.  But PK has clearly expressed his attitude to such matters in post 1254.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 28, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I would if I thought there was any point.  But PK has clearly expressed his attitude to such matters in post 1254.



Two wrongs don't make a right ... and yours was pretty wrong WHATEVER wrong thing it was in response to. But you seem extraordinarily reluctant to concede that (as VP said, an omniscience/never-wrong complex on your part)


----------



## steveblue (Jan 28, 2006)

*'Sting' on middle-class drug use*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4656806.stm


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 28, 2006)

steveblue said:
			
		

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4656806.stm



So if you shout "fuck off" at a skunk-sayer who is in fact an undercover cop, would he book you for threatening behavior or congratulate you on your fervour for law and order?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> So if you shout "fuck off" at a skunk-sayer who is in fact an undercover cop, would he book you for threatening behavior or congratulate you on your fervour for law and order?



He'd probably deliberately shit his kecks and then register a claim with the Met's insurers for "mental distress" and dry cleaning costs.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 29, 2006)

I'd like for us to have a genuine discussion about crack sometime. I don't know enough about it and I think urbanites are as good a source as anywhere else.   

Oi! VP, next Thursday. Albert. Pints!


----------



## editor (Jan 29, 2006)

steveblue said:
			
		

> Sting' on middle-class drug use


"Crackhead in a bottle..."


----------



## Rune (Jan 29, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> I'd like for us to have a genuine discussion about crack sometime. I don't know enough about it and I think urbanites are as good a source as anywhere else.
> 
> Oi! VP, next Thursday. Albert. Pints!



Why not pop over to the Drugs Forum? Lots of first hand experience over there.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 29, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> "Crackhead in a bottle..."



Rocks, Anne?


----------



## editor (Jan 29, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Rocks, Anne?


Every Little Rock She Does Is Magic


----------



## marty21 (Jan 29, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Every Little Rock She Does Is Magic



rocksanne


----------



## Isambard (Jan 29, 2006)

North Tyneside is a funny borough. Staunch working class the Newcastle end but very Tory towards the coast. Major had a plan to move the western estates into Newcaste City to create a Conservative ruled metropolitan borough.


----------

