# What is happening to London?



## waverunner (Feb 5, 2007)

As Jezza said on the Streatham shooting thread, what is happening to London?

It really is too much now. 

I'm curious, what peoples ideas are as to how this could be stopped (i.e. kids killing kids, being in possession of guns, terrorising people etc etc). No-one else is going to do anything about it. Councils let youth centres run into disrepair, people become too afraid to stand up to kids (which is understandable in some cases).. what would you do about it? Where is the fundamental problem? How can we, as a society, begin to solve this problem?


----------



## Maggot (Feb 5, 2007)

It's now worse now than before. In fact London used to be more violent.


----------



## waverunner (Feb 5, 2007)

OK fuck it I'm wrong ,please delete the thread I haven't been in LOndon long enough.


----------



## boohoo (Feb 5, 2007)

I think it is a valid point. We need people to be concerned that kids are killing each other and that the presence of guns is being seen as more acceptable.

I reckon put more money into youth work - projects of getting kids off the street, etc.


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 5, 2007)

waverunner said:
			
		

> OK fuck it I'm wrong ,please delete the thread I haven't been in LOndon long enough.



I fear you are right, Waverunner, alas you have a problem here. Namely that urban is very heavily populated with the type of ostrich character (usually non-Londoners by birth and upbringing) who refuses to have a bad word said against the capital, despite every possible strain of evidence pointing to the fact that it is one ginormous toilet. It is a city that has deteriorated socially, culturally and economically to such an extent, there are only a handful of places I could name that are vaguely civilised. And they're surrounded by hellish fuck holes.

Sorry for the rant. Maybe that's just me and my inability to keep a lid on my nauseating forelock tugging apologia.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 5, 2007)

I don't have an opinion either way, but I'm happier and feel safer here than when I moved here (10 years ago).

That might be because I'm familiar with London, but when I moved here there were clear 'no-go' areas - and I genuinely don't think there are.


----------



## editor (Feb 5, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> It is a city that has deteriorated socially, culturally and economically to such an extent, there are only a handful of places I could name that are vaguely civilised. And they're surrounded by hellish fuck holes.


I suggest a read of "Hooligan, a history of respectable fears" might put you straight on this one.


----------



## boohoo (Feb 5, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> It is a city that has deteriorated socially, culturally and economically to such an extent, there are only a handful of places I could name that are vaguely civilised. And they're surrounded by hellish fuck holes.



which bits are civilised?


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 5, 2007)

nonamenopackdrill said:
			
		

> I don't have an opinion either way, but I'm happier and feel safer here than when I moved here (10 years ago).
> 
> That might be because I'm familiar with London, but when I moved here there were clear 'no-go' areas - and I genuinely don't think there are.



The no-go areas still exist, although they're dire bleakness and ultra-violent side has subsided due to improvements in policing not to mention hundreds of millions in extra funding for the Met since the early 90s.

That said, I do think (as a London 2nd gen Greek born and bread) that most of London isn't worth the fucking paving slabs and tarmac it's built around.


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 5, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> I suggest a read of "Hooligan, a history of respectable fears" might put you straight on this one.



Alright then - I'll seek out a copy and read it.


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 5, 2007)

boohoo said:
			
		

> which bits are civilised?



I can list them on the digits of one hand:

Blackheath
Dulwich
Hampstead
Primrose Hill
Richmond (technically a London Borough, although Surrey?)

I won't even count Kensington, even that's going downhill!


----------



## boohoo (Feb 5, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> I can list them on the digits of one hand:
> 
> Blackheath
> Dulwich
> ...



You see, I would think of them as the wealthy parts of the city whose residents keep their interactions with the rest of the place to the minimum. Having grown up in next to the posh bit of Stockwell, I gained the opinion that the people there wanted as to do as little as possible for the whole neighbourhood. Not very friendly or encouraging community.


----------



## untethered (Feb 5, 2007)

Society in general needs to set aside the individualistic pursuit of wealth (and other forms of self-aggrandisement) and reject moral relativism.

These things are a problem all over the world, but London is one particular amplified example.


----------



## waverunner (Feb 5, 2007)

Sorry for being dim but there's a posh bit of Stockwell 

Hooligan's a good book.


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 5, 2007)

boohoo said:
			
		

> You see, I would think of them as the wealthy parts of the city whose residents keep their interactions with the rest of the place to the minimum. Having grown up in next to the posh bit of Stockwell, I gained the opinion that the people there wanted as to do as little as possible for the whole neighbourhood. Not very friendly or encouraging community.



If I lived in one of the posh bits, I'd want to have nothing to do with the dodgy high crime areas too. Why would any rational person deliberately live in a place where there's a 1 in 3 chance of getting mugged every year, when there's the chance to live somewhere safe? If only for my family's sake. I can't bear the idea of putting anyone else at risk, couldn't really care about my self.

(I'm certain I'm gonna get the fuck ripped out of me for saying that)

Please note: I am not saying if you live in a rough area, you don't care about your peeps or are pikey!!! It's just the way I see things)


----------



## LDR (Feb 5, 2007)

I actually feel the opposite to nonamenopackdrill but that's 'cause where I live feels like is going downhill.

My Good Lady Wife was the victim of a violent mugging not so long ago literally minutes from our front door.

A pub down the road has had it's window put in as has a Fried Chicken joint.

A new cash and carry has opened round the corner from us right next to a mini mart/newsagent and they are having fights and graffiting each other's stores.

A number of Polish shops with no signs in English have opened up too which I don't particularly mind but other locals don't like it and there is tension on the streets.

My local pub seems to have been taken over by young kids which in itself isn't bad, but they're is a lot of aggressiveness when they can't handle their drink.  I know it's a learning curve that many people go through but I don't really want to be around it at my age.

There also seem to be a lot more drifters around which unfortunately doesn't help community relations.  Also due to house prices rocketing due to the Olympics, people who have lived here for years are selling up and they are being replaced by landlords out to make a quick buck who are renting houses out by the room taking away the family element of the community.

Maybe 'cause I'm no longer smoking shit loads of weed I'm starting to notice things I hadn't before.  I feel more on edge round where I live now.


----------



## Maggot (Feb 5, 2007)

waverunner said:
			
		

> OK fuck it I'm wrong ,please delete the thread I haven't been in LOndon long enough.


 There is definitely a problem, it's just not a new one. Although kids with guns is quite a new phenomenon.


----------



## boohoo (Feb 5, 2007)

waverunner said:
			
		

> Sorry for being dim but there's a posh bit of Stockwell
> 
> Hooligan's a good book.



Stockwell Park Cresent, Groveway, Stockwell Park road - Always been posh -all the local kids go to private school -they don't mix with the locals much.


----------



## untethered (Feb 5, 2007)

"London Calling" is a good book on middle-class enclaves in inner London.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/London-Call...ef=sr_1_2/203-2391179-4870322?ie=UTF8&s=books


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 5, 2007)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> I actually feel the opposite to nonamenopackdrill but that's 'cause where I live feels like is going downhill.
> 
> My Good Lady Wife was the victim of a violent mugging not so long ago literally minutes from our front door.
> 
> ...



 

And your area is a decent one as well imo.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 5, 2007)

LD - please send Mrs Scott my, well I dunno what, but I'm sorry.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 5, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> I can list them on the digits of one hand:
> 
> Blackheath
> Dulwich
> ...



Twat.

Even a good troll wouldn't include Dulwich (though it has a great pub!)


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 5, 2007)

nonamenopackdrill said:
			
		

> And your area is a decent one as well imo.



I wouldn't mind if people who lived in London shit holes just owned up, stop trying to kid themselves and everyone and just said, "look, I know I live in a fuckhole, but I want to/like to/can't afford otherwise, so there you go."

Instead, I hear from people who won't have a word said against the place!

Er, I've lived there all my life, till recently. That's over a quarter of a century of the slow blinding realisation that London is a horrific nightmare of a cunt hole. Get over it.


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 5, 2007)

nonamenopackdrill said:
			
		

> Twat.
> 
> Even a good troll wouldn't include Dulwich (though it has a great pub!)



  I actually think Dulwich is quite quaint.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 5, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> That said, I do think (as a London 2nd gen Greek born and bread) that most of London isn't worth the fucking paving slabs and tarmac it's built around.


who said you HAVE to live here?
for my part; i still love this city and see an awful lot of good in it, and more than a little that is awesome.
but I think we have a major new problem, if 16-year-old kids are getting shot for 'dissing' at a leisure venue. I go skating occasionally at the streatham icerink; it could have been ME stopping that bullet.  
and the fact the piopulation is more transient than ever, plus the fact it's w/c communities which take the brunt of the social costs of soaring immigration levels make the atmosphere on the streets a lot worse


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 5, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> I wouldn't mind if people who lived in London shit holes just owned up, stop trying to kid themselves and everyone and just said, "look, I know I live in a fuckhole, but I want to/like to/can't afford otherwise, so there you go."
> 
> Instead, I hear from people who won't have a word said against the place!
> 
> Er, I've lived there all my life, till recently. That's over a quarter of a century of the slow blinding realisation that London is a horrific nightmare of a cunt hole. Get over it.



Oh dear.

Well I really like LD Rudeboy's area. Genuinely. Half a dozen mates there - often good for a drink - friendly pubs - multicultural.

By contrast I feel threatened in my home town.

What's your problem.


----------



## boohoo (Feb 5, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> I wouldn't mind if people who lived in London shit holes just owned up, stop trying to kid themselves and everyone and just said, "look, I know I live in a fuckhole, but I want to/like to/can't afford otherwise, so there you go."
> 
> Instead, I hear from people who won't have a word said against the place!
> 
> Er, I've lived there all my life, till recently. That's over a quarter of a century of the slow blinding realisation that London is a horrific nightmare of a cunt hole. Get over it.



calm down, P the G...  

Yes lots of London is shitty but the great areas you suggested aren't the kind of places that welcome you with open arms. Anyway, some people enjoy the 'danger' element to London...  

(not me, btw. I've seen too much crap!)


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 5, 2007)

nonamenopackdrill said:
			
		

> Oh dear.
> 
> Well I really like LD Rudeboy's area. Genuinely. Half a dozen mates there - often good for a drink - friendly pubs - multicultural.
> 
> ...



multiculural???

what a fucking CRE pedalled myth.

London, well, Britain, is multi-racial not multicultural.

By and large, ethnic groups stick to their own, rarely blend in and mix...and the tensions being ratcheted up recently because of the political situation is awful.

Honestly, people love to fool themselves.


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 5, 2007)

boohoo said:
			
		

> calm down, P the G...
> 
> Yes lots of London is shitty but the great areas you suggested aren't the kind of places that welcome you with open arms. Anyway, some people enjoy the 'danger' element to London...
> 
> (not me, btw. I've seen too much crap!)



I know.   I think I just grew sick of the fucking place after years of putting up with shit.

I'm sure it's ok for some people, even if for a few years.


----------



## boohoo (Feb 5, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> I know.   I think I just grew sick of the fucking place after years of putting up with shit.
> 
> I'm sure it's ok for some people, even if for a few years.



Well, I can get tired of the place but I haven't seen too much crap lately and I tend to resign myself to the continual violence of London. Bit sad really. The city has lots to offer, is an amazing place and is certainly an improvement on some of the other towns/cities in the UK.


----------



## potential (Feb 5, 2007)

things that werent tollerated a few years ago are now the norn.
pissing in the streets , throwing out old bits of furniture.
my mate lived in the posh bit of stockwell, cunts used to break into
the house regualy, they used to jump over the wall and peer into
kitchen while we were sitting there, no fear cos they knew
they could just go up into the angell estate.
why slag off the people in those nice house saying they never interact
with general public.  thats bollocks


----------



## boohoo (Feb 5, 2007)

potential said:
			
		

> why slag off the people in those nice house saying they never interact
> with general public.  thats bollocks



ummmm, because, me and my family, living on the edge of the nice bit in a nice house have over 30 years had barely a squeak out of these people. Not saying that they are bad or not nice, I have met one or two ( and have worked for one as a mothers help). But they do tend to look down their noses. They know who my parents are -we just ain't posh -that's the problem.


----------



## waverunner (Feb 5, 2007)

What you consider a 'shithole' is all relative though isn't it PG (and everyone)? I used to live in an area in NW which has some very pricey bits and is considered 'trendy' and I fucking hated it. It was full of idiots wanting to hang around looking cool maaaan and my local corner shop guy refused to even say a friendly hello even though he saw me at least once a week, without fail, for a whole year. Nobody was friendly. Nobody gave a shit. That to me, was a shithole.

Streatham doesn't have the worlds greatest reputation and a few of my friends think I live in the ghetto  and some might consider it a shithole for various reasons. But I love it here because I don't feel out of place, the locals are friendly enough, I feel like I actually live in a 'neighbourhood' rather than living just in my flat which is how I felt in NW. Perhaps if we entirely remove the 'neighbourhood' element from everywhere, then no one will know anyone and that way kids will not want to shoot anyone


----------



## HackneyE9 (Feb 5, 2007)

I'd live anywhere in London except NW.


----------



## editor (Feb 5, 2007)

potential said:
			
		

> things that werent tollerated a few years ago are now the norn.





> "The morals of children are tenfold worse than formerly"


Lord Ashley, 1843


----------



## zenie (Feb 5, 2007)

waverunner said:
			
		

> OK fuck it I'm wrong ,please delete the thread I haven't been in LOndon long enough.



No you're not wrong and there's a number of reasons behind it.


----------



## untethered (Feb 5, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Lord Ashley, 1843



And what's to say that things haven't got worse since then?


----------



## potential (Feb 5, 2007)

boohoo said:
			
		

> . Not saying that they are bad or not nice, I have met one or two ( and have worked for one as a mothers help). But they do tend to look down their noses. They know who my parents are -we just ain't posh -that's the problem.


the stock pk rd that i know most of the residence were v friendly
gaurdian reading types, used to all help out for the church up the road and when ever there was a do at the adventure play ground bit were fundraiseing etc.          looking down there noses isnt a crime, but the shit that they have to put up with [ vandalism mugging ] is a crime.
 if someone looked down there nose at me i , i would be at my polite
best just to prove i have no prejedice's.


----------



## LDR (Feb 5, 2007)

nonamenopackdrill said:
			
		

> Well I really like LD Rudeboy's area. Genuinely. Half a dozen mates there - *always* good for a drink - friendly pubs - multicultural.


  I fixed it for you. 

Apart from our neighbours on our left, we were the only white people on our side of the street when we moved in about five years ago.  The Nigerian bloke, the Turkish-Cypriots, the white Eastend couple who had lived in the same house for the last eighteen years and the two Asian families we share our street with all went out of their way to welcome us to the area.  They all knew each other and while they may not got to the pub together, they certainly mixed.  That's not happened anywhere else I've ever lived.  

Despite me feeling like my area isn't as safe as it used to be.  I still love London and think it's the most tolerant place I've ever lived or indeed travelled to and I believe I'm reasonably well-travelled.


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 5, 2007)

waverunner said:
			
		

> What you consider a 'shithole' is all relative though isn't it PG (and everyone)? I used to live in an area in NW which has some very pricey bits and is considered 'trendy' and I fucking hated it. It was full of idiots wanting to hang around looking cool maaaan and my local corner shop guy refused to even say a friendly hello even though he saw me at least once a week, without fail, for a whole year. Nobody was friendly. Nobody gave a shit. That to me, was a shithole.
> 
> Streatham doesn't have the worlds greatest reputation and a few of my friends think I live in the ghetto  and some might consider it a shithole for various reasons. But I love it here because I don't feel out of place, the locals are friendly enough, I feel like I actually live in a 'neighbourhood' rather than living just in my flat which is how I felt in NW. Perhaps if we entirely remove the 'neighbourhood' element from everywhere, then no one will know anyone and that way kids will not want to shoot anyone



aah!! That sounds like a North London / South London thing.

I totally agree. South London, despite being a dump by and large, is far more friendly and hosts far more cohesive communities that North London which is a god awful, cold, bitter hostile bag of fetid smeg.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 5, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> multiculural???
> 
> what a fucking CRE pedalled myth.
> 
> ...




Yes, says the bloke who can't believe I am married to a Greek. Then called me a liar because I'd met many hundred muslims. And also have conversations to mutual benefit with several hundred African Carribbean and African American black people.

Still, must be fooling myself, but no-one I work with day-to-day questions it. Why don't you try telling them they are multi-racial.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 5, 2007)

Cheers LD - except the once, and that was just imported urbanites who spoiled it!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 5, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> multiculural???
> 
> what a fucking CRE pedalled myth.
> 
> ...


Bollocks. The people ratcheting up the tensions are the ones demanding that everyone behave all jolly British (aka "integration") and while we're at it speak English goddamn you, and of course Muslims must repeatedly beg forgiveness for the behaviour of random nutcases, and anyone in a bloody headscarf is either oppressed or a terrorist.


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 5, 2007)

nonamenopackdrill said:
			
		

> Yes, says the bloke who can't believe I am married to a Greek. Then called me a liar because I'd met many hundred muslims. And also have conversations to mutual benefit with several hundred African Carribbean and African American black people.
> 
> Still, must be fooling myself, but no-one I work with day-to-day questions it. Why don't you try telling them they are multi-racial.



you think cunt, i couldn't care less who you meet in your job, it's irrelevant from my point.

I never said individuals were multi-racial.....BECAUSE THAT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE, NUMBNUTS!!!  

I said London and Britain as a while is multi-racial. Big difference. 

You really are a bit of a thicko aren't you?


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 5, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> aah!! That sounds like a North London / South London thing.
> 
> I totally agree. South London, despite being a dump by and large, is far more friendly and hosts far more cohesive communities that North London which is a god awful, cold, bitter hostile bag of fetid smeg.



Where's that then?

See I've lived in Lewisham, trained to teach in Eltham and West Norwood, lived in New Cross, lived in Great Ormond St, in Islington, in Tottenham, in Walthamstow, and in Bounds Green. Taught in Plaistow, Walthamstow and Edmonton.

And you know what, you talk bollocks. But let me know about your experiences.


----------



## boohoo (Feb 5, 2007)

potential said:
			
		

> the stock pk rd that i know most of the residence were v friendly
> gaurdian reading types, used to all help out for the church up the road and when ever there was a do at the adventure play ground bit were fundraiseing etc.          looking down there noses isnt a crime, but the shit that they have to put up with [ vandalism mugging ] is a crime.
> if someone looked down there nose at me i , i would be at my polite
> best just to prove i have no prejedice's.


 
My parents live on Stockwell Park road (for 30 years) and have met quite a few of the people and are also prone to the same vandalism, mugging, all that shite that has always gone on there. My parents, having met lots of the people at the local church, my mum worked at the playgroup and met many of the local residence and their kids, yet the majority choose to look down their nose. My mum commented how sad it was that for all her time there, these people are not particularly friendly.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 5, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> you think cunt, i couldn't care less who you meet in your job, it's irrelevant from my point.
> 
> I never said individuals were multi-racial.....BECAUSE THAT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE, NUMBNUTS!!!
> 
> ...



So you admit that in four previous threads you were wrong to try to be right in this one. 

And you'll fail again.

Carry on simpleton.


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 5, 2007)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Bollocks. The people ratcheting up the tensions are the ones demanding that everyone behave all jolly British (aka "integration") and while we're at it speak English goddamn you, and of course Muslims must repeatedly beg forgiveness for the behaviour of random nutcases, and anyone in a bloody headscarf is either oppressed or a terrorist.



How utterly random and generalising!

Also, I don't see much in the way of rampant apology giving from the Muslim community, do you? *checks doorstep, can't see any Muslim people apologising*

Or is that me and my Nauseating Forelock Tugging Apologia (sic) at work again?


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 5, 2007)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Bollocks. The people ratcheting up the tensions are the ones demanding that everyone behave all jolly British (aka "integration") and while we're at it speak English goddamn you, and of course Muslims must repeatedly beg forgiveness for the behaviour of random nutcases, and anyone in a bloody headscarf is either oppressed or a terrorist.



Great post.

Waiting for Pete to back his post up.


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 5, 2007)

nonamenopackdrill said:
			
		

> Great post.
> 
> Waiting for Pete to back his post up.



Shit stirrer.

You are Maddalene and I claim my five pounds

(p.s. It's not a call out because there is no such poster as Maddalene anymore)


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 5, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> How utterly random and generalising!
> 
> Also, I don't see much in the way of rampant apology giving from the Muslim community, do you *checks doorstep, can't see any Muslim people apologising*
> 
> Or is that me and my Nauseating Forelock Tugging Apologia (sic) at work again?




what a ridiculous demand. Never saw a member of the Greek church apologising for a couple of years ago.


Nor would I expect to. Twat. Now, what does an ordinary muslim have to apologise for and why shouldn't a member of GO church apologise?


----------



## editor (Feb 5, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> And what's to say that things haven't got worse since then?


So how much worse do you think the morals of children are  from their previous generation now? 15 times? 20 times?

The point is that each generation declares things to be out of control and worse then before, yet history doesn't bear this out.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 5, 2007)

By the way, I'm a member of the GO church.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 5, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> Shit stirrer.
> 
> You are Maddalene and I claim my five pounds
> 
> (p.s. It's not a call out because there is no such poster as Maddalene anymore)



No, I'm flimsier and have been here since 2002. Now that you know, can you please address the argument?


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 5, 2007)

we've gone into rampant 'taking PtG out of context mode again, haven't we? Oh dear. Another potentially interesting thread hijacked and ruined by the trolling misrepresenters.

Just leave me alone


----------



## boohoo (Feb 5, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> aah!! That sounds like a North London / South London thing.
> 
> I totally agree. South London, despite being a dump by and large, is far more friendly and hosts far more cohesive communities that North London which is a god awful, cold, bitter hostile bag of fetid smeg.



I prefer north London - Hackney, Tottenham, Edmonton. And I'm a south Londoner.

Wouldn't live in NW though.


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 5, 2007)

boohoo said:
			
		

> I prefer north London - Hackney, Tottenham, Edmonton. And I'm a south Londoner.
> 
> Wouldn't live in NW though.



I went to see Spurs play once at White Hart Lane. Was terrified on my walk up from Seven Sisters!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 5, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> How utterly random and generalising!


what



			
				Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> Also, I don't see much in the way of rampant apology giving from the Muslim community, do you? *checks doorstep, can't see any Muslim people apologising*


Why should they have to?



			
				Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> Or is that me and my Nauseating Forelock Tugging Apologia (sic) at work again?


what


----------



## boohoo (Feb 5, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> I went to see Spurs play once at White Hart Lane. Was terrified on my walk up from Seven Sisters!



Seven Sisters is a bit of a funny one. I didn't like it when I was first up there but i learnt to be very fond of it. My favourite place for being peaceful was Stamford Hill. And Clapton ( although murder mile at the time) was a great place with the wonderful peaceful river Lea to relax by.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 5, 2007)

well exactly. When he explains his ridiculous generalisations...


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 5, 2007)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> what
> 
> Why should they have to?
> 
> what



Oh dear. I don't think you've turned your sarcasm detector on today huh Fridge? I was making direct references to put downs you have hitherto used on me, except in the context of the argument.

I do not believe Muslims should feel obliged to apologise. But you're claim was that they are somehow being coerced into apologising, and it's not borne out in reality. Fact is, the community is notably silent on all matters pertaining to issues that exist within their circles. But I know your views on this and I can't be arsed with a row.

Anyway, this is about London, not the Lebanon. Who do you think I am?

Well, apart from PtG.

Are you a bit obsessed with the whole Islam and Britain debate these days, Fridge?


----------



## untethered (Feb 5, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> So how much worse do you think the morals of children are  from their previous generation now? 15 times? 20 times?
> 
> The point is that each generation declares things to be out of control and worse then before, yet history doesn't bear this out.



You're most probably right.

I'd be more interested in addressing what's bad in society and working towards sorting it out than making comparisons with other times and places, favourable or otherwise.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 5, 2007)

boohoo said:
			
		

> Seven Sisters is a bit of a funny one. I didn't like it when I was first up there but i learnt to be very fond of it. My favourite place for being peaceful was Stamford Hill. And Clapton ( although murder mile at the time) was a great place with the wonderful peaceful river Lea to relax by.


To be honest, while I have a bit of affection for the place after living there for a few years, I think Seven Sisters is basically a bit of a shithole. There was just a sort of dead-eyed look that all of the residents got after a while. Some fantastic places (e.g. the Swan is a terrific pub) but I found the whole experience depressing.

Although admittedly I was a bit miserable at the time, being skanked by loads of different flatmates for rent and having to sort out the bills for a whole house full of lazy fuckers.


----------



## boohoo (Feb 5, 2007)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> To be honest, while I have a bit of affection for the place after living there for a few years, I think Seven Sisters is basically a bit of a shithole. There was just a sort of dead-eyed look that all of the residents got after a while. Some fantastic places (e.g. the Swan is a terrific pub) but I found the whole experience depressing.
> 
> Although admittedly I was a bit miserable at the time, being skanked by loads of different flatmates for rent and having to sort out the bills for a whole house full of lazy fuckers.



Well the real reason I like all those places is because I'm near the River Lea. I went there at the weekend -Clapton, Hackney and spent time looking at the water and the wildlife and I felt really refreshed. The people in north London seem pretty similar to the people in the south though there seems to be a bigger mix in north London. Still lots of various problems in the areas - prostitution creeping back into Seven sisters and Stamford Hill, Hackney and it's gun crime., the Turkish drug dealers, etc...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 5, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> Oh dear. I don't think you've turned your sarcasm detector on today huh Fridge? I was making direct references to put downs you have hitherto used on me, except in the context of the argument.
> 
> I do not believe Muslims should feel obliged to apologise. But you're claim was that they are somehow being coerced into apologising, and it's not borne out in reality. Fact is, the community is notably silent on all matters pertaining to issues that exist within their circles. But I know your views on this and I can't be arsed with a row.
> 
> ...


Yuh. I said there was an expectation there that they would be continually begging forgiveness, and there is. The fact that you say that "the community is notably silent" just illustrates that (a) you don't pay any attention - if you actually look. there are shitloads of people saying "we don't want to be associated with nutcases", perfectly publicly, and that (b) you think that they _should_, bearing out my original point. Because otherwise why would you even bother mentioning the fact? Do Jews have to beg forgiveness for the actions of the Israeli government? Do white people have to beg forgiveness for white supremacists? When was the last time you apologised for the existence of people who claim your ethnic/racial/cultural/etc background as justification for being cunts? Come on, do it _harder_.


----------



## LDR (Feb 5, 2007)

The first place I lived in London was a street just opposite Stamford Hill railway station.  It was a bit of an eye opener for a small town New Zealand boy.

I don't think I'd ever met a Jewish person before let alone an orthodox Jew.  The two prostitutes who worked outside our front door always asked how I was and if I was looking for a good time.     My Good Lady Wife was often chatted up by kerb crawlers on the way home from the pub.  However, it didn't ever seem unsafe and we never had any threats or saw any violence that I can remember.  

I really enjoyed my time there.  At lot of it had to do with all the different nationalities living together in a big huge house.  Danish, Austrian, Australian, English, Italian, Kiwi and Canadians all happy in London together.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 5, 2007)

boohoo said:
			
		

> Well the real reason I like all those places is because I'm near the River Lea. I went there at the weekend -Clapton, Hackney and spent time looking at the water and the wildlife and I felt really refreshed. The people in north London seem pretty similar to the people in the south though there seems to be a bigger mix in north London. Still lots of various problems in the areas - prostitution creeping back into Seven sisters and Stamford Hill, Hackney and it's gun crime., the Turkish drug dealers, etc...


Yeah, the river is terrific, a lifesaver.

I'd agree that there's a bigger mix than in the bits of the South where I grew up; iirc, Haringey was rated the most ethnically mixed place in Europe.


----------



## waverunner (Feb 5, 2007)

OK although I managed to derail my thread from post 3, back to it. How would you make London safer?


----------



## LDR (Feb 5, 2007)

waverunner said:
			
		

> How would you make London safer?


By doing my bit by being friendly to people, talking to strangers, setting an example.  That sort of thing.


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 5, 2007)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Yuh. I said there was an expectation there that they would be continually begging forgiveness, and there is. The fact that you say that "the community is notably silent" just illustrates that (a) you don't pay any attention - if you actually look. there are shitloads of people saying "we don't want to be associated with nutcases", perfectly publicly, and that (b) you think that they _should_, bearing out my original point. Because otherwise why would you even bother mentioning the fact? Do Jews have to beg forgiveness for the actions of the Israeli government? Do white people have to beg forgiveness for white supremacists? When was the last time you apologised for the existence of people who claim your ethnic/racial/cultural/etc background as justification for being cunts? Come on, do it _harder_.



see your point, but I don't expect any grovelling from any ethnic group. Just a bit more effort from some people to blend in and get on with others. Sadly some cultures seem less averse or willing to make that break. It's not a race thing, it's a cultural thing. No need to get on your high horse and start insinuating I'm racist or Islamophobe or what not  

Anyway, don't play fast and loose. You remember god damned well that time you made that remark, describing my post as "The most nauseating forelock tugging apologia" you have ever read on these boards.

You also said you'd never speak to me again as you were disgusted with me.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 5, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> Oh dear. I don't think you've turned your sarcasm detector on today huh Fridge? I was making direct references to put downs you have hitherto used on me, except in the context of the argument.
> 
> I do not believe Muslims should feel obliged to apologise. But you're claim was that they are somehow being coerced into apologising, and it's not borne out in reality. Fact is, the community is notably silent on all matters pertaining to issues that exist within their circles. But I know your views on this and I can't be arsed with a row.
> 
> ...



You've met no muslims, by your own admission (ref: your posts), yet you expect them to apologise to you for things they aren't responsible for.

I haven't heard one Greek apologise for the disgusting things that went on in the Greek church. Nor would I expect them to.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 5, 2007)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Yuh. I said there was an expectation there that they would be continually begging forgiveness, and there is. The fact that you say that "the community is notably silent" just illustrates that (a) you don't pay any attention - if you actually look. there are shitloads of people saying "we don't want to be associated with nutcases", perfectly publicly, and that (b) you think that they _should_, bearing out my original point. Because otherwise why would you even bother mentioning the fact? Do Jews have to beg forgiveness for the actions of the Israeli government? Do white people have to beg forgiveness for white supremacists? When was the last time you apologised for the existence of people who claim your ethnic/racial/cultural/etc background as justification for being cunts? Come on, do it _harder_.



Last sentence - well exactly.


----------



## waverunner (Feb 5, 2007)

I don't even try and be nice anymore which is a shame. I put on my mean face so that people leave me alone. And its sort of worked though cos the kids that used to always be on my case are now nice to me cos I used to snarl at them and be all sorts of horrible back. We get along ok now. How silly.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 5, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> see your point, but I don't expect any grovelling from any ethnic group. Just a bit more effort from some people to blend in and get on with others. Sadly some cultures seem less averse or willing to make that break. It's not a race thing, it's a cultural thing. No need to get on your high horse and start insinuating I'm racist or Islamophobe or what not
> 
> Anyway, don't play fast and loose. You remember god damned well that time you made that remark, describing my post as "The most nauseating forelock tugging apologia" you have ever read on these boards.
> 
> You also said you'd never speak to me again as you were disgusted with me.


Oh, sorry. I suppose I may have changed my mind or something when confronted with bigoted evidence-free bollocks like "some cultures seem less averse or willing to make that break". Well, slap my wrist for being inconsistent.


----------



## LDR (Feb 5, 2007)

Can I apologise for Pete the Greek as he's a member of the same on-line community as me.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 5, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> see your point, but I don't expect any grovelling from any ethnic group. Just a bit more effort from some people to blend in and get on with others. Sadly some cultures seem less averse or willing to make that break. It's not a race thing, it's a cultural thing. No need to get on your high horse and start insinuating I'm racist or Islamophobe or what not



So, about the Greeks blending in - or do they just congregate around Palmers Green and Arnos Grove and go to Greek school and listen to LGR and so on.

Oh, and the mothers in law - never learn English. Cunts! 








Well exactly. Is your irony meter on (same as all me 'anti' greek posts) - it's usually that you call 'rascist' with no irony to the spelling at all.


----------



## boohoo (Feb 5, 2007)

waverunner said:
			
		

> I don't even try and be nice anymore which is a shame. I put on my mean face so that people leave me alone.



I been doing my 'don't come near me' look since I was about 14. And , touch wood, I haven't had any real trouble - only stoopid men trying to chat me up...


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 5, 2007)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Oh, sorry. I suppose I may have changed my mind or something when confronted with bigoted evidence-free bollocks like "some cultures seem less averse or willing to make that break". Well, slap my wrist for being inconsistent.



Exactly.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 5, 2007)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> Can I apologise for Pete the Greek as he's a member of the same on-line community as me.


----------



## waverunner (Feb 5, 2007)

What would happen if all the guns in the world were got rid of and no more were made?


----------



## boohoo (Feb 5, 2007)

waverunner said:
			
		

> What would happen if all the guns in the world were got rid of and no more were made?



people would stab each other or beat each other with baseball bats or do other horrific things to each other.


----------



## LDR (Feb 5, 2007)

People would still kill each other except not as quickly.


----------



## waverunner (Feb 5, 2007)

ok how about if all kids were made to go to the army for 6 months, and put in groups where to survive they would have to rely on each other. Would they learn respect?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 5, 2007)

waverunner said:
			
		

> ok how about if all kids were made to go to the army for 6 months, and put in groups where to survive they would have to rely on each other. Would they learn respect?


No, they'd just learn to be in gangs when they got out. And to shoot guns properly.


----------



## boohoo (Feb 5, 2007)

waverunner said:
			
		

> ok how about if all kids were made to go to the army for 6 months, and put in groups where to survive they would have to rely on each other. Would they learn respect?



They'd probably learn not to take things for granted a bit. Still wouldn't stop some of them killing each other. Some people are just inclined to violence.


----------



## LDR (Feb 5, 2007)

Nah!  They would form alliances and cliques and fight against the other groups.


----------



## waverunner (Feb 5, 2007)

Ok... how about moving all the troublesome kids to a BOILING HOT country where they are so unused to the heat that they can't move and so they stop killing each other?


----------



## Groucho (Feb 5, 2007)

Up above my head I hear music in the air, up above my head I see trouble in the air...


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 5, 2007)

waverunner said:
			
		

> Ok... how about moving all the troublesome kids to a BOILING HOT country where they are so unused to the heat that they can't move and so they stop killing each other?




Works a treat in Iraq doesn't it


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 5, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Works a treat in Iraq doesn't it



Probably not in their winters when it gets quite cold.

 

doughnut.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 6, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> Probably not in their winters when it gets quite cold.
> 
> 
> 
> doughnut.



And that makes sense in what way?


----------



## lang rabbie (Feb 6, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> > "The morals of children are tenfold worse than formerly"
> 
> 
> Lord Ashley, 1843



Ah the art of selective quotation. 

As he was a leading philanthropist and child welfare campaigner*, trying to get a factory reform act stopping child labour through the House of Commons at the time, I rather suspect Lord Ashley was playing to the Conservative gallery with that line.

* After his father died in 1851, he became the Earl of Shaftesbury after whom Shaftesbury Avenue is named.   His memorial, designed by Alfred Gilbert topped by _Anteros_ aka "The Angel of Christian Charity" is better known as Eros.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 6, 2007)

> To be honest, while I have a bit of affection for the place after living there for a few years, I think Seven Sisters is basically a bit of a shithole. There was just a sort of dead-eyed look that all of the residents got after a while. Some fantastic places (e.g. the Swan is a terrific pub) but I found the whole experience depressing.



seven sisters is alright, west green road usually has a good vibe to it, coffee outside the brazillian market, the bagel shops, fucking shite tescos that seems unable to stock bread and vegetavles though and one of the worst jobcentres ive ever experienced

ive down the road in green lanes now which is always ok as well, specially if you want cheap lager at 4 in the morning


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 6, 2007)

It's not just London IMO.  When I was back in Hull the other weekend, quite a few people commented that there'd been more trouble there recently than there used to be.  It always had a rough reputation, but I never once felt unsafe there.

To me, London does feel generally less safe, and occasionally actively threatening.  Even in sleepy old Charlton there's a fair amount of trouble and at least once a month the centre will be plastered with yellow incident boards detailing muggings and the occasional stabbing.  I certainly don't enjoy walking home at night, especially alone, which is something that never used to bother me at all before I moved here.

Nope.  Still don't like the place.  Take me back north again.


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2007)

Charlton's always been like that! (I take it you don't mean Charlton village, another matter)


----------



## potential (Feb 6, 2007)

get all the gangsta wanabee's give em all guns, stick em in a big pit and let the muppets all kill them selves.
or alternatively, you get knicked in possesion with a gun 15 years in prison
solitary.   act like a c*** get treated like one  [ blimey ive got the hump today ]


----------



## dash (Feb 6, 2007)

There are definitely more cases of people being stabbed and shot nowadays than I recall in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Then, 'gun crime' meant grown men holding up a bank or betting office with a shotgun, not a teenager shooting someone at an ice rink.

As for fist-and-boot aggro, maybe things haven't changed much over the years.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 6, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> Charlton's always been like that! (I take it you don't mean Charlton village, another matter)



I mean the whole of Charlton, including the village.  It's a cheerless, dreary old hole: only the football brings a touch of life to the place, and more often than not it seems to bring a minor riot as well.  

Frankly though, Charlton might be a dump, but it's a fair bit nicer than a whole load of other places I could name.  In fact, I can't think of a single place in London that I'd actually like to live in.  It's all overpriced, overcrowded and massively overrated.


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 6, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> I wouldn't mind if people who lived in London shit holes just owned up, stop trying to kid themselves and everyone and just said, "look, I know I live in a fuckhole, but I want to/like to/can't afford otherwise, so there you go."
> 
> Instead, I hear from people who won't have a word said against the place!


I agree. You can't begin to make improvements to a place unless you accept there's problems to start with. Sadly, a lot of the "London nationalists" (as I call them) don't want to accept this to begin with.


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 6, 2007)

uh oh, we're all gonna die.


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 6, 2007)

boohoo said:
			
		

> some people enjoy the 'danger' element to London...


And they're partly instrumental in keeping the problems the the way they are. Any attempt to redress it is seen as "spoiling the edgy vibrancy" of the place.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Feb 6, 2007)

From my post on the Brixton thread:


I think the schooling *system* and some others have alot to awnser, teachers seem to be tied up with so much red tape that they can't to their job properly, I know many many many teachers ALL of whom are fed up with the lack of freedom they have when it comes to the kids in their school, and copping the blame for bad behaviour as a consequence of their hands being tied. They say that the kids can literaly get away with anything and there's nothing that they can do about it. They have no sense of responsibility because bad beahviour is always someone elses fault.

I think if kids learn at a youg age that they can easily get away with bad behaviour, the situation just perpetuates. As with the kids at firework night, who are up all night pissing about at firing them at strangers and each other they never really get any consequences, until something tragic happens and it's too late. Kids love to push boundaries (in evolutionary terms, it's what theire programmed to do to teach them the difference betwen right and wrong) and they arn't stupid and know what to say and how to get away with stuff if there is too much of a beaurcratic system in place, as with run ins with the police

Tick the right boxes and you can get away with anything. Blame somone else and shift the responsibility.



I agree with you arora, kids need something do to, and pk is right also that if kids have not learnt responsibility they are not likelye to take responsibility for their new youth center, or whatever it is, and duly destroy it.

Kids need to be taught their social responsibilites, but NOT in lessons, it has to be ingrained in the way their are bought up with lots of MUTUAL support of the teachers parents and councils, and firm boundaries need to be set. At the moment neither of the three seem to listen to each other much and there is no communication between the people that should be nutureing these kids.

Kids will always be kids,  but when a kid turns into a big strong adult, then there might be  a problem.


----------



## girasol (Feb 6, 2007)

FabricLiveBaby! said:
			
		

> As with the kids at firework night, who are up all night pissing about at firing them at strangers and each other they never really get any consequences, until something tragic happens and it's too late.



In the estate where I live (in Islington) there was a gang of kids who spent the first two nights of the 'firework season' throwing fireworks at cars, every day when I got home from work there'd be police around and some sort of trouble.

Then, one day, the kids threw a firework at a white van, only this time the people inside came out and a MASSIVE fight happened (I didn't see it, my neighbour told me about it), after that there were no more fireworks at all that week.  

About a month later, the house where some of kids lived in was empty, they whole family moved out (not sure why or where to - might just be a coincidence, but I made me  ), it's been a lot more peaceful since.

Personally, I haven't witnessed any violence for a very loooong time - I seemed to see a lot of it in the streets in the 90s, but not lately.  Probaby just luck.  I'm always hearing about things, but never actually see any of it, thankfully.


----------



## LDR (Feb 6, 2007)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> Nope.  Still don't like the place.  Take me back north again.


How long  have you been in London now?

My first three months in London I was living in a doss house in Bayswater and I fucking hated the place, London that is not just Bayswater.  So much so I fucked off to Cambridge for close to a year and then off to live in Italy for a short spell.  

I only came back to London 'cause my Good Lady Wife was coming over and it took me at least another six months until I actually got London.  I find it does grow on you after time.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 6, 2007)

Nine months.

A couple of months back I was all ready to quit my job, pack my bags and head straight back north without so much as a backward glance.  I still dislike the place, but I've just got to tolerate it and that's that.  It's not all bad: there's a lot going on, but it's basically a shit place to live.  It costs a fortune, it's a pain to get around and it's generally unpleasant in many respects.

Lots of people say London grows on you, but it's not universally true.  I know quite a few people who've been here several years and don't really like it, often for much the same reasons as me.


----------



## ohmyliver (Feb 6, 2007)

um, can I just say that in the days after the 7/7 bombings that virtually every bengali shop owner/resteraunt local to me (i.e. in west tower hamlets) I went into appologised profusely for the bombings....


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 6, 2007)

I've lived in London most of my life from the mid-to-late 1970s onwards and it's always had it's "ups and downs" - but things have gotten really bad in the last 10 years or so, imo.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 6, 2007)

Is that really true though? Places like Notting Hill were rough as f*** then and from what I understand Brixton was not fantastic either.

For sure, incidents like the Streatham ice rink murder are deeply troubling but I think we exaggerate our own importance / involvement in the scheme of things if we believe that such things really affect us (most, at least) in any meaningful sense. "No man is an island" etc and it is f***ing awful but the odds of actually finding yourself in that sort of situation? Slim to none...


----------



## dash (Feb 6, 2007)

It will concentrate more than a few minds when it comes to deciding whether they want to start a family in London or not, or when their kids reach school age.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 6, 2007)

Aye, fair point


----------



## zoltan (Feb 6, 2007)

we need a war  conscription to remove a whole generation of delinquents from the population 


seriously tho'. I dont wanna get all malthusian, but we are overdue a good old culling.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 6, 2007)

A change of culture might have a slightly lower human cost


----------



## dash (Feb 6, 2007)

My concern is that significant numbers of youngsters born to West African parents may begin to emulate the Caribbean gang subculture. So far, there are few signs of this happening in a big way, touch wood. 

Hopefully the generally pragmatic approach West Africans have displayed of placing a high value on education and obtaining qualifications will continue. But if a gang subculture does develop, then certain parts of London will become stressful places to live.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 6, 2007)

Hard to generalise I think.

The young lad who died up near Black Prince Rd was of African background as were the killers at the christening in Peckham.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 6, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I've lived in London most of my life from the mid-to-late 1970s onwards and it's always had it's "ups and downs" - but things have gotten really bad in the last 10 years or so, imo.



yep, but you tend to think everythings got worse most of the time mate 

london's always had it grim side


----------



## marty21 (Feb 6, 2007)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> Nine months.
> 
> A couple of months back I was all ready to quit my job, pack my bags and head straight back north without so much as a backward glance.  I still dislike the place, but I've just got to tolerate it and that's that.  It's not all bad: there's a lot going on, but it's basically a shit place to live.  It costs a fortune, it's a pain to get around and it's generally unpleasant in many respects.
> 
> Lots of people say London grows on you, but it's not universally true.  I know quite a few people who've been here several years and don't really like it, often for much the same reasons as me.



i hated london for the first year, thought i'd only be up here for maybe 2, (i moved up in 1989) then moved back to the west country, but it did grow on me, and now i can't imagine living anywhere else


----------



## scifisam (Feb 6, 2007)

I don't think it's got worse - it's got problems, but they're not new. Kids killing other kids is, sadly, not new at all. Damilola Taylor, anyone? 

Hackney's much quieter and more civilized these days. This is relative, of course!

PtG - if you're going to name the very richest parts of London as the good parts, then I guess for Sheffield you'd have to name only the richest parts too, and for Manchester and all other cities. Unless you really think that Moss Side is less rough and a better place to live than Hackney. 

Have you lived in any other cities in the UK? 

Ways to improve it - maybe, like FabricLiveBaby, more powers for teachers (and more protection for when teachers use those powers). It's true that kids don't see any consequences to their actions now, because, well there aren't any really, not for them personally; this was also the case whe I was their age, 15 years ago, and I'm not sure if it's got worse or not, but it certainly hasn't improved. 

Better housing helps, too. Knocking down tower blocks and replacing them with houses seems to help with some social problems. Other than that, I really don't know.


----------



## Giles (Feb 6, 2007)

A whole generation of boys who have grown up with no decent male role models, which is especially true in some communities, has not helped.

Giles..


----------



## Zeppo (Feb 6, 2007)

*London*

Been in the mega metropolis since 1980. Seen a lot (remember the riots), drug waves. Crime and shootings etc seems to be getting worse.

However, in my youth (South Wales) it was a wild west type of town with fights every Friday and Saturday in the town centre. It still is I hear but I guess, if guns were around way back then - could have been a lot of fatalities.


----------



## waverunner (Feb 6, 2007)

And now we have another one  15 year old shot dead in his own bed in Peckham. Perhaps this is a 'moral panic' but IMO its more serious than your average moral panic. Its happening with frightening frequency.


----------



## Cowley (Feb 6, 2007)

> Sorry for being dim but there's a posh bit of Stockwell



I was brought up in Stockwell and it's really strange how so many folks don't realise what a lot of Residential Stockwell is like.  Folks tend to make their assumption of the place after looking at the Tube Station. 

Stockwell believe it or not has always been quite an affluent Family area and has pockets of extreme wealth like the Stockwell Park Crescent Area, The Aldebert Terrace Area & The Priory Grove Area...3 separate parts of Stockwell which are full of Posh Nobs...always have been too.

I was brought up on Dorset Road...one of the poorer streets....but always noticed the Posh Kids as we use to hang about around Aldebert Terrace when we were youngsters.


----------



## boohoo (Feb 6, 2007)

Cowley said:
			
		

> I was brought up on Dorset Road...one of the poorer streets....but always noticed the Posh Kids as we use to hang about around Aldebert Terrace when we were youngsters.



Are you named after Cowley Road or Cowley school?


----------



## Cowley (Feb 6, 2007)

Anyway onto the topic.  Unfortunately I think these shootings (obviously) are part of the gang fad that has been around for a few years now.  

When I was a kid in a Gang roaming around South London we'd sort out our problems with our fists...obviously we weren't exposed to Guns and Knives and all these sort of weapons that todays Kids run around with.  If the Kids are exposed to Guns they will use them....it's almost become like some sort of fashion/status symbol.  

I'll plainly admit I've become almost frightened of seeing the groups of kids that roam around where I live (Brixton Hill).  I've always been able to look after myself...but when you have groups of 30 or so Kids roaming around you just don't know what to think....it's not inconceivable to think they may have Guns on them...I mean Shootings are happening at an alarming rate all over South London now.

What's more worrying is that this Gang thing seems to have spilled out into the Mainstream...I mean the Shooting at MacD's in Brixton, the Shooting at the Ice Rink in Streatham.  Are the intended targets getting hurt or are some of these Shootings accidents?

It's an incredibly worrying thought and I for one don't really know how it's going to be tackled.

Met Police/Trident have a huge job on their hands and they need to get it fixed and fixed quickly.....because I fear it could completely spiral out of Control.


----------



## Cowley (Feb 6, 2007)

> Are you named after Cowley Road or Cowley school?



It's just a nickname but yeah named after the Cowley Estate on Cowley Road.


----------



## boohoo (Feb 6, 2007)

I remember my mate's mum getting stabbed in the leg back in 1991 by some kid  cos there is some gang thing about getting away with stabbing people.  And I do remember someone waving a gun around outside when I was about 14 (1987). Etc, etc.... I think there'll always be people willing to be violent to others and whether that involves knives/baseball bats/ etc. The major problem with gun ( and in some way knives) is it easy to react and end up killing someone.


----------



## clandestino (Feb 6, 2007)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> Nine months.
> 
> A couple of months back I was all ready to quit my job, pack my bags and head straight back north without so much as a backward glance.  I still dislike the place, but I've just got to tolerate it and that's that.  It's not all bad: there's a lot going on, but it's basically a shit place to live.  It costs a fortune, it's a pain to get around and it's generally unpleasant in many respects.
> 
> Lots of people say London grows on you, but it's not universally true.  I know quite a few people who've been here several years and don't really like it, often for much the same reasons as me.




Maybe you just live in a crap bit of London? 

I find it hard to generalise about London, as it's really lots of villages crammed together. There's no way that someone's experience of living in Hampstead is the same as mine living in Brixton, but we both live in London. I've been happy in good places in London, and unhappy in crap places in London. You just have to find the bit that works for you. 

As for PtG's assertion that Richmond is one of the few civilized places in the capital, I take it you've never been out there on a Saturday night? The place is a pit - like any small town in the UK at the weekend, horrible, violent atmosphere. There's plenty of places near it - Kew for example - that are much nicer.


----------



## clandestino (Feb 6, 2007)

Cowley said:
			
		

> Stockwell believe it or not has always been quite an affluent Family area and has pockets of extreme wealth like the Stockwell Park Crescent Area, The Aldebert Terrace Area & The Priory Grove Area...3 separate parts of Stockwell which are full of Posh Nobs...always have been too.



Joanna Lumley lives in Stockwell doesn't she? Says is all I would have thought.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Feb 7, 2007)

ianw said:
			
		

> As for PtG's assertion that Richmond is one of the few civilized places in the capital, I take it you've never been out there on a Saturday night? The place is a pit - like any small town in the UK at the weekend, horrible, violent atmosphere. There's plenty of places near it - Kew for example - that are much nicer.



I quite agree.  During the daytime it's very pleasant, but at night it's rougher than Hackney.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 7, 2007)

Cowley said:
			
		

> Met Police/Trident have a huge job on their hands and they need to get it fixed and fixed quickly.....because I fear it could completely spiral out of Control.


I'm afraid that quote is part of the problem.  It assumes that this is a problem for the [bpolice[/b] to solve.

It isn't.  And they can't.

For many years the police made the mistake of claiming to be able to prevent crime.  They accepted whatever anyone said abouyt it being their job and (in some instances) quite cynically used it to get more resources.  For the last few years increasing numbers of more intelligent officers (and senior officers) have been realising that they cannot.

At best the police can have a marginal effect on prevention - by increasing visible patrol they can deter opportunist criminals and even the plans of more organised criminals can be disrupted by routine police activity like stop and search or traffic enforcement (with an open mind that you _may_ coincidentally be dealing with a burglar or whatever, not simply focused on giving out another ticket).  

But even this is actually only dealing with the symptom - the people the police are "preventing" from offending have, for the most part, already decided to commit a crime and the police are having no impact on that decision.  In fact, this is probably a central tenet of the displacement theory - any "prevention" is usually just temporary and, as soon as the patrol disappears another offence is quite likely to take place.  Short of (literally) having a police officer on every corner, 24/7, this will *never* prevent  all crime.

On Radio 4 this morning (I'm getting old ...   ) there was an extremely sensible youth worker from SE London (I didn't catch his name, Steve something I think) who pointed out that we (as a society, not just parents, though they have a major part to play) do not spend enough time with children and, hence, they are growing up with reduced adult invfluence on how they view the world.  There is limited fiocus on responsibilities, with major emphasis on rights and there are huge numbers of children with no constant male role model.  He was also somewhat disparaging of the impact of black music culture on young black men who (as a young black man himself, he felt had disproportionate influence over them).

This influence can only be magnified in a society where realistic hope of achievement (getting a job / house / car / whatever) is receding for ever more young people (as has been noted earlier in the thread).

Crime prevention can only be effectively achieved far further upstream than where the police operate - by the time the police (and the Courts, prisons, etc. are even later than the police in the stream of things) can have an impact it is too late - people already want to commit crime.  All the police can do is try and reduce the *opportunities*.

Ther ARE problems with policing, the Courts and prisons and they do need to be addressed.  But we should be under no illusion that they will somehow make everything alright.  

If we could wave a magic wand tomorrow and have a perfect police force, perfect courts and a perfect prison / probation service we would still have very significant levels of serious crime.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 7, 2007)

ianw said:
			
		

> As for PtG's assertion that Richmond is one of the few civilized places in the capital, I take it you've never been out there on a Saturday night?


My thoughts exactly ... and who is involved in making it that way ... largely groups of young people, mostly male and in the age range 15 to 20, who travel very large distances to be there.  (Hence the periodic deployment of overt videoing of arriving tube and train passengers at the station by uniformed police officers).


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 7, 2007)

ianw said:
			
		

> Maybe you just live in a crap bit of London?



Maybe so, but maybe also you didn't read the post where I said I've never seen a part of London I'd actually like to live in.

This attitude that if you don't like London you've just not seen the right bits irritates me.  I'd tend to work on the assumption that if somewhere still looks shit after nine months then it probably is shit.  And FWIW, I have several friends who've been here a whole lot longer, and lived in far more areas of London than I have, and still don't like the place.  I don't see what's so remarkable about that.  

London doesn't have everything, and I've always felt more at home in northern England than in the south.  As you sya, it's a matter of finding a place that suits you, and for me that is not London.


----------



## Griff (Feb 7, 2007)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> I actually feel the opposite to nonamenopackdrill but that's 'cause where I live feels like is going downhill.
> 
> My Good Lady Wife was the victim of a violent mugging not so long ago literally minutes from our front door.
> 
> ...



Shit, sorry to hear that. As you know it's where I was born and brought up.   Haven't been back there for a while and when I do it's just to pop in and say hello to my mum.

Can't say I'd want to live in London anymore myself. I like the country, I like the conservation area where I live, the people are friendly and it's generally just nice.  

Still getting used to the church bells opposite which chime the hours all through the night.


----------



## Giles (Feb 7, 2007)

ianw said:
			
		

> Maybe you just live in a crap bit of London?
> 
> 
> As for PtG's assertion that Richmond is one of the few civilized places in the capital, I take it you've never been out there on a Saturday night? The place is a pit - like any small town in the UK at the weekend, horrible, violent atmosphere. There's plenty of places near it - Kew for example - that are much nicer.



The thing about Richmond (or any other outer London area with a typical "small town Saturday night" central area) is that its bad: but its basically those who want to go to the lager-lout town centre bars getting pissed and then knocking shit out of each other.

You can kind of choose to go to the yobby bars, or not. 

I find the recent spate of shootings and stabbings more scary because they are happening all over the place, and to kids.

Giles..


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 7, 2007)

scifisam said:
			
		

> I don't think it's got worse - it's got problems, but they're not new. Kids killing other kids is, sadly, not new at all. Damilola Taylor, anyone?


I think it's round about then that his sort of thing started to become a growing problem. Not saying it _never_ used to happen before that, but it's steadily becoming a "norm" that depresses and angers me.


----------



## happie chappie (Feb 7, 2007)

Time to stop pussy-footing around, IMHO. If society really wants to deal with this issue, then:

1) bring back stop and search; and
2) increase automatic minimum sentences for carrying knives (say 20 years); and guns (say 30 years) and for using them (say 30 and 50 years respectively)

Alternatively, we can all carry on hand-wringing each time there's another stabbing/shooting.

Happie Chappie


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 7, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> My thoughts exactly ... and who is involved in making it that way ... largely groups of young people, mostly male and in the age range 15 to 20, who travel very large distances to be there.  (Hence the periodic deployment of overt videoing of arriving tube and train passengers at the station by uniformed police officers).



Really? I know nothing about the place but imagined that - as a suburban town centre - it would mainly be a bit of a kebab warrior problem, with lads in their 20s enjoying a bit of a kick-off in the taxi queue after last orders.

What is the actual nature of the problem?


----------



## clandestino (Feb 7, 2007)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> Maybe so, but maybe also you didn't read the post where I said I've never seen a part of London I'd actually like to live in.
> 
> This attitude that if you don't like London you've just not seen the right bits irritates me.  I'd tend to work on the assumption that if somewhere still looks shit after nine months then it probably is shit.  And FWIW, I have several friends who've been here a whole lot longer, and lived in far more areas of London than I have, and still don't like the place.  I don't see what's so remarkable about that.
> 
> London doesn't have everything, and I've always felt more at home in northern England than in the south.  As you sya, it's a matter of finding a place that suits you, and for me that is not London.



Fair enough. London's clearly not for you.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Feb 7, 2007)

Top post Detective-boy.  My thoughts exactly, but so much more eloquently put then I could! ( suppose being eloquwnt is all part of being a police officer  )


----------



## Melinda (Feb 7, 2007)

dash said:
			
		

> My concern is that significant numbers of youngsters born to West African parents may begin to emulate the Caribbean gang subculture. So far, there are few signs of this happening in a big way, touch wood.
> 
> Hopefully the generally pragmatic approach West Africans have displayed of placing a high value on education and obtaining qualifications will continue. But if a gang subculture does develop, then certain parts of London will become stressful places to live.


This afternoon, while watching the one o'clock news, Nicholas Owen asked some musicians (Mob Deep?) if the rise of 'black on black' violence in South London was due to children from war torn African countries bringing their gun loving cultural values here with them.  

WTF? I was incensed! I was offended at the question, are there savage hoardes of Congolese, Angolan and Sierra Leonian kids forming gangs and shooting up the place? Is there any truth to this?

And anyway, why are Black people just black? People say 'African-Carribean' like they are one and the same. Why is the 'community' viewed as homogenous? Because they look alike? 

There are massive differences between black people, as there are with any other entire continent of people. 

That said, Ive been away a lot, maybe things have changed and Im out of touch. Is there a new generation of young kids from strict West African homes now immersed in a culture of attitudes that are the very antithesis of how they were raised?

I can only speak of my own  experience and Ive not found this to be the case.


----------



## Griff (Feb 7, 2007)

Urban cheek said:
			
		

> WTF? I was incensed! I was offended at the question, are there savage hoardes of Congolese, Angolan and Sierra Leonian kids forming gangs and shooting up the place? Is there any truth to this?



Yeah, I've seen loads of them armed to the back teeth with AK47s on the back of Toyota pick-ups around South London. Haven't you seen them too?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 7, 2007)

Urban cheek said:
			
		

> This afternoon, while watching the one o'clock news, Nicholas Owen asked some musicians (Mob Deep?) if the rise of 'black on black' violence in South London was due to children from war torn African countries bringing their gun loving cultural values here with them.



That is a weird thing to come up with...




			
				Urban cheek said:
			
		

> WTF? I was incensed! I was offended at the question, are there savage hoardes of Congolese, Angolan and Sierra Leonian kids forming gangs and shooting up the place? Is there any truth to this?
> 
> And anyway, why are Black people just black? People say 'African-Carribean' like they are one and the same. Why is the 'community' viewed as homogenous? Because they look alike?
> 
> ...



I'm not qualified to comment on whether or not this is the case but some high profile recent incidents have involved black people of African as well as of Caribbean origin.

I don't think any would argue that there are not huge differences between communities with origins on opposite sides of the Atlantic but in London they often live cheek by jowl and - as mentioned above - members of both have been drawn into the gun culture. Colour is one point of commonality that is picked up on.


----------



## dash (Feb 7, 2007)

Urban cheek said:
			
		

> WTF? I was incensed! I was offended at the question, are there savage hoardes of Congolese, Angolan and Sierra Leonian kids forming gangs and shooting up the place? Is there any truth to this?



I live in Nunhead near Peckham and would have noticed by now if there were! Some Somalian kids have formed street gangs, mainly in North London. A few used to hang around Inverness Street market in Camden, making a nuisance of themselves but afaik they haven't shot anyone.

Can't speak for Nigerians but I do know some Ghanaians through work and as nearby neighbours. They all seem like pleasant people, hesitate a bit here to characterise them . . but generally polite, socially observant and curious: good readers of people.

Only two recent incidents spring to my mind along the lines Monkeynuts has cited: both involved male youths/young men from countries including Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Togo who had entered Britain on their own. So at a young age had already lost contact with their families.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 7, 2007)

dash said:
			
		

> I live in Nunhead near Peckham and would have noticed by now if there were! Some Somalian kids have formed street gangs, mainly in North London. A few used to hang around Inverness Street market in Camden, making a nuisance of themselves but afaik they haven't shot anyone.
> 
> Can't speak for Nigerians but I do know some Ghanaians through work and as nearby neighbours. They all seem like pleasant people, hesitate a bit here to characterise them . . but generally polite, socially observant and curious: good readers of people.
> 
> Only two recent incidents spring to my mind along the lines Monkeynuts has cited: both involved male youths/young men from countries including Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Togo who had entered Britain on their own. So at a young age had already lost contact with their families.



I don't think that was the case with the murder at the christening in Peckham or with the murder of that young lad up by Black Prince Road.

I'm a bit puzzled about your "notes on Africans". I know some people of Caribbean origin too, and they're also pleasant, polite etc... so....?


----------



## dash (Feb 7, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I don't think that was the case with the murder at the christening in Peckham or with the murder of that young lad up by Black Prince Road.



3 of the 4 youths involved in the Peckham murder were described in the press as 'illegal immigrants'. Another was described as the son of illegal immigrant - note the distinction. So 3 out of 4 appear to have entered the country under their own steam, possibly alone. There was another recent case of a very aggressive team of muggers: iirc one was from Togo, another from Sierra Leone, forget where the third came from. They too appeared to have entered Britain by clandestine means, forming their association after they'd arrived. 

You're right about the Black Prince Road youngster. 




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I'm a bit puzzled about your "notes on Africans". I know some people of Caribbean origin too, and they're also pleasant, polite etc... so....?



Notes on _Ghanaians_ please, I would not generalise about Africans. Different national cultures tend to have different social norms, eg politeness, reserve etc.


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 7, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> My thoughts exactly ... and who is involved in making it that way ... largely groups of young people, mostly male and in the age range 15 to 20, who travel very large distances to be there.  (Hence the periodic deployment of overt videoing of arriving tube and train passengers at the station by uniformed police officers).



hmmmm....ok. So the whole of Richmond is equally a destroyed and shit as inner london because a few chavs congregate in a few bars in the high street of a weekend?

I'm more than aware of what Richmond and the surrounding areas are like. I'm aware of their limitations and pitfalls regards anti-social behaviour. But still...it is in the list of better place in London, in spite of its weekend drinking troubles.

But then that said, people drinking and scuffling after a night out is very different to the kinds of vicious violent random crime you get in the inner city. 

Where abouts are you based then DB? I take it you are not a fan of the nicer parts.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 7, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> But then that said, people drinking and scuffling after a night out is very different to the kinds of vicious violent random crime you get in the inner city.
> 
> Where abouts are you based then DB? I take it you are not a fan of the nicer parts.



From personal experience you are actually a lot more likely to get your head kicked in by drunken idiots than cross paths / swords with true violent crime - we despair of the apparent low value placed on life in recent shootings but it is not as if such people just go round randomly shooting people, to be honest.

This is, of course, (only) from the perspective of someone who is not a teenager living on an estate but who does find himself in town centres at 11 at night.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> multiculural???
> 
> what a fucking CRE pedalled myth.
> 
> ...



Pete - I've just had the misfortune to read this whole sorry thread and this contribution stuck in my craw the most. You sound ike you've absorbed the latest missives in the Daily MailXpress and are hellbent on reciting them.

FWIW I'd invite you down to my local and show you just how successfully  different ethnic groups can mix. It certainly isn't a tale of different groups sitting on different tables. 

I remember times when folks from the West Indies were only allowed to rent in certain areas, when folks really were ghettoised and limited to rentals in poor housing stock and a few streets. Everyone we came over on the boat with settled within a few miles. Today it's hugely different - family are spread all around South London - from Chelsea to Norwood and Norbury. Even the BNP have been cleared out Mitcham and the surrounding suburbs, Tindall's old playground, with the streets far more  of a mix than they ever were - even the local corner shops sell plantains and the staples we only found in Brixton market.

People have a tendency to look back at the past with rose-tinted spectacles. I certainly wouldn't swap the Brixton of yesteryear - terrible housing, rotting shells of terraces, BNP(NF) presence and menace on the streets, the massive divisions - with the model of today. Nobody's pretending that it's perfect, but progress has been made. 

And you can leave the patronising guff about 'fooling ourselves' eh?


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 7, 2007)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Pete - I've just had the misfortune to read this whole sorry thread and this contribution stuck in my craw the most. You sound ike you've absorbed the latest missives in the Daily MailXpress and are hellbent on reciting them.
> 
> FWIW I'd invite you down to my local and show you just how successfully  different ethnic groups can mix. It certainly isn't a tale of different groups sitting on different tables.
> 
> ...




Why is it that I have seen pretty much every single corner of London, and examples of different ethnic minorities and white British mixing are so few and far between?
Why is it when you drive through Deptford, so many people are are African or Caribbean origin, yet when you drive a few hundred metres up the hill into Blackheath, almost every single face is white? I could repeat such examples all over town, but I'd be here writing it up all night.

The estate agent example you use is interesting....they used to actively discriminate in the 70s and 80s

Now they don't have to bother discriminating. The market sorts out the richer/rich from the very poor and sadly that means sorting black from white. London is very very segregated. People stick to their own areas and I do not see alot of evidence of black and white mixing, I'm sorry, I don't.
Having a black or Asian mate in the office doesn't count. The black and asian middle classes have to a degree mixed, but these groups aren't exactly burgeoning in numbers.

I would disagree with your views here, buddy.


----------



## Melinda (Feb 7, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> The black and asian middle classes have to a degree mixed, but these groups aren't exactly burgeoning in numbers.


If you dont know what you are talking about, you should shut up, _seriously._


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 7, 2007)

Urban cheek said:
			
		

> If you dont know what you are talking about, you should shut up, _seriously._



I do know what I'm talking about...which is why I commented. The instances where people mix are few and far between, when you consider how huge London is. It's a fair observation, based on the fact I am a Londoner by birth and 2 and a half decades of residency.

You are a fucking prick so shut your mouth, you twat.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 7, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> What is the actual nature of the problem?


Yobs too young to get served (and most town centre bars enforce an over-21 policy) wandering round getting into hassle.

Yobs old enough to get served getting pissed and then doing likewise.

After about 11pm it's a nightmare - nothing too severe on it's own but lots and lots of individual incidents and little groups causing low-level hassle whihc add up to a big picture whihc is not nice.  (especially on the buses )


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 7, 2007)

FabricLiveBaby! said:
			
		

> ( suppose being eloquwnt is all part of being a police officer  )


Is that the same as being able to bullshit ... because if it is, then yes!


----------



## Oula (Feb 7, 2007)

Pete the Greek

If you think that the Asian middleclass is some sort of small minority then you don't know what you are talking about.

Also, I think in some cases the middle classes mix less.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 7, 2007)

Urban cheek said:
			
		

> are there savage hoardes of Congolese, Angolan and Sierra Leonian kids forming gangs and shooting up the place? Is there any truth to this?


Not really, to the best of my knowledge.  But there has been a problem with some immigrant groups in the past (I am thinking of Somalians and some eastern Europeans) for whom life is cheap because of what they have seen / grown up with elsewhere.



> And anyway, why are Black people just black?


Because that is the description generally considered most appropriate.  Clearly there are lots of sub-groupings but it is not always apparent which group people would put themselves in.



> Is there a new generation of young kids from strict West African homes now immersed in a culture of attitudes that are the very antithesis of how they were raised?


Probably.  I have posted before about how the second and third generations of immigrant families encounter all sorts of identity issues and that they may well be at the bottom of significant problems where large numbers of the immigrant groups go through the experience at the same time.


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 7, 2007)

Oula said:
			
		

> Pete the Greek
> 
> If you think that the Asian middleclass is some sort of small minority then you don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Also, I think in some cases the middle classes mix less.



The Hindu and Sikh middle classes are comparitively large yes....but they don't mix with anyone outside their circles as a pretty much concrete rule.....and their numbers compared to white British is still very low in relation to the overall pop figure of London.

I don't know why you feel the need to outprove and outknowledge everyone all the time, as if people are automoatically less likely to have understanding about things compared to you?
very odd. Being a cop doesn't make you very very very wise you know? some might say the opposite.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 7, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> Where abouts are you based then DB? I take it you are not a fan of the nicer parts.


I never said it was as bad as inner London.  But it's not all sweetness and light either (and, because it hasn't got the same problems, the levels of visible policing are much lower ... which is probably one of the factors which attracts the visiting yobs in the first place).

I live in Twickenham and am in Richmond a lot.


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 7, 2007)

fair enough DB,

but then I did not claim the five areas I listed were paradises on earth...I just said they were the better areas out of a heap of shit.

Twickers is a cool area. Between Teddington and Richmond isn't it? yes am familiar.

I'd live there a thousand lifetimes over, rather than spend a year in the inner city areas of north or south London.


----------



## Melinda (Feb 7, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> I do know what I'm talking about...which is why I commented. The instances where people mix are few and far between, when you consider how huge London is. It's a fair observation, based on the fact I am a Londoner by birth and 2 and a half decades of residency.
> 
> You are a fucking prick so shut your mouth, you twat.


I think that little outburst says more about you than  me actually... 

I quite rightly picked you up on your "black and asian middle classes have to a degree mixed, but these groups aren't exactly burgeoning in numbers." 

It was a ill thought out, ignorant and downright misleading thing to have said, and again it it says a lot more about your mindset than the people you denigrate. People of African and Asian backgrounds have made huge strides economically and socially since coming here in large numbers in the 60s and 70s. If you break it down even further into nationalities- the advances made by some groups would be even starker. 

Immigrants have worked hard to educate their children, making huge sacrifices for their children's futures, and 20/30 years down the line in many  cases that investment in their children is paying off and people are more affluent with more prestigous jobs. 
Without this 2nd/ 3rd generation of doctors, dentists, barristers, accountants, entreprenuers etc London would grind to a halt.

The reason I know? I've lived it! And so have thousands of others. So like I said, if you dont know what you are talking about... shut it.


----------



## clandestino (Feb 7, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> fair enough DB,
> 
> but then I did not claim the five areas I listed were paradises on earth...I just said they were the better areas out of a heap of shit.
> 
> ...




Where do you live now?


----------



## Oula (Feb 7, 2007)

Pete the Greek

I think you may have got me confused with someone else. I am not a cop and have never been involved in a discussion with you b4. As you can see from my postcount and join date, I don't say very much. No one has ever had a go at me for being a cop b4 - that's a first!

I am married into a middleclass Hindu/Jain family. I agree with you that there is a history of keeping themselves seperate but that is all changing with the second gen kids like my husband.


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 7, 2007)

Urban cheek said:
			
		

> I think that little outburst says more about you than  me actually...
> 
> I quite rightly picked you up on your "black and asian middle classes have to a degree mixed, but these groups aren't exactly burgeoning in numbers."
> 
> ...




I have said nothing to denigrate anyone. I have no intention to put anyone down. I am not racist and I do not believe that ethnic minorities are stuck at the bottom of the ladder, nor do I think that even if they were, it was because of factor that indicated it was their fault.

I have not said anything to give any reasonable person the impression I was being harsh or horrible to any group...I merely wish to make the statement that London is not multicultural, which is the popular myth, but is in fact very segregated.

It is not a political remark, it's an observation. I am not anti-CRE and anyone who knows me knows I HATE the mail and the right wing press, and any faction of the right that opoposes immigration.

Why do I even have to come on here to defend myself?

My point is just this:

By and large, outside of the small number of examples, London is not actually the melting pot that the guardian and the wanky liberals would fawn over fantasising about. London, dare I say the UK, is actually very segregated. Ethnic minorities generally speaking...DO NOT MIX. 
I lived in London for 26 years. I might just have a fucking point, ok?

Fuck y'all.


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 7, 2007)

Oula said:
			
		

> Pete the Greek
> 
> I think you may have got me confused with someone else. I am not a cop and have never been involved in a discussion with you b4. As you can see from my postcount and join date, I don't say very much. No one has ever had a go at me for being a cop b4 - that's a first!
> 
> I am married into a middleclass Hindu/Jain family. I agree with you that there is a history of keeping themselves seperate but that is all changing with the second gen kids like my husband.



shit, did I misquite the wrong person again?  

sorry - I was talking to Detective Boy, not you mate


----------



## Melinda (Feb 7, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Not really, to the best of my knowledge.  But there has been a problem with some immigrant groups in the past (I am thinking of Somalians and some eastern Europeans) for whom life is cheap because of what they have seen / grown up with elsewhere..



Yeah, I was astonished to hear Nick Owen come out with that, because I would never have thought it was actual first generation immigramnts doing the shooting, as if he were suggesting former child soldiers from Sierre Leone were cruising the streets of Peckham bringing their weaponry with them. Chances are the people doing the shooting were born here. 



> Because that is the description generally considered most appropriate. Clearly there are lots of sub-groupings but it is not always apparent which group people would put themselves in..



Point taken. I was just giving vent to my simmering frustration that colour colour is the main/ only descriptor around crime. Like assuming someone from the Isle of Man would share the same viewpoint on something as someone from Serbia simply because they are both white. 




			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> Probably.  I have posted before about how the second and third generations of immigrant families encounter all sorts of identity issues and that they may well be at the bottom of significant problems where large numbers of the immigrant groups go through the experience at the same time.


I think this point is so important DB. People would just assume that by 2nd/ third gen people have generally assimilated and I suppose that most resources/ debate/ new thinking is usually focussed on the immediate new comers.  
Its not an issue that my family has had to deal with, but I do recognise that if there are issues with employment/ education/ religion then any additional problems with identity would exacerbate the sense of 'seperateness' and 'difference' from both your home community and society at large.


----------



## Melinda (Feb 7, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> I lived in London for 26 years. I might just have a fucking point, ok?


Are you the only person who lives in London? Are you the only person to have been born and bred there? 
Oh I get it now, only you have moved around and therefore only you can speak for London.


----------



## scifisam (Feb 7, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> By and large, outside of the small number of examples, London is not actually the melting pot that the guardian and the wanky liberals would fawn over fantasising about. London, dare I say the UK, is actually very segregated. Ethnic minorities generally speaking...DO NOT MIX.
> I lived in London for 26 years. I might just have a fucking point, ok?
> 
> Fuck y'all.



Some groups are self-segregated, but not the the extent you claim. Otherwise I wouldn't be teaching so many mixed-race kids. 

Pete, have you ever lived in any other city in the UK?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Feb 7, 2007)

I think pete may have a slight point, there are defintate "areas" of london even within the "areas" there are areas.

When I worked in southall there was about 10 white kids in the whole school. Even the pubs in Ealing are somewhat segregated, most of the young Asians from Southall go to HaHa's and Edwards, and all the young whites go to Finnegans and O'neils.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 7, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> I don't know why you feel the need to outprove and outknowledge everyone all the time, as if people are automoatically less likely to have understanding about things compared to you?
> very odd. Being a cop doesn't make you very very very wise you know? some might say the opposite.


If that is aimed at me, what the fuck are you going into one about?


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 7, 2007)

Urban cheek said:
			
		

> People would just assume that by 2nd/ third gen people have generally assimilated and I suppose that most resources/ debate/ new thinking is usually focussed on the immediate new comers.


I've seen lots of examples (in very different communities) of second and third generation kids "rebelling" against their parents / grandparents "native" culture which they brought with them when they arrived in the UK and which they managed to maintain by and large for the first / second generation but which later generations find too restrictive because they see it as interfering too much in their lives as British youngsters wanting to do all the stuff their friends at school (or on the street) do.

In the 80s we saw serious problem amongst second / third generation youths from the african-caribbean communities which grew from the large immigrant populations of the 50s and 60s.  In the 90s we saw the same (albeit somewhat muted) amongst second / third generation youths from the asian communities which grew from the large immigrant populations of the 70s.  More recently we have seen it / are seeing it with slightly later Bangladeshi and Somali immigrant populations.

I still have money on the fact we'll see similar problems arising from some Eastern european communities in a few years time.


----------



## Cowley (Feb 7, 2007)

> Joanna Lumley lives in Stockwell doesn't she? Says is all I would have thought.



I think she lives around the Priory Grove area which is behind the Tube Station nearish Wandsworth Road.

There's some fuckin beautiful BIG Houses round there.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 7, 2007)

If you don't like it, leave. There are problems in every big, multi-racial sity. An estimated 12m people live in London - there will be problems. I love it. If it hurts you, move.


----------



## Cowley (Feb 7, 2007)

> I'm afraid that quote is part of the problem. It assumes that this is a problem for the [bpolice[/b] to solve.
> 
> It isn't. And they can't.
> 
> ...



I can agree with a lot of what you say and wasn't necessarily saying the Met Police/Trident have to stamp out Black on Black Crime Immediately but shouldn't certain laws be put in place to distract groups of Youth running wild in South London? Shouldn't clearer messages be sent out to Youth about Carrying weapons?  As strong as it sounds...maybe a greater presence of street enforced searches should be carried out?  Big Brother society it may be...but surely putting in certain methods such as these may be able to assist in the prevention of an alarming increase in Street Shootings/Murders/Call It What You like.

I appreciate that not all of the recent spate of crimes have been preventable but one thing I have noticed over the past 5 years or so is Large groups of Kids roaming the streets doing as they please...

Obviously you can't tarnish all kids with the same brush and the innocent before being proved guilty has to be respected but something has to give.

How bad does the situation have to get before drastric measures are taken??? 

Why is it that so much attention is focused on "suspected" terriorists and we regularly hear/see raids and such...yet these Black on Black crimes despite being well publicised are brushed off as "The Community won't speak" so we have less chance of finding the offenders.

Being a neutral observer...the cynic in me feels the Police and to a lesser degree Trident are brushing this under the carpet and attempting to push the responsibility onto the Communities and the Communities only.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 7, 2007)

Urban cheek said:
			
		

> Point taken. I was just giving vent to my simmering frustration that colour colour is the main/ only descriptor around crime. Like assuming someone from the Isle of Man would share the same viewpoint on something as someone from Serbia simply because they are both white.



Your point taken as well, but I'd forgive Congolese people making the same mistake if the Manx deviant and the Serb were both in Brazzaville


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 7, 2007)

Cowley said:
			
		

> Why is it that so much attention is focused on "suspected" terriorists and we regularly hear/see raids and such...yet these Black on Black crimes despite being well publicised are brushed off as "The Community won't speak" so we have less chance of finding the offenders.
> 
> Being a neutral observer...the cynic in me feels the Police and to a lesser degree Trident are brushing this under the carpet and attempting to push the responsibility onto the Communities and the Communities only.



Terrorism is viewed as more serious and because of the underlying networks and planning lends itself to the application of intelligence.

Blaming the police is very easy.

You could just as easily lay the blame for the poisonous culture squarely at the door of the community - given that it tends to be contained within that community and say "YOU SORT IT OUT".

Of course it is all a lot more complex and difficult than that.

I can't really see how the existence of a dedicated operation which undertakes extensive investigations can be called "brushing it under the carpet". Indeed the issue seems to receive a lot of attention.


----------



## Cowley (Feb 7, 2007)

> Terrorism is viewed as more serious and because of the underlying networks and planning lends itself to the application of intelligence.
> 
> Blaming the police is very easy.
> 
> ...



I agree Terrorism is viewed and IS a more serious offence and understand why more attention and police time is focused on it...maybe bringing this into the debate was the wrong thing to do.

Blaming the Police is easy your right...but there success rate in finding the perpetrators of these Black on Black Crimes/Gang Crimes remains fairly low given the regularity of it.  Following the deaths in Peckham over the Weekend ...they (The Police) are linking both the incidents...yet say the 2nd incident was mistaken identity...sorry...I don't follow this logic?  

The problem as you say is in the Community and has been attributed to these "KIDS" who are predominantly brought up with Single Parents/Poor Education call it what you like.  Is this really so though? I mean there's almost this "Profiled Criteria" for the kind of Kid who commits a crime like this.  I find it almost insulting that the "Community" I.E. The Black/Ethnic Folk that live in the area have to sort it out and have answers to all these unsolved crimes...I think it runs a bit deeper than this and I feel better facilities should be sort to give Kids a better opportunity.

An Example..... Southwarks' way of regenerating Peckham following the death of Damilola Taylor was to tart up the already affluent Bellenden Village Area...absolutely insane... 

Yes a few of the estates were pulled down in the North Peckham Area....and improvements were evident here and there but not enough was done IMHO.

What I'm basically getting at is...shouldn't at the very least more improvements be done to allow Youth to interact in more stable environments?  Like spending a fair chunk of money on Youth Centres/Education Centres/Sports Clubs etc?  I don't mean necessarily having these type of establishments in a Centre of a Town either...I mean in the concentration area of where these crimes happen.

Wouldn't money be better spent allowing Youth to have a greater chance to succeed instead of spending Millions on Marketing campaigns for Trident which I suspect these Kids don't give a flying fuck about...and spending Millions on more Yuppie Bars/Restaurants/Flash Street Signs in the Holy Grove Conservation area of Peckham.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 7, 2007)

Cowley said:
			
		

> I agree Terrorism is viewed and IS a more serious offence and understand why more attention and police time is focused on it...maybe bringing this into the debate was the wrong thing to do.
> 
> Blaming the Police is easy your right...but there success rate in finding the perpetrators of these Black on Black Crimes/Gang Crimes remains fairly low given the regularity of it.  Following the deaths in Peckham over the Weekend ...they (The Police) are linking both the incidents...yet say the 2nd incident was mistaken identity...sorry...I don't follow this logic?
> 
> ...



A few lamposts and bollards for Bellenden Road probably cost peanuts compared to the total rebuilding of North Peckham.

It's not public money that goes on yuppie bar and restaurants.

Underpriviliged areas get a disproportionate amount spent on youth facilities.

You can give people the environment they deserve but it is culture that determines behaviour and is the hardest to shape.

Nothing will change while kids have no male role models in their lives and then get sucked up into a culture of death.

You can't look outside for an answer. It lies within.

It will not be changed by:
-better flats
-youth clubs
-the Old Bill putting people away


----------



## oryx (Feb 8, 2007)

I'm always amazed by people on these sort of threads:

- blaming lack of youth facilities. To suggest that people shoot/stab each other because they don't have enough to entertain them in the evening is sick.

- racialising and localising the issue. This sort of thing happens in all areas of London, and all over the country. Guns have been used to settle arguments since they were invented, and AFAIK gang warfare is endemic in areas of Britain like Glasgow, which are not known for having a large ethnic minority population.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 8, 2007)

Cowley said:
			
		

> Being a neutral observer...the cynic in me feels the Police and to a lesser degree Trident are brushing this under the carpet and attempting to push the responsibility onto the Communities and the Communities only.


Yeah, the police don't give a fuck about crime affecting the black community ... which is why they have (for at least ten years now) had an ever growing Operation Trident team attempting to deal with it ...

You miss the principal point of my post.

The police *can't* deal with the problem.  Communities *must* address it themselves.  The answer is in social issues.  The police do not, cannot and, in my view, should not take the lead role in social engineering.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 8, 2007)

Cowley said:
			
		

> Blaming the Police is easy your right...but there success rate in finding the perpetrators of these Black on Black Crimes/Gang Crimes remains fairly low given the regularity of it.  Following the deaths in Peckham over the Weekend ...they (The Police) are linking both the incidents...yet say the 2nd incident was mistaken identity...sorry...I don't follow this logic?


The success rate in finding the offenders is pretty high.  

But there are serious problems in convicting them.  You cannot "brush under the carpet" the problem of people being unwilling to give evidence.  If they have it and they won't give it there is nothing that can be done to replace it - what do you want the police to do?  Fit the fuckers up?  In the absence of that the problem comes back to society as a whole and creating an atmosphere in which witnesses feel strong enough to come forward.  That does not exist at the moment, largely because the community does not (or, at least, is not perceived) to stand firmly behind them.

And please don't imply police incompetence based on (a) incomplete information from the media; (b) incomplete knowledge of what the police _actually_ do think in a particular case (I presume you are not receiving half hourly personal briefings) and (c) an apparent failure to understand how serious investigations are conducted.  There are several reasons why the shooting could be linked to a previous incident _and_ the victim may have been the victim of mistaken identity (e.g. (and I have absolutely no idea whether this is correct or not) someone else living at the house was suspected of involvement in the earlier offence and the murderers mistakenly thought the victim was that person).


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 8, 2007)

Cowley said:
			
		

> ...instead of spending Millions on Marketing campaigns for Trident which I suspect these Kids don't give a flying fuck about...


A few posts ago you were slagging the police off for doing nothing about this type of crime.  Now you're criticising too much publicity for a campaign by the police aimed at reducing this sort of crime.

Can I suggest you work out exactly what you actually _do_ think before you post any more random thoughts on the subject ...


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 8, 2007)

oryx said:
			
		

> - blaming lack of youth facilities. To suggest that people shoot/stab each other because they don't have enough to entertain them in the evening is sick.


Tabloidisation of peoples brains, innit.    

If only the kids had things like ice rinks to go to ... aaaahhhh .... I think I spot a bit of a flaw there ...


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 8, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> Why is it that I have seen pretty much every single corner of London, and examples of different ethnic minorities and white British mixing are so few and far between?



Pete, no one mixes with you 'cos you're a cunt.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 8, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Pete, no one mixes with you 'cos you're a cunt.


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 8, 2007)

ChrisFilter said:
			
		

> If you don't like it, leave. There are problems in every big, multi-racial sity. An estimated 12m people live in London - there will be problems. I love it. If it hurts you, move.


I was wondering when this tired, unhelpful old "love it or leave it" cliche would be trotted out.  
Also, I don't know if this appllies in your case or not, but in my experience, people who come out with the sort of thing you've said have often lived in London a far shorter time than I have.

The fact is: many of us have lived here for decades and are pissed of at the way it's become in recent years. Why should *we* have to leave?


----------



## potential (Feb 8, 2007)

v true , its getting to the point where im thinking
i will go to balham clapham to get and do stuff. rather than have 
the fear some oink and his wannabe gangsta's will stab me cos
im a well dressed quiet individulal...
would rather wait for train to herne hill now than tube to brixton then walk.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 8, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I was wondering when this tired, unhelpful old "love it or leave it" cliche would be trotted out.
> Also, I don't know if this appllies in your case or not, but in my experience, people who come out with the sort of thing you've said have often lived in London a far shorter time than I have.
> 
> The fact is: many of us have lived here for decades and are pissed of at the way it's become in recent years. Why should *we* have to leave?




There is something in this... we shouldn't just resign ourselves to problems, accept them, condone them, turn a blind eye to them or walk away from them - that way society falls apart.

I lived in Chicago and it was all too apparent that those who didn't like it had long ago left and it was pretty depressing to see the result.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 8, 2007)

I was looking at this website the other day. Do a search on crimes and punishments for some interesting cases. The biggest difference today is the availability of guns rather than knives. Here's a good one. I love the language. 'Jack Ketch'  



> Now follows a bloody Murther committed by one in Whitechappel; as soon as a Bayliff had told him that he arrested him, he with a strange Weapon run the Officer into the belly, and made a pass at another, but though he mist his body, he hit his clothes: This Hector with new supplies, was quickly secur'd; and when one told him that he had kill'd the Bayliff, he repli'd, if I have not I wish I had, and being sent from the Justice of Peace to Newgate, he told his Guard, if he had not killed him he should have gone to Prison on foot, but now in a Coach; but for all he made so slight on't then, he was in a more serious and sensible humour at the Bar, and labour'd to excuse it with all the Rhetorick he had, and all was too little, for the Jury brought him in guilty , and Jack Ketch will make him free .



http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/search/crime/


----------



## jæd (Feb 8, 2007)

goldenecitrone said:
			
		

> Here's a good one. I love the language. 'Jack Ketch'



ie "executed" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ketch


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 8, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> ie "executed" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ketch



I imagined it to be a nickname for the noose.


----------



## Giles (Feb 8, 2007)

It wouldn't be a complete solution, I know, but a hell of a lot of this vioent crime  is linked to drug dealing. 

So, legalise it all, sell it in Boots, and they would all have one less crime to commit, and one less thing to kill each other over.

Giles..


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Feb 8, 2007)

Thing is D-B, the communites would do something about it, look at this kid that was allegedly trying to stop a mugging.  Didn't do him much good.

The community won't step in because:

a) police are too busy filling out formsto tackle anti- social behaviour. (not p[lods fault.. but it's a problem).
b) the minute people step in they think they are going to be prosecuted for giving a kid a clip round the earhole (which is sometimes well deserved). They feel they arn't given enough power to deal with the situation.
c) they are too scared of being shot/stabbed/hounded.


----------



## Giles (Feb 8, 2007)

Generally, there seems to have been a gradual ceding of authority over public space by most people.

So people are afraid to "step in" or even say anything when they see bad behaviour. This gradually leads to people feeling that they can get away with more and more. 

There is also the scary "pack" mentality where a big gang feel (usually correctly) that they can do exactly what they want, and unless the police turn up en masse, no-one can stop them.

Answers: I think look at what happened in New York some years ago. Very similar situation in that decent people had gradually ceded control to the thuggish anti-social minority. Rising rates of street crime and violence.

They turned that around. Even given that guns are even more available over there. We could do the same. If someone had the will to do it. As opposed to just announcing endless "initiatives" that grab headlines for a few days and achieve nothing.

Giles..


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 8, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I was wondering when this tired, unhelpful old "love it or leave it" cliche would be trotted out.
> Also, I don't know if this appllies in your case or not, but in my experience, people who come out with the sort of thing you've said have often lived in London a far shorter time than I have.
> 
> The fact is: many of us have lived here for decades and are pissed of at the way it's become in recent years. Why should *we* have to leave?



It's not a cliché.

Is it really any worse? Really? Show me how. Yes, gun crime has risen, but how many times do you hear about random shootings, ie. non-gang / respect shootings? Not very often. The way people go on implies it's some sort of crime hellhole. It's really, really not. 

This is a cliche: I feel umpteen times safer in 99% of London than I do in the provinces.

If you really feel it's getting bad enough to justify all the bleating hyperbole on this thread, then I'd suggest that leaving is your only option!

Yes, it has problems, but it's not getting markedly worse, and it's never been that bad.


----------



## PacificOcean (Feb 8, 2007)

oryx said:
			
		

> I'm always amazed by people on these sort of threads:
> 
> - blaming lack of youth facilities. To suggest that people shoot/stab each other because they don't have enough to entertain them in the evening is sick.



I have always wondered about this.  As someone who grew up as a teenager in inner London in the early 90's, we never had anything to do.  Yet we didn't feel the need to shoot anyone, rob or be anti-social.  If anything kids nowadays have far more than I did even 15 years ago with Playstations, DVDs, Sky and so on.

I just think that is a piss poor excuse.


----------



## Cowley (Feb 8, 2007)

> A few posts ago you were slagging the police off for doing nothing about this type of crime. Now you're criticising too much publicity for a campaign by the police aimed at reducing this sort of crime.
> 
> Can I suggest you work out exactly what you actually do think before you post any more random thoughts on the subject ...



What the hell are you talking about?    I criticised the Police because I feel they are not interacting with the community enough to prevent these type of crimes.  

My gripe on Trident and this operation they have had running for 10 years is to me it looks like a bit of a "Keystone Cop" operation.  Very Media savvy...oh and those lovely big flashy Media posters look great   but are they really interacting and involving themselves in the Community?  I think we all know the answer.

The point I'm trying to MAKE, which involves more than one thought is that both the Police and teams of Operation Trident are really not involving themselves enough at a Grassroots level.

Why are you trying to make this topic so black and white?


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 8, 2007)

I'd say london is a victim of its' own economic success, which success is quite phenomenal. as it draws more trade here, more want to work here, and more are constantly entering London, leaving London, moving around London. so more single-nationality minority enclaves, more transience, less long-standing community feel. also, the gap between rich and poor is constantly getting wider, which really causes problems e.g. crime


----------



## Giles (Feb 8, 2007)

Do you really buy this "gap between rich and poor" thing as an excuse?

I would have done, in the days when poor meant "not having enough to eat".

But the teenage gangs doing muggings etc are wandering around in flash sportswear, nicking Ipods and expensive mobile phones.

Its one thing to say "well, this poor guy has to steal to feed his starving family", and quite another to say "these people have to steal to buy crack, and because they want to buy some new Nike trainers, and because they want a mobile phone with internet access and a video camera".

Giles..


----------



## Cowley (Feb 8, 2007)

> You can give people the environment they deserve but it is culture that determines behaviour and is the hardest to shape.
> 
> Nothing will change while kids have no male role models in their lives and then get sucked up into a culture of death.
> 
> ...



So your basically saying "it is what it is and life goes on" 

I completely disagree with pretty much everything you've written TBH. Things can change...they can improve....prevention methods can be put in place to restrict the amount of violence and loss of live in the Ghetto...essentially that's what Regenerating an area is all about!!!

Yes it goes beyond Better Housing, Education, Reducing Crime...but essentially they are the 3 elements that are centered around improving an area.  For Kids an area forms a culture... if an area doesn't have enough resources...then the Kids will not have much of a social choice.

Maybe just maybe some of these kids from these "Ghetto" areas may not have as much social choices as kids from the more affluent areas..but this doesn't mean they can't go on to become as successful given the right resources.

Role Models can be anything...they can be sports players, actors, musicians etc etc.....

If the correct resources are put in place in an area to give the Kids a chance or even a hope to become any of the above then surely this is an improvement and maybe just will lead on to a reduction in this culture of death.


----------



## Cowley (Feb 8, 2007)

> Tabloidisation of peoples brains, innit.
> 
> If only the kids had things like ice rinks to go to ... aaaahhhh .... I think I spot a bit of a flaw there ...



How witty?  

You jest but maybe Youth Centres as such where Kids could learn to play Music & DJ, Read, Play Sports, Involve themselves in Local community projects, interact with the Police may not be such a bad thing.

All these things surely can't be such a bad idea surely?


----------



## lights.out.london (Feb 8, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> I'd say london is a victim of its' own economic success, which success is quite phenomenal. as it draws more trade here, more want to work here, and more are constantly entering London, leaving London, moving around London. so more single-nationality minority enclaves, more transience, less long-standing community feel. also, the gap between rich and poor is constantly getting wider, which really causes problems e.g. crime



Not a bad analysis. Part of the way there.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 8, 2007)

Cowley said:
			
		

> How witty?
> 
> You jest but maybe Youth Centres as such where Kids could learn to play Music & DJ, Read, Play Sports, Involve themselves in Local community projects, interact with the Police may not be such a bad thing.
> 
> All these things surely can't be such a bad idea surely?


yes these things help, but you need so very, very much more than that. why do so many w/c kids get into street crime? partly drugs, but also because the avalanche of designer tat from one of the most relentlessly consumerist cities in the world is constantly shoved in their faces - at the same time as they realise that the sundry deprivations - in terms of education, opportunities and employment - effectively deny them the chance to get any of that temting stuff legally. 
I live in streatham - 5 mins walk from that rink. I see this problem all the time. give kids REAL opportunities to improve their livesm, and they'll take them.


----------



## potential (Feb 8, 2007)

more like....
 friends relatives rob, mug, drug-dealing etc and think why should i work for a living.    when they get knicked [ which is rare ] think of it as an ocupatioal hazard.
why give some oink, 10 cautions up until the age of 16, when by that time they are already hardened criminals...
give em hard sentances to shock them away from a life of crime.
nipping it in the bud b4 it escalates


----------



## Giles (Feb 8, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> yes these things help, but you need so very, very much more than that. why do so many w/c kids get into street crime? partly drugs, but also because the avalanche of designer tat from one of the most relentlessly consumerist cities in the world is constantly shoved in their faces - at the same time as they realise that the sundry deprivations - in terms of education, opportunities and employment - effectively deny them the chance to get any of that temting stuff legally.
> I live in streatham - 5 mins walk from that rink. I see this problem all the time. give kids REAL opportunities to improve their livesm, and they'll take them.



Most will, sure. Just like most people don't do bad shit in the first place, whatever their circumstances.

But some people will do what they can get away with, because they can, because its a thrill, because they are greedy, because they like having power over other people, etc etc.

And unfortunately I don't think that those people will all trot along to a good training course or whatever, even if it were offered.

Giles..


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 8, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> Do you really buy this "gap between rich and poor" thing as an excuse?



Yes.  You have a situation where some people can afford to buy houses on the market for millions and other people can't afford their rent and will never be able to afford to buy, what you thinks gonna happen?  You think people gonna be happy about that?  Or angry?

Take a wild guess.


ffs


----------



## Giles (Feb 8, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yes.  You have a situation where some people can afford to buy houses on the market for millions and other people can't afford their rent and will never be able to afford to buy, what you thinks gonna happen?  You think people gonna be happy about that?  Or angry?
> 
> Take a wild guess.
> 
> ...



Most people doing street crime are not frustrated home-buyers, though, are they? Come on......

Giles..


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 8, 2007)

Did I say they were?  Anger, frustration, alienation etc don't work in such a linear and rational manner - that's why its anger, frustration and alienation and not a bloody dissertation.  I'm not saying that its the only factor (most things are multi-causal after all), but if someone knows that they are never going to have the things that others have, that the media and society dangles in front of them, what the fuck do you think is gonna happen?  Rainbows and bunny rabbits?


----------



## Giles (Feb 8, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Did I say they were?  Anger, frustration, alienation etc don't work in such a linear and rational manner - that's why its anger, frustration and alienation and not a bloody dissertation.  I'm not saying that its the only factor (most things are multi-causal after all), but if someone knows that they are never going to have the things that others have, that the media and society dangles in front of them, what the fuck do you think is gonna happen?  Rainbows and bunny rabbits?



I can't stand this justifying of outright nastiness.

So what if they haven't got enough money to buy a house? Does this make going out shooting and stabbing and robbing OK?

Oh, look, someone over there has a nice jacket, and I don't, well, its only natural that my frustration is going to boil over, and I'll have to go and rob it.

FFS

Giles..


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 9, 2007)

Well, at least they're doing their bit to help keep property prices down...


----------



## Giles (Feb 9, 2007)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> Well, at least they're doing their bit to help keep property prices down...



They are clearly not trying hard enough, the lazy fuckers!

Giles..


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Feb 9, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yes.  You have a situation where some people can afford to buy houses on the market for millions and other people can't afford their rent and will never be able to afford to buy, what you thinks gonna happen?  You think people gonna be happy about that?  Or angry?
> 
> Take a wild guess.
> 
> ffs



But why then doesn't China have criminals running amok on the streets?  Or India for that matter?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 9, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> I can't stand this justifying of outright nastiness.



Who's justifying what now?  




			
				Giles said:
			
		

> So what if they haven't got enough money to buy a house? Does this make going out shooting and stabbing and robbing OK?



Did I say it did?  What are you on about?  




			
				Giles said:
			
		

> Oh, look, someone over there has a nice jacket, and I don't, well, its only natural that my frustration is going to boil over, and I'll have to go and rob it.
> 
> FFS
> 
> Giles..



What are you on about?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 9, 2007)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> But why then doesn't China have criminals running amok on the streets?  Or India for that matter?



What a silly question.  They don't have the same culture as the UK do they?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 9, 2007)

If social deprivation isn't a factor, why do these things happen in Brixton, Peckham, Hackney and not Hampstead or Chelsea?


----------



## Giles (Feb 9, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> If social deprivation isn't a factor, why do these things happen in Brixton, Peckham, Hackney and not Hampstead or Chelsea?



I think that you will find that its more of a cultural thing, than down to outright poverty or wealth.

Giles..


----------



## Giles (Feb 9, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Who's justifying what now?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am "on about" you stating that some people's crime is a logical and expected response to their "anger and frustration" over seeing other people's wealth, and not having that wealth themselves.

Giles..


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 9, 2007)

Cowley said:
			
		

> *So your basically saying "it is what it is and life goes on" *
> 
> I completely disagree with pretty much everything you've written TBH. Things can change...they can improve....prevention methods can be put in place to restrict the amount of violence and loss of live in the Ghetto...essentially that's what Regenerating an area is all about!!!
> 
> ...



No, I didn't say that anywhere. I said you have to give people the environment they deserve but that it is the human aspects (culture) which are the most important and that providing a better environment is not _in itself_ going to change anything.

When it would change would be if kids had dads who they could see being "men" in the way that doesn't involve being a dick and the whole ridiculous culture of "respect" and not bothering at school were not so prevalent.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 9, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> If social deprivation isn't a factor, why do these things happen in Brixton, Peckham, Hackney and not Hampstead or Chelsea?



Social deprivation is clearly a factor - such things do happen in Chelsea (financier stabbed on doorstep etc - and why go hang out on the Worlds End Estate?) - but the relationship of cause and effect is a bit more complex than you appear to be implying.


----------



## zoltan (Feb 9, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> Answers: I think look at what happened in New York some years ago. Very similar situation in that decent people had gradually ceded control to the thuggish anti-social minority. Rising rates of street crime and violence.
> 
> They turned that around. Even given that guns are even more available over there. We could do the same. If someone had the will to do it. As opposed to just announcing endless "initiatives" that grab headlines for a few days and achieve nothing.
> 
> Giles..



Re this NYC sitn. - read freakonomics and you will maybe find that the probelm sorted itself out becasue of the Roe Vs Wade Abortion decision rather than the cops cracking down and bigger cop forces.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 9, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Social deprivation is clearly a factor - such things do happen in Chelsea (financier stabbed on doorstep etc - and why go hang out on the Worlds End Estate?) - but the relationship of cause and effect is a bit more complex than you appear to be implying.



I guess you missed the bit where I wrote "I'm not saying that its the only factor (most things are multi-causal after all)".


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 9, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> I think that you will find that its more of a cultural thing, than down to outright poverty or wealth.
> 
> Giles..



I guess you missed the bit where I wrote "I'm not saying that its the only factor (most things are multi-causal after all)".


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 9, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> I am "on about" you stating that some people's crime is a logical and expected response to their "anger and frustration" over seeing other people's wealth, and not having that wealth themselves.
> 
> Giles..



I did not say it was logical, in fact I clearly pointed out that it wasn't.

Whats the matter with you, can't you read?


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 9, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> What a silly question.  They don't have the same culture as the UK do they?


That doesn't really answer the question, though, does it? Places like China, India and North Korea (for example) have vastly worse levels of poverty and deprivation than the UK, so why has no "culture" of street-gangs, random or moronically-motivated shootings and muggings emerged there, that I'm aware of?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Feb 9, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> That doesn't really answer the question, though, does it? Places like China, India and North Korea (for example) have vastly worse levels of poverty and deprivation than the UK, so why has no "culture" of street-gangs, random or moronically-motivated shootings and muggings emerged there, that I'm aware of?



I reckon it's cos they have a stronger sense of family and community then here in the UK. 

How many people do you know that live on your street?  I only know the people that live upstairs, and even then I only know them by face.

If some random kid from down the road started causing trouble, I wouldn't even know that they were from down the road, let alon who I could go and tell.

Surely doens't help situations.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 9, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> That doesn't really answer the question, though, does it? Places like China, India and North Korea (for example) have vastly worse levels of poverty and deprivation than the UK, so why has no "culture" of street-gangs, random or moronically-motivated shootings and muggings emerged there, that I'm aware of?



India definitely has street robbings and gun crime from what people who've been there have told me.  However, its a very different culture from the UK.  It doesn't have the same advertising and media culture of telling people that they can have it all if they really try, the same pressure to have the latest mobile phone or pair of trainers, the same vacuous aspirational celebrity lifestyle pushed in your face as the thing that will make you happy, that you should strive for - even though its unobtainable for most people.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 9, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I guess you missed the bit where I wrote "I'm not saying that its the only factor (most things are multi-causal after all)".



I was agreeing that it was, and responding to your post "If social deprivation isn't a factor, why do these things happen in Brixton, Peckham, Hackney and not Hampstead or Chelsea?"

No-one's denying social deprivation is a factor. Well, I'm not, anyway. I'm not sure you can focus so much on disparities of wealth though because then you would *even more* problems in Chelsea, would you not?

Additionally things are pretty bad in other cities where there is not the same ostentatious wealth on display and the normal consumer goods are within most people's means.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 9, 2007)

FabricLiveBaby! said:
			
		

> I reckon it's cos they have a stronger sense of family and community then here in the UK.
> 
> How many people do you know that live on your street?  I only know the people that live upstairs, and even then I only know them by face.
> 
> ...



That's also part of it.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 9, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I was agreeing that it was, and responding to your post "If social deprivation isn't a factor, why do these things happen in Brixton, Peckham, Hackney and not Hampstead or Chelsea?"
> 
> No-one's denying social deprivation is a factor. Well, I'm not, anyway. I'm not sure you can focus so much on disparities of wealth though because then you would *even more* problems in Chelsea, would you not?



Not many poor people live in Chelsea afaik.


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 9, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> India definitely has street robbings and gun crime from what people who've been there have told me.  However, its a very different culture from the UK.  It doesn't have the same advertising and media culture of telling people that they can have it all if they really try, the same pressure to have the latest mobile phone or pair of trainers, the same vacuous aspirational celebrity lifestyle pushed in your face as the thing that will make you happy, that you should strive for - even though its unobtainable for most people.


Good points.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Feb 9, 2007)

I'm sure it is,  I had the experience of being a child in Hungary,  and yeah we got up to bad stuff (scrumping fruit, throwing stones), but no one really cared what you were wearing and if an old lady you'd never seen before in your life found out, she would know EXACTLY who's child was who's, and go promply tell the parents, and give us a bollocking herself.

Then the parents would listen to complaints and believe her, not us kids when we said "it wasn't us", quite rightly too!

Old gossipping biddy's wern't listened to though,  manly because everyone knew that they were old gossiping biddys, becuase the community talked to each other!

And these were in old communist flats that were falling apart, in a town that had an over 50% unemployment rate and where alcoholism was rife.

I agree that "must have!" culture comes into it.  Like I sid before, we didn't give a fuck what we wore and parents activley encouraged us to put on shite clothes when we went out so the good ones wouldn't get dirty, my God they would be dirty! My brother was quite happy to go out in pink shorts and bright yellow t-shirts.  No one gave a fuck.

I'd always be sad coming back to England cos I was bullied for not having the latest Nike-Airs or what not, and I never understood why it was so important, which probably made it worse.

That plus schooling was really high up on the agenda of my parents and the parents in Hungary.  No School, No play - that's how it went.


----------



## Giles (Feb 9, 2007)

zoltan69 said:
			
		

> Re this NYC sitn. - read freakonomics and you will maybe find that the probelm sorted itself out becasue of the Roe Vs Wade Abortion decision rather than the cops cracking down and bigger cop forces.



I've read it. Maybe the massive increase in police numbers and the crackdown on low-level yobbery had something to do with it as well, though?

Is it too late to go round and perform some very late "abortions" on some of our homegrown wannabe gangstas?

Giles..


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 9, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Not many poor people live in Chelsea afaik.



Well, I'm sure the average income is pretty high but like almost any area of London there are council estates too. In the case of Chelsea, some of them are quite difficult ones.


----------



## Giles (Feb 9, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I did not say it was logical, in fact I clearly pointed out that it wasn't.
> 
> Whats the matter with you, can't you read?



You implied that its somehow only to be expected that if someone can't afford stuff, then crime is a valid response. It isn't. Well, maybe if its a question of survival. But not for "bling" accessories.

Giles..


----------



## Belushi (Feb 9, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> India definitely has street robbings and gun crime from what people who've been there have told me.  However, its a very different culture from the UK.  It doesn't have the same advertising and media culture of telling people that they can have it all if they really try, the same pressure to have the latest mobile phone or pair of trainers, the same vacuous aspirational celebrity lifestyle pushed in your face as the thing that will make you happy, that you should strive for - even though its unobtainable for most people.



It does now, at least in the Cities.

Anyione going to India expecting some kind of spiritual paradise is in for a bigf surprise.


----------



## Giles (Feb 9, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> India definitely has street robbings and gun crime from what people who've been there have told me.  However, its a very different culture from the UK.  It doesn't have the same advertising and media culture of telling people that they can have it all if they really try, the same pressure to have the latest mobile phone or pair of trainers, the same vacuous aspirational celebrity lifestyle pushed in your face as the thing that will make you happy, that you should strive for - even though its unobtainable for most people.



I've got more money than most people on here, and my mobile phone is a crappy 5210. I am exposed to the same adverts as the next man, I *could* afford a flash phone if I wanted, but guess what? I choose not to. You don't *have* to have these things. And if the reason you feel you do is cos of what your friends will think of you, then you don't need a new phone, you need some new friends.

Giles..


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 9, 2007)

> as a London 2nd gen Greek born and bread



Not using your loaf, I see.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Feb 9, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> What a silly question.  They don't have the same culture as the UK do they?



Well then surely some of that culture needs to be addressed?  And that the thread-starter, in some measure, is right?

Every society needs a common thread, ultimately.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Feb 9, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> India definitely has street robbings and gun crime from what people who've been there have told me.  However, its a very different culture from the UK.  It doesn't have the same advertising and media culture of telling people that they can have it all if they really try, the same pressure to have the latest mobile phone or pair of trainers, the same vacuous aspirational celebrity lifestyle pushed in your face as the thing that will make you happy, that you should strive for - even though its unobtainable for most people.



Um, are you saying China has no consumerism?  No advertising?

I can show you shopping malls here in my little corner of dalian that make the places in central london look titchy.  Consumerism, big cars, mobile phones, trainers that cost the average worker a month's salary, they are everywhere here.

So it's not just down to this.


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 9, 2007)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> Um, are you saying China has no consumerism?  No advertising?
> 
> I can show you shopping malls here in my little corner of dalian that make the places in central london look titchy.  Consumerism, big cars, mobile phones, trainers that cost the average worker a month's salary, they are everywhere here.


What is the corresponding level of street-crime like in comparison to London?


----------



## jæd (Feb 9, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> What is the corresponding level of street-crime like in comparison to London?



Um... China has a Communist government with an appalling human rights record...? Do you think that its a fair comparison...?


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 9, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> Um... China has a Communist government with an appalling human rights record...? Do you think that its a fair comparison...?


What's that go to do with levels of idiotic street violence or lack thereof?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Feb 9, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> What is the corresponding level of street-crime like in comparison to London?



Pretty minimal.  Some pick-pocketing though.


----------



## jæd (Feb 9, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> What's that go to do with levels of idiotic street violence or lack thereof?



Dunno about you but I would think twice about having anything to with the police...


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 9, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> Dunno about you but I would think twice about having anything to with the police...


So the logical conclusion of that argument is that a strong dose of communist-style law n' order _would_ solve the problem?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Feb 9, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> Um... China has a Communist government with an appalling human rights record...? Do you think that its a fair comparison...?



That may be so, but the government actually intrudes surprisingly little on the lives of people in China today.  Indeed, for all that you may think China is a police state, I very rarely see a copper here.

The policing is mostly over political dissent etc, rather than the trivia of people's day to day lives.  So it's not all that relevant when we're discussing crime levels.  Indeed Hong Kong has an even lower crime rate than the mainland.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Feb 9, 2007)

Oh, and China today isn't even slightly communist.


----------



## jæd (Feb 9, 2007)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> That may be so, but the government actually intrudes surprisingly little on the lives of people in China today.  Indeed, for all that you may think China is a police state, I very rarely see a copper here.
> 
> The policing is mostly over political dissent etc, rather than the trivia of people's day to day lives.  So it's not all that relevant when we're discussing crime levels.  Indeed Hong Kong has an even lower crime rate than the mainland.



Ok... Fair enough...!


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 9, 2007)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> Oh, and China today isn't even slightly communist.



Still run by the Communist Party though isn't it? Appreciate they are now well down the track of capitalism though...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Feb 9, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Still run by the Communist Party though isn't it? Appreciate they are now well down the track of capitalism though...



You've answered your own question


----------



## dash (Feb 9, 2007)

For a while now have thought that Shaun Bailey speaks a lot of sense on this whole subject. Here's a link to one article by him:

http://www.itzcaribbean.com/shaun_bailey_cps.php


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Feb 9, 2007)

dash said:
			
		

> For a while now have thought that Shaun Bailey speaks a lot of sense on this whole subject. Here's a link to one article by him:
> 
> http://www.itzcaribbean.com/shaun_bailey_cps.php



That's a good read and makes some good points.

Bit of a ramble going over and over the same thing again and again tho.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 9, 2007)

potential said:
			
		

> more like....
> friends relatives rob, mug, drug-dealing etc and think why should i work for a living.    when they get knicked [ which is rare ] think of it as an ocupatioal hazard.
> why give some oink, 10 cautions up until the age of 16, when by that time they are already hardened criminals...
> give em hard sentances to shock them away from a life of crime.
> nipping it in the bud b4 it escalates


you really are a complete fucking cretin, aren't you? have you EVER lived in the real world?
Just answer me this; why are people from affluent backgrounds less likely to steal than poor kids, like from the estates round my way?
why is there more crime in my manor, than in richmond?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 9, 2007)

Worth thinking about the extent which those who engage in criminal behaviour (and here I mean the serious stuff, not minor stuff or getting led astray) are in certain social circumstances precisely because of their attitudes and behaviour.

Deprivation is clearly a factor in crime but is not. of course, an excuse - but is it really understood how it is a factor? Obviously the vast majority of people experiencing deprivation exercise their personal choice and responsibility not to become serious criminals so perhaps it is worth reflecting on the nature of cause and effect.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 9, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> You implied that its somehow only to be expected that if someone can't afford stuff, then crime is a valid response. It isn't. Well, maybe if its a question of survival. But not for "bling" accessories.
> 
> Giles..



Please try and get your head around the difference between attempting to understand something and excusing or validating it.  They're not the same thing, not by a million miles.  Also please try and understand that its not a rational response - human beings are not ruled by logic and reason.  We operate on an emotional level first and foremost.  There's a lot of angry, frustrated, alienated people out there - part of the reason is because we live in such a competitive society that attempts to sell people stuff in lieu of satisfying relationships with other human beings.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 9, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> I've got more money than most people on here,



Yes, *and that's the point*.  You don't know what its like to know that you're never going to have all the things that society/media tells you you should have.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 9, 2007)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> Well then surely some of that culture needs to be addressed?  And that the thread-starter, in some measure, is right?
> 
> Every society needs a common thread, ultimately.



Yes, I agree.  25 years of neo-liberalism has fucked us.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 9, 2007)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> Um, are you saying China has no consumerism?  No advertising?



No I'm not saying that.  Read my post again.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 9, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Worth thinking about the extent which those who engage in criminal behaviour (and here I mean the serious stuff, not minor stuff or getting led astray) are in certain social circumstances precisely because of their attitudes and behaviour.
> 
> Deprivation is clearly a factor in crime but is not. of course, an excuse - but is it really understood how it is a factor? Obviously the vast majority of people experiencing deprivation exercise their personal choice and responsibility not to become serious criminals so perhaps it is worth reflecting on the nature of cause and effect.



Not this old chestnut about "free choice".  None of us have completely  free choices - choice is contingent on social, economic, cultural, emotional, psychological factors.  Banging on about "choice" as if we all have equal choices is absurd.


----------



## zoltan (Feb 9, 2007)

"part of the reason is because we live in such a competitive society that attempts to sell people stuff in lieu of satisfying relationships with other human beings."

I havent heard this line / approach in years !

( this isnt a cristism BTW  )


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 9, 2007)

What's all this 'what's happening to London' question anyway? It's always been a violent city, and just on sheer numbers of people the statistical likelihood of crime is high.

The recent increase in gun crime is a serious issue - if you're male, under 25 and black. Statistically and realistically gun crime even with the massive increase is largely confined to specific ethno-demographic groups in specific regions of London. Knife related crimes, while wider in scope when used in muggings etc, are still largely confined to young black men (under-25 males generally if you take in the national picture).

However, until someone comes up with a way of slowing the flow of guns into the UK this kind of thing will become more prevalent.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 9, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Not this old chestnut about "free choice".  None of us have completely  free choices - choice is contingent on social, economic, cultural, emotional, psychological factors.  Banging on about "choice" as if we all have equal choices is absurd.



Well, yes, well done Blagsta for listing some of the factors that will influence whether or not someone *chooses* to do something.

These factors do not in any way detract from personal responsibility, because you could have a control sample exposed to all the same environmental factors who choose to live their lives quite differently.

Can't be arsed rationalising evil though. Just encourages pricks to blame others for their actions.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 9, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Well, yes, well done Blagsta for listing some of the factors that will influence whether or not someone *chooses* to do something.



No.  Choice is not a wholly conscious thing.  It is unconsciously influenced by all the factors I have mentioned.




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> These factors do not in any way detract from personal responsibility, because you could have a control sample exposed to all the same environmental factors who choose to live their lives quite differently.



Of course we have personal responsibilty, but as I said, its influenced by many factors, conscious and unconcious.  Its not the simple free choice you make it out to be.




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Can't be arsed rationalising evil though. Just encourages pricks to blame others for their actions.




Eh?


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 9, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> When it would change would be if kids had dads who they could see being "men" in the way that doesn't involve being a dick and the whole ridiculous culture of "respect" and not bothering at school were not so prevalent.


now this, tragically, is true and is an acknowledged problem, especially for kids of afro-caribbean parentage. In this respect the churches have also been a considerable help.
my final bit; this is happening on our f-ing doorsteps in south London. we can endlessly dissect causal factors - whatwe need to do is to use that analysis to try and stop this


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 9, 2007)

FabricLiveBaby! said:
			
		

> a) police are too busy filling out formsto tackle anti- social behaviour. (not p[lods fault.. but it's a problem).


That is a tabloid and politicians cliche.

There is more bureaucracy but it is NOT directly related to the inability (more like unwillingness) to tackle anti-social behaviour.  That is caused by a whole range of things (not least the continuing drive not to criminalise young offenders until everything else has been tried, which means that they begin to believe they are untouchable and the police give up bothering because they see nothing being done when they do catch the offenders).

The problem cannot simply be dealt with by changing policing - even if we had a magcal 100% efficient police tomorrow it would NOT address more than a part of the problem.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 9, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> There is also the scary "pack" mentality where a big gang feel (usually correctly) that they can do exactly what they want,...


We need the big gang (i.e. us, the good guys) to rebel and demonstrate to the bad guys that _we_ can do exactly what we like.  

If twenty passers-by intervene to detain one yob then twenty people are not going to be prosected for doing so on the word of one yob, are they?  But whilst only the occasional person intervenes and everyone else turns a blind eye, things tend to escalate out of control and people get injured / have allegations made against them.

The vast, vast majority need to stand up and be counted and demonstrate to the yobs that they are _always_ going to come second.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 9, 2007)

Cowley said:
			
		

> I think we all know the answer.


"We" might.  You don't.  Operation Trident set new standards in working with independent advisors from the affected community, standards that are now replicated by many other units.


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 9, 2007)

do your colleagues know you post on a generally anti-police chat board, DB?
I wonder what the generall police view would be about Urban....not massively positive I'd imagine.

Just interested, I'm not casting aspertions.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 9, 2007)

Cowley said:
			
		

> All these things surely can't be such a bad idea surely?


They're not.  But there are hundreds of them around the city.  And lots of the kids shooting each other wouldn't be seen dead in them.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 9, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> do your colleagues know you post on a generally anti-police chat board, DB?
> I wonder what the generall police view would be about Urban....not massively positive I'd imagine.
> 
> Just interested, I'm not casting aspertions.



You're not even spelling them.  But DB's not a cop, read his tagline.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 9, 2007)

dash said:
			
		

> For a while now have thought that Shaun Bailey speaks a lot of sense on this whole subject.


I think it may have been him I heard on the Tv the other morning.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 9, 2007)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> do your colleagues know you post on a generally anti-police chat board, DB?


I'm an *ex-*cop.

When I started posting I was still serving but, seeing as the only reason I did was because the Commissioner (aided and abetted by the Daily Mail) had stopped Brian Paddick doing so, no they didn't know.

Don't go round telling people I post here now, but that's mainly because there is no need to tel them rather than because I don't want them to know.

It wouldn't have surprised them though - they always had me down as so far left I'd fall off if I went any further ... (it's all relative!)

It matters not to me what people's political views are - _everyone_ is entitled to know what the laws, policies and procedures governing the police are and I think it helps if they understand some of the things which the police have to take into account when dealing with particular types of incident (it is very easy to criticise when you haven't got the faintest fucking idea about what is being discussed (e.g. this morning on Radio 4 John Humphreys at his sarky worst telling the bird flu vets how to do thier jobs (apparently he could have done the comparison between Suffolk and Hungarian viruses in about 23 mins ...   ).


----------



## Giles (Feb 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yes, *and that's the point*.  You don't know what its like to know that you're never going to have all the things that society/media tells you you should have.



But that was my point: I haven't got most of the things that society(what's that, in this context- my friends?) or the media tell me I should have.

I buy what things I think I need. I don't feel the urge to own a flashy car (mine is a 6 year old 306) or a flashy mobile phone, or expensive designer sportswear the brand name in big letters on the front, etc etc. Or an expensive watch (I've always bought Swatches for £25 or so), or any jewelry - gold chains, big rings or anything else.

If I can resist the adverts telling me to buy certain things, then surely anyone else can? 

I have sympathy for people forced to steal to feed themselves. I have no sympathy for people mugging other people for a new mobile, Ipod, etc. None at all.

Giles..


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 12, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> But that was my point: I haven't got most of the things that society(what's that, in this context- my friends?) or the media tell me I should have.
> 
> I buy what things I think I need. I don't feel the urge to own a flashy car (mine is a 6 year old 306) or a flashy mobile phone, or expensive designer sportswear the brand name in big letters on the front, etc etc. Or an expensive watch (I've always bought Swatches for £25 or so), or any jewelry - gold chains, big rings or anything else.
> 
> ...



I think you are missing the point a bit. You are secure in your material needs and aspirations. You could have all the shit if you wanted it...


----------



## Giles (Feb 12, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I think you are missing the point a bit. You are secure in your material needs and aspirations. You could have all the shit if you wanted it...



I could, but I don't, because its shit. Obviously some people are too stupid to realise this, and probably also too stupid to figure out how to apply themselves to get anywhere in life, so they must go out and steal and hurt people so they can have the shit they "must have". 

Giles..


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 12, 2007)

I don't think you understand (or are trying to) the psychology of "want" in a consumr society when your means are somewhat limited.

It's very different when something is unattainable.

It's not as simple as just deciding you don't want something. That choice is rather easier when... it is a choice and you could have it.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I think you are missing the point a bit. You are secure in your material needs and aspirations. You could have all the shit if you wanted it...



Exactly.


----------



## Giles (Feb 12, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I don't think you understand (or are trying to) the psychology of "want" in a consumr society when your means are somewhat limited.
> 
> It's very different when something is unattainable.
> 
> It's not as simple as just deciding you don't want something. That choice is rather easier when... it is a choice and you could have it.



OK, but I still cannot afford a Ferrari. So, given that I see quite a few driving around London, by people flaunting their greater wealth in front of me, would that explain or justify my going out and robbing one off someone? Its unattainable for me, and I *want* it! I can't really be expected to resist this primal urge to have stuff, especially when I *see* other people with it, can I?

Presumably you would understand my behaviour, even if you didn't entirely condone it?

Giles..


----------



## untethered (Feb 12, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I don't think you understand (or are trying to) the psychology of "want" in a consumr society when your means are somewhat limited.
> 
> It's very different when something is unattainable.
> 
> It's not as simple as just deciding you don't want something. That choice is rather easier when... it is a choice and you could have it.



I'd agree that society's values are corrupted and this applies across all class/economic groups.

The kinds of crimes and violence that are a matter of concern seem more to do with esteem and "respect" rather than acquisition purely to satisfy material needs. People are seeking to satisfy their emotional needs for regard among their peers, and of course, for themselves.

Affluent people can afford to purchase this dubious status by using their earned (or unearned) wealth to engage in conspicious consumption. Those that are poorer cannot.

The answer, of course, is to promote the idea that we shouldn't judge people by their possessions. This is a lesson which every section of society should take to heart.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> OK, but I still cannot afford a Ferrari. So, given that I see quite a few driving around London, by people flaunting their greater wealth in front of me, would that explain or justify my going out and robbing one off someone? Its unattainable for me, and I *want* it! I can't really be expected to resist this primal urge to have stuff, especially when I *see* other people with it, can I?
> 
> Presumably you would understand my behaviour, even if you didn't entirely condone it?
> 
> Giles..



Giles, because you've "got more money than most people on here", you will never understand it.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Feb 12, 2007)

I have less money then most people on here and I've never wanted to rob anyone for a shiny new phone.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

FabricLiveBaby! said:
			
		

> I have less money then most people on here and I've never wanted to rob anyone for a shiny new phone.



Some people are too literal for their own good.


----------



## Giles (Feb 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Giles, because you've "got more money than most people on here", you will never understand it.



But I haven't *always* had this, so I do.

Giles..


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

I would wager that you've always known that you'll be able to earn money.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 12, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> But I haven't *always* had this, so I do.
> 
> Giles..



Grew up on benefits in a broken family on a rough estate and attended a shit school did you?


----------



## Giles (Feb 12, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> I'd agree that society's values are corrupted and this applies across all class/economic groups.
> 
> The kinds of crimes and violence that are a matter of concern seem more to do with esteem and "respect" rather than acquisition purely to satisfy material needs. People are seeking to satisfy their emotional needs for regard among their peers, and of course, for themselves.
> 
> ...



Exactly. I don't go out to "flash" places or buy "bling" lifestyle accessories in order to impress people. Mainly because the kind of people who would "respeck" me more for having flash things are wankers, in my experience.

Why do some a**holes walk around expecting people to give them "respect", when they have done nothing to deserve it? And half the time, they don't mean "respect" at all, they mean "well-founded fear of violence".

I may _fear_ the local thug, but I will never respect him.

Giles..


----------



## Giles (Feb 12, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Grew up on benefits in a broken family on a rough estate and attended a shit school did you?



Not on benefits, although my folks did split up. Went to fairly "bog standard" comprehensive school in Lincolnshire.

Giles..


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> Not on benefits, although my folks did split up. Went to fairly "bog standard" comprehensive school in Lincolnshire.
> 
> Giles..



Well there you go then.


----------



## Giles (Feb 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Well there you go then.




What does that mean? 

That unless you're "ghetto" you can't understand people's need for trash bling accessories and respeck?

Giles..


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

Yes, that's exactly what I meant Giles.


----------



## Giles (Feb 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yes, that's exactly what I meant Giles.



I can understand why people want to go out and commit violent robberies and such: because they are nasty, greedy, stupid cunts with big egos and small brains, who can't see beyond their own immediate gratification, and who delight in having other people fear them.

Giles..


----------



## untethered (Feb 12, 2007)

"Respectable" used to mean law-abiding, fair-minded, industrious and affable.

Now it seems to mean the opposite of all those things.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> I can understand why people want to go out and commit violent robberies and such: because they are nasty, greedy, stupid cunts with big egos and small brains, who can't see beyond their own immediate gratification, and who delight in having other people fear them.
> 
> Giles..



This then begs the question - what is it about our current society that seems to be turning out so many people like that?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> This then begs the question - what is it about our current society that seems to be turning out so many people like that?



...and indeed, why they seem to be more concentrated in poorer areas...


----------



## untethered (Feb 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> This then begs the question - what is it about our current society that seems to be turning out so many people like that?



Excessive materialism and lack of morals.


----------



## untethered (Feb 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> ...and indeed, why they seem to be more concentrated in poorer areas...



I wouldn't say that it is. I'd say that people in different social/economic groups respond to our broad social values in different ways.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 12, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> I can understand why people want to go out and commit violent robberies and such: because they are nasty, greedy, stupid cunts with big egos and small brains, who can't see beyond their own immediate gratification, and who delight in having other people fear them.
> 
> Giles..


jesus wept. If you look at this sociologically, most criminals come from the most economically disenfranchised part of society - the people who capitalism shafts the most - and were born to that rank. so most of them commit crimes just to survive, and even those who do so from greed are doing it to get no more than the  deal privileged types get.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say that it is. I'd say that people in different social/economic groups respond to our broad social values in different ways.



You'll have to expand on that.


----------



## Giles (Feb 12, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> jesus wept. If you look at this sociologically, most criminals come from the most economically disenfranchised part of society - the people who capitalism shafts the most - and were born to that rank. so most of them commit crimes just to survive, and even those who do so from greed are doing it to get no more than the  deal privileged types get.



Oh, come off it. These people are NOT committing crimes to "survive". They just want stuff now, stuff that they don't really need, just that they want. And they want the "status" of being "bad boys", and they like being "respected" (for which read "feared") by their friends and foes.

There are jobs to be had in London if you look for them. How come all these people have come from Poland et al to work here?

Giles..


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> Oh, come off it. These people are NOT committing crimes to "survive". They just want stuff now, stuff that they don't really need, just that they want. And they want the "status" of being "bad boys", and they like being "respected" (for which read "feared") by their friends and foes.
> 
> There are jobs to be had in London if you look for them. How come all these people have come from Poland et al to work here?
> 
> Giles..



Psychology not your strong point is it.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 12, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> Oh, come off it. These people are NOT committing crimes to "survive"...


given that, by your own avowal, you crossed the class lines way, waaay back, how would you know? you spoken to all of them? have you fuck.



> They just want stuff now, stuff that they don't really need, just that they want.


some may do, but what the fuck else do you expect when mindless consumerism is shoved down their throat?



> And they want the "status" of being "bad boys", and they like being "respected" (for which read "feared") by their friends and foes.


what else do you expect when society, and the people who run it, treat them like shit-and show them zero rerspect, whilst simultanously pumping out endless propaganda for both machismo and consumerism? 


> There are jobs to be had in London if you look for them.


McJobs, unless they've had the chance to get the skills, training, qualification, which if they come from the innercity it's odds-on they didn't


> How come all these people have come from Poland et al to work here?


oh ffs! because even min wage or low-wage jobs represent an improvement on what is on offer back home!

It all comes down to this ONE question, one which you haven't a hope in hell of answering; WHY DO MORE CROOKS COME FROM POOR, UNDERPRIVILEGED AND EDUCATIONALLY DISADVANTAGED BACKGROUNDS, RATHER THEN WEALTHY, EDUCATED ANHD PRIVILEGED BACKGROUNDS? 
and when you have a CREDIBLE ASNSWER TOT HAT QUESTION, RAther than your customary toryboy FUJIA wittering, I'll change my views.
all I see here is, if you ever were  deprived, or at the bottom of the pile, you've clean forgotten what it's like


----------



## Giles (Feb 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Psychology not your strong point is it.



Meaning?

And, as an aside, why do you always have to give insults when discussing something? Its always snide little comments like the above, or "can't you read?" etc.

It is unnecessary, and nasty. Just make your point. 

Giles..


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> Meaning?



Just that.  Understanding people and their motivations is not your strong point.




			
				Giles said:
			
		

> And, as an aside, why do you always have to give insults when discussing something? Its always snide little comments like the above, or "can't you read?" etc.
> 
> It is unnecessary, and nasty. Just make your point.
> 
> Giles..



The comments I make are always in response to someone not reading the thread, or being wilfully ignorant.  Read the thread and think a little bit - voila!  Problem solved.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Psychology not your strong point is it.


  
badoom-Tish!


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> It all comes down to this ONE question, one which you haven't a hope in hell of answering; WHY DO MORE CROOKS COME FROM POOR, UNDERPRIVILEGED AND EDUCATIONALLY DISADVANTAGED BACKGROUNDS, RATHER THEN WEALTHY, EDUCATED ANHD PRIVILEGED BACKGROUNDS?



Not sure if that's true actually.  There are plenty of middle class crooks.  It's just that its a more socially acceptable form of dishonesty, like fraud or insider trading.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 12, 2007)

fair play, but then I'm pretty sure that just about every geodemographic analysis of our prison population has revealed a huge bias towards C2, D and E. then again, it's a helluva lot harder to get convictions for 'whitecollar crime', as any OB will tell you


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 12, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> fair play, but then I'm pretty sure that just about every geodemographic analysis of our prison population has revealed a huge bias towards C2, D and E. then again, it's a helluva lot harder to get convictions for 'whitecollar crime', as any OB will tell you



Depends on the prison! In the nicer one you'll find a few more ABs! 

One of the most striking things about the prison population is the very low level of average educational attainment, which tells its own story.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> One of the most striking things about the prison population is the very low level of average educational attainment, which tells its own story.



Yes, and the high level of mental health problems.


----------



## Iguana (Feb 12, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Grew up on benefits in a broken family on a rough estate and attended a shit school did you?



Oh come on, (I've read the last 13 pages and am weighing in) this is such crap.  I used to live on a corporation estate in Ireland.  When my family moved in it was just built.  The houses were all brand new, decent sized houses with relatively large gardens.  There were play areas, youth centres and sports facilities. The primary school there was brand new, well funded, had the best remedial facilities in the city and an excellent priniciple.  Secondary schools in Ireland are not based on where you live and you apply to go to whatever school you choose.  The nearest one to that estate was well repected.  Third level education in Ireland is free, and in fact grants are available to students from low income families.

So while people living there might be poorer than in other parts of the city they had comfortable houses, lots of facilities and all the educational options to make a better life.  Yet within 10 years the place was a crime-ridden shithole.

Why? Because some people have shit attitudes.  Those who could moved out.  My dad was a bin-man and my mum a housewife, but they put every spare penny they had away to buy a house.  They used to walk around with hole filled shoes as they couldn't afford new ones.  My brother and I had bikes that my dad rescued from other peoples bins.  My dad used to tear tokens off milk cartons and cereal boxes from peoples rubbish that he got on his rounds in order to exchange for whatever offer they were having.  And when they did buy a house we were even poorer as the mortgage was a lot more than the rent had been.

We went from living in an area with decent facilities and a great school to an area with no facilities and a crappy primary, the head was an egotistical fuckwit who only gave a shit about his comb-over.  We were by far and away the poorest of anybody we knew, and plenty of people looked down on us because of my dad's job.  And while our house was a bigger one than the rented house was in a shitty state.  All of this was a cake walk compared to a few years down the line when my dad became ill and had to retire at 33.

We were on less than half the income we had been on, though luckily my parents had insurance on the mortgage so we didn't lose the house.  Not that the money was an issue compared to the stress and worry my dad's illness put us under.  So we were poorer, stressed and surrounded by people who were a lot richer than us.  And yet, strangely enough, it would never have crossed our minds to steal the things we wanted but didn't have.

Excusery bullshit is just that.  Bullshit.  If crime was a by-product of (relative) poverty then why would white-collar crime exist?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 12, 2007)

I don't think anyone has claimed that all poor people become criminals or that all criminals are from poor backgrounds. This would be a little simplistic, wouldn't you agree?

Not unlike assuming that moving people into a brand new estate will of itself change everything.

I don't think anyone was "excusing" crime either. But it borders on the absurd to think that poverty and crime are not linked. Your example of the existence of white collar crime in no way disproves this.

It's not as simple as "being forced to steal in order to survive". It is very complex and if well understood would probably be better dealt with. As I said before a lot has to do with family background and environmental influences and it is interesting to think about the nature of cause and effect.


----------



## Giles (Feb 12, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> given that, by your own avowal, you crossed the class lines way, waaay back, how would you know? you spoken to all of them? have you fuck.
> 
> some may do, but what the fuck else do you expect when mindless consumerism is shoved down their throat?
> 
> ...




You seem to think that people are forced to behave badly by their circumstances. They are not. There are lots of people in difficult circumstances who just do their jobs, live their lives without feeling the need to get a gun, and then strut around threatening to kill people for "disrespecting" them, when all they are is pathetic, nasty thugs who prey on their own communities. 

They do not deserve our sympathy at all. We need to be rid of them.

Giles..


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

Iguana said:
			
		

> Oh come on, (I've read the last 13 pages and am weighing in) this is such crap.  I used to live on a corporation estate in Ireland.  When my family moved in it was just built.  The houses were all brand new, decent sized houses with relatively large gardens.  There were play areas, youth centres and sports facilities. The primary school there was brand new, well funded, had the best remedial facilities in the city and an excellent priniciple.  Secondary schools in Ireland are not based on where you live and you apply to go to whatever school you choose.  The nearest one to that estate was well repected.  Third level education in Ireland is free, and in fact grants are available to students from low income families.
> 
> So while people living there might be poorer than in other parts of the city they had comfortable houses, lots of facilities and all the educational options to make a better life.  Yet within 10 years the place was a crime-ridden shithole.
> 
> ...




No one is arguing that poverty, deprivation, alienation etc is the sole cause.  However it is most definitely a contributory factor.  Only an idiot would claim otherwise, the facts speak for themselves.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> You seem to think that people are forced to behave badly by their circumstances.




No, no one is saying that at all.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 13, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> You seem to think that people are forced to behave badly by their circumstances. ..


some are actually, but that is NOT what I am saying, or anything like it.  


> There are lots of people in difficult circumstances who just do their jobs, live their lives without feeling the need to get a gun, and then strut around threatening to kill people for "disrespecting" them, when all they are is pathetic, nasty thugs who prey on their own communities.
> 
> QUOTE]I'm sorry but if you REALLY don't think crime is linked to poverty and social disadvantage, you're basically too far removed from the real world to know what time it is. I really don't think you'd recognise any such 'community' from 10 yards
> so I am asking you again;*why is it that more criminals come from disadvantaged backgrounds than privileged ones?*
> ...


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 13, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> every single serious study of crime reduction has shown that the surest, most successful way to reduce crime is to invest in education, job-creation and welfare.


This is true, although I think things have gone on so long now that a lot of these entrenched, violent-to-point-of-murder-at-slightest-excuse types would probably not be helped by such improvements. They _might_ find it harder to recruit any more hechmen to their gangs, however, if those potential recruits were too busy in work to want to know.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 13, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> This is true, although I think things have gone on so long now that a lot of these entrenched, violent-to-point-of-murder-at-slightest-excuse types would probably not be helped by such improvements. They _might_ find it harder to recruit any more hechment to their gangs, however, if those potential recruits were too busy in work to want to know.



It isn't necessarily about stopping individuals who are already offending. Prison is the most effective means of prevention in that case, whether for rehabilitation or to keep them out of circulation for as long as possible, depending on your views. Rehabilitation in the community can also work in some cases. 

It's more about tackling the roots of the problem.


----------



## Iguana (Feb 13, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but if you REALLY don't think crime is linked to poverty and social disadvantage, you're basically too far removed from the real world to know what time it is. I really don't think you'd recognise any such 'community' from 10 yards



I really don't think that crime is linked to poverty and social disadvantage.  I think that by growing up in that environment and seeing how possible it is to get out.  By seeing what happened to a community I was part of, and how different people living there have grown-up and the different paths they have taken I have no doubt that these links are bullshit.  

Working 30 hours a week on top of 26 hours a week at college, being a union shop-steward at 18 and spending the last 4 years working for ngo's has further re-inforced what I knew as a child:

Crime is caused by attitude, not the type of poverty we see in the developed world.  Blaming poverty is an excuse, and it's an excuse that's used because bleeding hearts believe it.

But maybe I'm so far removed from reality too, I think earning £18k a year and owning a house in Tottenham makes me really wealthy.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 13, 2007)

Iguana said:
			
		

> I really don't think that crime is linked to poverty and social disadvantage.



So how do you explain the stats then?


----------



## Iguana (Feb 13, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So how do you explain the stats then?



Most statistics are created by taking facts in isolation.  What other factors are taken into account when creating these statistics?

If statistics show that most street crime is perpetrated by black people, does this mean that black people are inherently more likely to commit crime?  That there is something about being black that makes you less able to live within the moral expectations set by our society?

No, and the same applies to poverty.

It is an EXCUSE, nothing more.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 13, 2007)

So how do you explain the links between poverty and crime then?


btw, I wish people could get their heads around the difference between looking for explanations and "excusing".  They're not the same.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 13, 2007)

Iguana said:
			
		

> Most statistics are created by taking facts in isolation.  What other factors are taken into account when creating these statistics?
> 
> If statistics show that most street crime is perpetrated by black people, does this mean that black people are inherently more likely to commit crime?  That there is something about being black that makes you less able to live within the moral expectations set by our society?



It might, it might not, but I'm not sure how that's relevant. You are right in the first point you make but then you go on to say this:




			
				Iguana said:
			
		

> No, and the same applies to poverty.
> 
> It is an EXCUSE, nothing more.



And quite how does that follow?

There are all sorts of contributory factors. It's unlikely that any one is sufficient in itself but I find the idea that you can dismiss poverty as one of them quite remarkable. I'm sure you have based this on a background in criminology or at least a thorough study of the data, though, rather than just deducing it from your personal observation of "we were poor and we didn't commit crime", therefore crime is not a factor?


----------



## Iguana (Feb 13, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So how do you explain the links between poverty and crime then?



How do you explain crime committed by the wealthy?  Because there is plenty of that.  And how about utterly immoral evil behaviour that just happens to be legal.

Crime happens because of an over-inflated sense of entitlement and a machiavellian view of getting what you want.  It is about attitude, parenting and education, but mostly attitude, not poverty.  Soemtimes it's also about drug-addiction and mental illness.




			
				Blagsta said:
			
		

> btw, I wish people could get their heads around the difference between looking for explanations and "excusing".  They're not the same.



I have my head right around the difference. You don't seem to understand that just because you call an explanation doesn't make it stop in fact being an excuse.  I've known people who have gone on to be petty criminals spouting the whole, but we have so little - we have no other choice.  From people who were a hell of a lot better off than my family.  It's crap.  Pure fucking crap.  

Having people who are better off than you using their poverty as an excuse for committing crimes as that is "their only choice," and then living through it while your family manages to create a better situation for themselves though they started out with less and had to go through serious illness.  It lets you KNOW that it's crap.  I don't just think this, I've lived it, it's bull.  And all you and everyone else who spouts these excuses do is denegrate majority of people who are the poor in our society who manage to live decent, ethical lives.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 13, 2007)

So you haven't an explanation then?


----------



## Iguana (Feb 13, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So you haven't an explanation then?



Do you have one for the existance of white-collar crime?

There isn't an explanation because the connection isn't real.  People with crappy attitudes commit the type of crime that is available.  To put in overly-simplistic terms - The poor commit street crime because it's easy.  You don't need to work hard and get a job in order to mug someone or shoplift.  The wealthy commit more white-collar crime, because to do that you have to have a job that puts you in a position to do it.

Not too many people drag themselves out of poverty and get a decent job and then decide to piss on their hard work by risking their job by committing a crime that will risk everything they've gained, in order to gain a little bit more. (Some will, but not most).

And there are no statistics whatsoever that will detail the amount of white collar crime exists.  A huge amount of it will go undiscovered, possibly most of it.  Then a huge amount of what is discovered by the companies will be dealt with internally for fear of losing the confidence of the public.  With street-crime the victim is usually aware of the crime almost instantly and an awful lot of it is reported.

So you have no statistics whatsoever that can back up your assertation that the majority of crime is a product of poverty.


----------



## Iguana (Feb 13, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> It might, it might not, but I'm not sure how that's relevant.



If statistics linking crime to race aren't relevant not then how are statistic linking crime to poverty relevant?  That's my point.




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I'm sure you have based this on a background in criminology or at least a thorough study of the data, though, rather than just deducing it from your personal observation of "we were poor and we didn't commit crime", therefore crime is not a factor?



I'm sure you have one too and aren't just basing your assumptions on some flawed statistics.

And years as a shop steward, at times involved in low-level white-collar crimes situations.  Plus years working for ngo's (allbeit in fundraising departments) has given me an insight that has further backed up my childhood experiences.  But I've already said that.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 13, 2007)

Iguana said:
			
		

> It is an EXCUSE, nothing more.


ffs no-one's bloody excusing, they're aassessing WHY crime occurs


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 13, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> This is true, although I think things have gone on so long now that a lot of these entrenched, violent-to-point-of-murder-at-slightest-excuse types would probably not be helped by such improvements. They _might_ find it harder to recruit any more hechmen to their gangs, however, if those potential recruits were too busy in work to want to know.


it's the latter possibility I'm hoping for. the real hardcore ones are just psychoes


----------



## Iguana (Feb 13, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> ffs no-one's bloody excusing, they're aassessing WHY crime occurs



Read what I am saying instead of quoting me out of context.




			
				Iguana said:
			
		

> I've known people who have gone on to be petty criminals spouting the whole, but we have so little - we have no other choice. From people who were a hell of a lot better off than my family.



So actually plenty of people are excusing.  Not the people in this discussion.  But the people perpetrating the crimes.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 13, 2007)

Iguana said:
			
		

> Do you have one for the existance of white-collar crime?



Would you care to look at the make up of the prison population and get back to me on that one?


----------



## Iguana (Feb 13, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Would you care to look at the make up of the prison population and get back to me on that one?



Would you care to read more than selected sentences in people's posts.




			
				Iguana said:
			
		

> And there are no statistics whatsoever that will detail the amount of white collar crime exists. A huge amount of it will go undiscovered, possibly most of it. Then a huge amount of what is discovered by the companies will be dealt with internally for fear of losing the confidence of the public. With street-crime the victim is usually aware of the crime almost instantly and an awful lot of it is reported.



It may be a bit of a leap but I don't think that undiscovered or unreported criminals end up in jail.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 13, 2007)

Usually the idea is that it's _convicted_ criminals that go to jail.

What do you think the detection rate is for street crime?


----------



## potential (Feb 13, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Usually the idea is that it's _convicted_ criminals that go to jail.
> 
> What do you think the detection rate is for street crime?


the detection rate for street crime is very very low, only about 5% i bet.
lots of crime is because some folks dont have a role model.
You will find criminals will produce, offspring who commit crimes


----------



## Cowley (Feb 13, 2007)

> "We" might. You don't. Operation Trident set new standards in working with independent advisors from the affected community, standards that are now replicated by many other units.



That in itself is a Problem IMHO.  The members of "Operation Trident" should be attempting to speak face to face with the Kids.


----------



## Cowley (Feb 13, 2007)

> They're not. But there are hundreds of them around the city. And lots of the kids shooting each other wouldn't be seen dead in them.



Hundreds of what? Rickety old Youth centres with a broken Keyboard and smashed out windows???

I'm talking about Modern Establishments where Kids can engage with each other and participate in Social activities, be it Sports, Technology, Music etc etc


----------



## potential (Feb 13, 2007)

thats not operation tridents job is it ???
they report black on black crimes, and try to solve them and nick the guilty.


----------



## Cowley (Feb 13, 2007)

> thats not operation tridents job is it ???
> they report black on black crimes, and try to solve them and nick the guilty.



No it's not but one of the points I was making last week was that part of the problem was a social deprivation issue.

I'm not pointing the finger at Trident only..I'm merely suggesting some of the factors to why this is happening and what may prevent some of it happening in the future.


----------



## Iguana (Feb 13, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Usually the idea is that it's _convicted_ criminals that go to jail.
> 
> What do you think the detection rate is for street crime?



I'm not the one who brought up prison figures.  That was Blagsta, referring them in lieu statistics on white collar crime.  Implying, I assume, that as prisons aren't full of white collar criminals then there aren't that many criminals from well-off backgrounds.  I know that doesn't make a lot of sense, but it was the only meaning I could glean from it.

Your comment just backs up my point.  Prison figures are irrelevant in relation to actual instances of crime.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 14, 2007)

Cowley said:
			
		

> The members of "Operation Trident" should be attempting to speak face to face with the Kids.


They do.  But the "Kids" tend not to want to engage directly with the police at all.  There are some hugely effective youth workers, etc. who provide an excellent channel of communication (there are also some self-serving, wannabe politicians with a personal axe to grind but, sooner or later, they get found out).


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 14, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So you haven't an explanation then?


He's given you plenty of explanation: it's just not the one you approve of. Doing the internet equivalent of shining a light in his face and demanding answers to the same question over and over again demans you, as well.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 14, 2007)

*What's happening to London?*

It's getting even more expensive and hardly anything works. Most Londoners are ill-mannered too.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 14, 2007)

Iguana said:
			
		

> I'm not the one who brought up prison figures.  That was Blagsta, referring them in lieu statistics on white collar crime.  Implying, I assume, that as prisons aren't full of white collar criminals then there aren't that many criminals from well-off backgrounds.  I know that doesn't make a lot of sense, but it was the only meaning I could glean from it.
> 
> Your comment just backs up my point.  Prison figures are irrelevant in relation to actual instances of crime.



You're basing your opinions on guesses.

Most odd.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 14, 2007)

Iguana said:
			
		

> Read what I am saying instead of quoting me out of context.


that don't go around implying p0eople are excusing crime. your word; 'excuse'. no-one else's. your words are your responsibility


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 14, 2007)

i blame the kids with guns they should not be shooting each other.why  is it that they cannot learn the lessons of kosovo and in this case socially cleanse the idiots who fuck everything up in the rich little areas of london. As for pete the greek and giles it seems they do'nt like gangsta rap


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 14, 2007)

That was a sensible post.


----------



## Zeppo (Feb 14, 2007)

*More shootings*

15 year old boy killed in Clapham. Sir Ian Blair wants to hold meeting in the Met on the shootings in South London. That is 3 in a week. What is happening?

Cracking down on guns and their supply to kids on the street is one answer but this is a complicated problem with no quick easy answers but something needs to be done.


----------



## potential (Feb 14, 2007)

Zeppo said:
			
		

> Cracking down on guns and their supply to kids on the street is one answer but this is a complicated problem with no quick easy answers but something needs to be done.


mandatory 10 year sentence for possesion of a gun ? how about that for starters ?


----------



## Iguana (Feb 14, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> that don't go around implying p0eople are excusing crime. your word; 'excuse'. no-one else's. your words are your responsibility



Yes people excuse crime.  Everytime someone robs someone else and then comes out with but I had no other option, they are making an excuse.  And if you actually read my posts, rather than focusing on one word you'd know what I was talking about.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2007)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> It's getting even more expensive and hardly anything works. Most Londoners are ill-mannered too.



Have you met most Londoners then?
I think you mean the 'ones' you've met, there is quite a difference.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 15, 2007)

Iguana said:
			
		

> Yes people excuse crime.  Everytime someone robs someone else and then comes out with but I had no other option, they are making an excuse.  And if you actually read my posts, rather than focusing on one word you'd know what I was talking about.


----------



## roundtheworld (Feb 15, 2007)

i disagree that this is a result of immigration at all. Correct me if I am wrong but i hear of no Polish or Slovenian gun crime...and London has had issues with violent crime since time began. The truth is that such incidents happen now mainly in certain areas of London within the black community which needs to stand up and take responsibilty.


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 15, 2007)

Zeppo said:
			
		

> Cracking down on guns and their supply to kids on the street is one answer but this is a complicated problem with no quick easy answers but something needs to be done.


Two words: Millenium Dome. Throw all convicted gun-toting and killing-at-slightest-excuse twats in there and let them all blow each others' heads off if that's what they want to do.

The rest of us have had enough.


----------



## zoltan (Feb 15, 2007)

roundtheworld said:
			
		

> i disagree that this is a result of immigration at all. Correct me if I am wrong but i hear of no Polish or Slovenian gun crime...and London has had issues with violent crime since time began. The truth is that such incidents happen now mainly in certain areas of London within the black community which needs to stand up and take responsibilty.



A Lithuanian Gang was recently sent "dahn" for importing a shit load of hand guns and selling them in London.

You dont hear about the Albanina/ Kosovan shootings as many are not reported & even if they are,  because its often Alb-Alb, nothing can be done about  it. cos no one complains

The difference is that other shootings are due to crime/drugs or whatever - usually significant territioial stuff as you would expect with crime gangs.

the recent spate of S London shootings doesnt seem to be related to crims shooting crims - its all about losing face.

thats the worrying thing - losing face is worth killing for


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 15, 2007)

zoltan69 said:
			
		

> its all about losing face.


In the below instance, someone was murdered becuase  the murderer objected to something she'd said to him on a mobile phone. Check final paragraph at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6345335.stm


----------



## Errol's son (Feb 15, 2007)

Malasi is Angolan.

Generally Angolans are well behaved in London. You seldom hear of Angolans getting into trouble here. I always actually wondered why they were so well behaved and invisible. Obviously they are not all that well behaved.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 15, 2007)

Rutita1 said:
			
		

> Have you met most Londoners then?
> I think you mean the 'ones' you've met, there is quite a difference.



I'm going to take you off ignore for this single reply. I have lived in London for 17 years and in all that time, I have found many Londoners to be rude and bad mannered. This is something that I haven't found to be the case in Newcastle, Manchester or even Birmingham. People step on your feet and bump into you without saying "excuse me".

Sorry if you view this personally but there are many other folk who would back me up.


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 15, 2007)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> there are many other folk who would back me up.


Including me, who's lived in London for decades. However, I would add the caveat that it's only really gotten this bad during the last 10 years or so.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 15, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Including me, who's lived in London for decades. However, I would add the caveat that it's only really gotten this bad during the last 10 years or so.



Sure, I had some fucker brush past me at the tube station recently, he spilled my coffee all over me and said absolutely nothing. I, naturally, shouted a stream of expletives at him but to no effect.


----------



## happie chappie (Feb 15, 2007)

roundtheworld said:
			
		

> i disagree that this is a result of immigration at all. Correct me if I am wrong but i hear of no Polish or Slovenian gun crime...and London has had issues with violent crime since time began. The truth is that such incidents happen now mainly in certain areas of London within the black community which needs to stand up and take responsibilty.



There probably is a link with immigration, but it's not that "all immigrants are criminals". It's more subtle than that. There are seemingly "spheres of criminal influence" among gangs - the UK heroin trade is thought to be heavily dominated by Turkish gangs; Albanians are thought to be heavily implicated in vice/prostitution; other Eastern European gangs active in people trafficking from Eastern Europe/sex industry, Chinese gangs in people trafficking from China/extortion and so on. 

This has always been the case - look at the history of criminal gangs in the USA towards the end of the 19th and start of the 20th centuries - heavily shaped/dominated by immigrants, sometimes working with indigenous criminals, sometimes in competition. 

Organised criminality should be viewed through the prism of business. Organised criminals may be nasty, but they are not stupid. Many are "entrepreneurs outside the law" who will seek to expand their operations abroad, exploiting new opportunities, just as legitimate businesses look to expand overseas and tap previously untapped markets.

Happie Chappie


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 15, 2007)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I'm going to take you off ignore for this single reply.


Take me off ignore?...Lucky me, I think........ 


> I have found many Londoners to be rude and bad mannered.


*Many* doesn't mean the same as *most* though does it?



> People step on your feet and bump into you without saying "excuse me".


 I'd say sorry or excuse me as well, and in my experience so do* many *others....



> Sorry if you view this personally but there are many other folk who would back me up.



Didn't take it personally as such, you are entitled to your views and I am entitled to disagree with the wording of your statement.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 15, 2007)

> Rutita1
> This message is hidden because Rutita1 is on your ignore list.



Quite possibly another tedious, ill-thought out rant. Thank fuck for ignore. 

If it's one thing I cannot stand, it's someone reading things into my posts that aren't there.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 15, 2007)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Quite possibly another tedious, ill-thought out rant. Thank fuck for ignore.
> 
> *If it's one thing I cannot stand, it's someone reading things into my posts that aren't there*.



Oh bully for you....Pot meet Mr kettle, rumour has it that you're both black   

I wasn't ranting, made my point calmly and clearly. Stop being so melodramatic.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 15, 2007)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I have lived in London for 17 years and in all that time, I have found many Londoners to be rude and bad mannered. This is something that I haven't found to be the case in Newcastle, Manchester or even Birmingham. People step on your feet and bump into you without saying "excuse me".


I'd agree with you, and I think it's due to the stress and faster pace here; that, plus the fact there's 8 million of us (over) crowded in the place


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 15, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> I'd agree with you, and I think it's due to the stress and faster pace here; that, plus the fact there's 8 million of us (over) crowded in the place



I'd go along with that.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 15, 2007)

potential said:
			
		

> mandatory 10 year sentence for possesion of a gun ? how about that for starters ?


It was only about ten years ago that the Courts started taking unlawful possession convictions seriously in terms of sentence (I regularly had people convicted of having real, and sometimes loaded, guns given no-custodial sentences or ones measured in months).

I think there is sentencing guidance now that five years is a reasonable start-point ... but then we get the overriding "prisons are full" and "but it's not a violent crime" approaches ...     Unlawful possession of a viable firearm (and that includes one capable of conversion, even if unconverted) MUST be deemed a violent crime for sentencing purposes - it's no use waiting until it has been used.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 15, 2007)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> It's getting even more expensive and hardly anything works. Most Londoners are ill-mannered too.



Pah, 2000 years ago Tacitus warned people coming to the UK not to trust the charioteers in London, so nothing's changed.

I've been in London a similar lenght of time to yourseld and can't say I've noticed it get more ill mannered - it's still the same mix of bad and good manners, altho I tend to notice bad manners more, but I suspect that's a symptom of growing older and more crotchety


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 15, 2007)

roundtheworld said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong but i hear of no Polish or Slovenian gun crime...


Maybe not Polish or Slovenian specifically, but there is a signficant amount of Eastern European gun crime.  It just tends to be less "obvious" (i.e. it's not a shoot out down the High Street ... though it may be supplying the gun used in the shoot out down the High Street)

(The bloke who stalked and shot the Harvey Nichols beautician didn't look very Jamaican or Nigerian to me for a start ...)


----------



## happie chappie (Feb 15, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> It was only about ten years ago that the Courts started taking unlawful possession convictions seriously in terms of sentence (I regularly had people convicted of having real, and sometimes loaded, guns given no-custodial sentences or ones measured in months).
> 
> I think there is sentencing guidance now that five years is a reasonable start-point ... but then we get the overriding "prisons are full" and "but it's not a violent crime" approaches ...     Unlawful possession of a viable firearm (and that includes one capable of conversion, even if unconverted) MUST be deemed a violent crime for sentencing purposes - it's no use waiting until it has been used.



I agree wholheartedly, although I'd like to see sentences for this type of crime far more severe - it would be nice to hear someone convicted of possession (and his/her associates) audiby gasp when the sentence is handed down.

But there also needs to be an increase in the chances of getting caught in the first place, BEFORE a shooting takes place, so the only remedy I can think of is a return of "stop and search".

Happie Chappie


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 15, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Pah, 2000 years ago Tacitus warned people coming to the UK not to trust the charioteers in London, so nothing's changed.
> 
> I've been in London a similar lenght of time to yourseld and can't say I've noticed it get more ill mannered - it's still the same mix of bad and good manners, altho I tend to notice bad manners more, but I suspect that's a symptom of growing older and more crotchety



It's funny how no one's picked up on my comment that "hardly anything works" in London.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 15, 2007)

Ha! TBH I disagree, and again think that while there is a basis in fact, it's a piece of modern folklore that's simply accepted without really being challenged.

More stuff probably goes wrong in London than some other major cities (altho London's size and daily population do rather put it onto a different level of management to most other European cities at least), but saying hardly anything works is a bit much...


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 15, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Ha! TBH I disagree, and again think that while there is a basis in fact, it's a piece of modern folklore that's simply accepted without really being challenged.
> 
> More stuff probably goes wrong in London than some other major cities (altho London's size and daily population do rather put it onto a different level of management to most other European cities at least), but saying hardly anything works is a bit much...




Is it? We suffer with a crumbling tube network and that's just for starters.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 15, 2007)

But it works doesn't it? And TBH I don't think it's realistic to describe it as 'crumbling' anymore - work-in-progress is closer to the mark, and while I don't agree with the PPP method of doling out the work, at least the job of repairing nearly 4 decades of non-investment is underway.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 15, 2007)

Road surfaces are in a pretty poor state too.  Anyone cycled up Effra Road recently?


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 15, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Road surfaces are in a pretty poor state too.  Anyone cycled up Effra Road recently?




They're not too hot around here either.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 15, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Road surfaces are in a pretty poor state too.  Anyone cycled up Effra Road recently?



Yeah, they're all fucked from 2 very hot summers.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 15, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> But it works doesn't it? And TBH I don't think it's realistic to describe it as 'crumbling' anymore - work-in-progress is closer to the mark, and while I don't agree with the PPP method of doling out the work, at least the job of repairing nearly 4 decades of non-investment is underway.



"It works"...barely and not all that well either. It's expensive (another point no one picked up on) and it's horrible to use. By the time they've caught up with the 4 decades of non-investment, it will be time to start the maintenance programs all over again...and who picks up the tab? We do and that's wrong. Meanwhile the shareholders make a nice tidy profit.

I could point to a number of overland National Rail stations, all of which are in a terrible state, with broken lighting and smashed up furniture. But that isn't all: there's more! There are the near-constant water mains leaks and the power outages (there have been plenty where I live in the last 4 years). 

Hmmm, lovely. I love paying through the nose for crap services.


----------



## STFC (Feb 15, 2007)

zoltan69 said:
			
		

> You dont hear about the Albanina/ Kosovan shootings as many are not reported & even if they are,  because its often Alb-Alb, nothing can be done about  it. cos no one complains



I don't agree. Three schoolkids being shot dead in a short space of time is news, no matter what their backgrounds. Are you suggesting that Albanians and Kosovans in London are killing each regularly, but the press isn't reporting it?


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 15, 2007)

happie chappie said:
			
		

> ... so the only remedy I can think of is a return of "stop and search".


Stop and search has never gone away.  It is still perfectly possible to use it in an intelligence-led or immediate response way (and it is used thousands of times every day).

I would NOT support the use of random stop and search, not requiring any actual grounds to suspect.  I personally do not think it is necessary (except in very rare and restricted circumstances where other powers exist anyway) and it is very negatively received by the public (see the anti s.44 Terrorism Act 2000 powers which are not even that wide).


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 15, 2007)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> We do and that's wrong. Meanwhile the shareholders make a nice tidy profit.


Er ... who do you suggest pays then?  The Underground Maintenance fairy?

And shareholders are paid for the use of their capital - I don't necessarily agree with the concept of private ownership of public assets like this, nor would I necessarily agree with the actual structuring of the deal, but in relation to the _concept_ that is the way the world works.


----------



## Zeppo (Feb 17, 2007)

From BBC news website - man in East London (Hackney) shot dead in his car.

Following this and the gun law thread - lot of good posts. Apparently gun crime is down in London but recent shootings hit the media highlights the major problem of gun crime.

Big job to do to persuade people than guns are not the answer. Plus need for a big crackdown on supply of guns. Is there a parallel with attempts to reduce drugs problem. The law focuses on supply but it is changing addicts that is the answer so they do not go looking for drugs. Can we do the same on guns?


----------



## JHE (Feb 17, 2007)

Zeppo said:
			
		

> From BBC news website - man in East London (Hackney) shot dead in his car.



 Homerton's a grim area.

The casualty departments at Homerton Hospital and at the London Hospital in Whitechapel now boast great expertise in dealing with gunshot wounds - expertise that used to be available only from those who had experience of treating battlefield injuries.



> Following this and the gun law thread - lot of good posts. Apparently gun crime is down in London but recent shootings hit the media highlights the major problem of gun crime.
> 
> Big job to do to persuade people than guns are not the answer. Plus need for a big crackdown on supply of guns. Is there a parallel with attempts to reduce drugs problem. The law focuses on supply but it is changing addicts that is the answer so they do not go looking for drugs. Can we do the same on guns?



Attempts to stop the supply of weapons and attempts to persuade young men and lads not to get involved in thuggery, gun-toting and gang crap have been going on for a while, haven't they?


----------



## PacificOcean (Feb 17, 2007)

Cowley said:
			
		

> Hundreds of what? Rickety old Youth centres with a broken Keyboard and smashed out windows???
> 
> I'm talking about Modern Establishments where Kids can engage with each other and participate in Social activities, be it Sports, Technology, Music etc etc



So are you saying if there were hundreds of gleaming new youth clubs in London kitted out with Playstation 3s, Music making equipment, basketball courts and so on - that kids are suddenly going to stop trying to be wannabe ganstas?  

and that these new spangley youth clubs won't be robbed for the equipment, vandalised or become "run" by a gang - so you have different youth clubs at war with each other?


----------



## JHE (Feb 17, 2007)

Attractive youth clubs probably _do_ help to reduce low-level anti-social behaviour.  The more time the little monsters spend in their clubs, the less time they have for smashing up bus shelters, breaking windows or setting fire to wheelie bins.

The only contribution I can see them making to campaigns against gangs, guns, knives, robbery and drug-dealing is that they are suitable places for some of the necessary propaganda, discussion & training.  Whether such campaigns work, in youth clubs or elsewhere, I don't know - but they've got to be worth trying, just in case they help.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 17, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> The casualty departments at Homerton Hospital and at the London Hospital in Whitechapel now boast great expertise in dealing with gunshot wounds - expertise that used to be available only from those who had experience of treating battlefield injuries.


Kings College Hospital, too - recognised in it's field nationally  ...


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 17, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> Attempts to stop the supply of weapons and attempts to persuade young men and lads not to get involved in thuggery, gun-toting and gang crap have been going on for a while, haven't they?


Yeah, at least 20 years to my knowledge - and specifically within the young black community for about 5 years (with Op Trident).  None of those efforts have been particularly relaxed recently (in fact, gun crime as a whole has reduced), it looks like a new factor has been added to the already complex mix - what that is (exactly) remains to be seen.)


----------



## Cowley (Feb 21, 2007)

> So are you saying if there were hundreds of gleaming new youth clubs in London kitted out with Playstation 3s, Music making equipment, basketball courts and so on - that kids are suddenly going to stop trying to be wannabe ganstas?
> 
> and that these new spangley youth clubs won't be robbed for the equipment, vandalised or become "run" by a gang - so you have different youth clubs at war with each other?



So all kids want to be wannabe gangstas?  Do you not think it's a bit of a coincidence that a lot of the kid gang stuff is eminating from deprived social areas? I don't like to generalise or pigeon hole but the facts or at least the facts we are getting fed proof this.

I'm not for one minute claiming that kids should be spoilt and given toys but what I am saying is better social and educational facilities should be given as a priority to the kids in these areas.  It's simple really...

Creating better Social and education facilities WILL not stop this Kid gang culture but it will give some of these kids an alternative to what they currently have....which right now is NOTHING.

This I freely admit will not solve the problem as the problem runs a lot deeper than this.


----------



## Cowley (Feb 21, 2007)

> So are you saying if there were hundreds of gleaming new youth clubs in London kitted out with Playstation 3s, Music making equipment, basketball courts and so on - that kids are suddenly going to stop trying to be wannabe ganstas?
> 
> and that these new spangley youth clubs won't be robbed for the equipment, vandalised or become "run" by a gang - so you have different youth clubs at war with each other?



So all kids want to be wannabe gangstas?  Do you not think it's a bit of a coincidence that a lot of the kid gang stuff is eminating from deprived social areas? I don't like to generalise or pigeon hole but the facts or at least the facts we are getting fed proof this.

I'm not for one minute claiming that kids should be spoilt and given toys but what I am saying is better social and educational facilities should be given as a priority to the kids in these areas.  It's simple really...

Creating better Social and education facilities WILL not stop this Kid gang culture but it will give some of these kids an alternative to what they currently have....which right now is NOTHING.

This I freely admit will not solve the problem as the problem runs a lot deeper than this.


----------



## Giles (Feb 22, 2007)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> So are you saying if there were hundreds of gleaming new youth clubs in London kitted out with Playstation 3s, Music making equipment, basketball courts and so on - that kids are suddenly going to stop trying to be wannabe ganstas?
> 
> and that these new spangley youth clubs won't be robbed for the equipment, vandalised or become "run" by a gang - so you have different youth clubs at war with each other?



I wonder about this "more yoof clubs" thing. 

Because it seems to me that the bigger problem is young people living almost entirely in a world of people their own age. No-one with a bit more perspective to say that maybe someone calling you a rude name is not reason to go and kill them. Kids living in a little world where bullying and power among your own age group are all that matters. I can see youth clubs,apart from getting stuff robbed and vandalised, becoming the private fiefdom of the strongest local gang.

I think that people of this age interacting more (and robbing from doesn't count!) with adults,maybe even their parents, would be a good thing here.

Giles..


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 22, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> I wonder about this "more yoof clubs" thing.
> 
> Because it seems to me that the bigger problem is young people living almost entirely in a world of people their own age.


Precisely.

I think there are probably pretty much as many opportunities for youths in inner city areas to do things than in any other place and, due to the ease of being able to access all of London and everything it has got, arguably shedloads more.

But what there isn't is the resourcing of the human support networks needed to replace the parenting which is present in greater amounts in other areas.


----------



## hammerntongues (Feb 22, 2007)

I live in a rural area of Essex in a small village with little or no crime , my kids don`t go to the youth club because its " boring " they prefer to hang with their mates in the park. it doesn`t matter where you are , most kids want to be independent , not governed by rules , and be able to have a crafty fag and say fuck as many times as they can in each sentence without getting told off . I am now 47 and I did exactly the same when I was in my early teens , kids have always claimed life is boring and there`s nothing for them to do .  The violent culture certainly existed in the early 70`s when I was growing up and we had gangs that used to ruck occassionally , that said I cannot expalin the gradual appearance of a gun culture which I have to admit is very scary.


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 22, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> I wonder about this "more yoof clubs" thing.
> 
> Because it seems to me that the bigger problem is young people living almost entirely in a world of people their own age. No-one with a bit more perspective to say that maybe someone calling you a rude name is not reason to go and kill them. Kids living in a little world where bullying and power among your own age group are all that matters. I can see youth clubs,apart from getting stuff robbed and vandalised, becoming the private fiefdom of the strongest local gang.
> 
> ...


This is pretty much what I said on another thread: part of the problem is the perpetualisation of adolescence which seems to go on now. A lot of this would probably not go on if they were quickly installed in reasonbly-paying employment as soon as they left school. THAT would require an end to the moronic fashion for endless cost-cutting, "downsizing" and so on that so many employers have been doing for nigh-on 30 years - regardless of the societal cost.


----------



## Giles (Feb 22, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> This is pretty much what I said on another thread: part of the problem is the perpetualisation of adolescence which seems to go on now. A lot of this would probably not go on if they were quickly installed in reasonably-paying employment as soon as they left school. THAT would require an end to the moronic fashion for endless cost-cutting, "downsizing" and so on that so many employers have been doing for nigh-on 30 years - regardless of the societal cost.



The problem with "cost-cutting" is that people only cut costs when this is in some way rational: if there isn't really enough for all the staff to do. How do you tell someone that they HAVE to employee surplus people? Is this burden to be shared equally among all companies?

If companies were to be told that making staff redundant once you had taken them on was to be made much more difficult/expensive, you know what they would do, don't you?

Like they do in France, they would become _very_ reluctant to take on young staff. France has very high youth unemployment.

Maybe a move to on-the-job training, rather than extending the time before which people enter the job market with lots of largely useless courses? I dunno.....

There are jobs going, especially in London, hence all the Polish people coming over and doing them. And who are noticeably just getting on in life, and not shooting each other for "disrespecting" them. How come they can do it, but not some of the locals? Its a question of attitude.

Giles..


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 22, 2007)

That is partly because Polish immigrants have come here for a purpose and with a sense of purpose. The sort of person who uproots himself to another country is very different to the sort who pursues (?) an aimless life _in situ_.

The key difference, however, is that due to the difference in wage rates working in England represents an opportunity to the Poles. The sort of jobs the Poles come to do do not necessarily represent any sort of opportunity to local youths.

It is interesting to speculate on the outcome of a situation in which there were equivalent opportunities for local youths, say easy emigration to a (fictional) Ireland or US in which jobs appropriate to their skills levels were readily available, at wage rates several times that here.


----------



## Giles (Feb 22, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> That is partly because Polish immigrants have come here for a purpose and with a sense of purpose. The sort of person who uproots himself to another country is very different to the sort who pursues (?) an aimless life _in situ_.
> 
> The key difference, however, is that due to the difference in wage rates working in England represents an opportunity to the Poles. The sort of jobs the Poles come to do do not necessarily represent any sort of opportunity to local youths.
> 
> It is interesting to speculate on the outcome of a situation in which there were equivalent opportunities for local youths, say easy emigration to a (fictional) Ireland or US in which jobs appropriate to their skills levels were readily available, at wage rates several times that here.



The guys we are talking about don't really have a useful "skill level" though, because they are the ones who didn't bother with school or qualifications because they were too busy strutting around looking "hard" and generally being c*nts to everyone around them. I could imagine them lasting a day or two in a job, cos the first time someone told them to do something properly, they would hit him, or threaten to kill him, or something.

Giles..


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 22, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> The guys we are talking about don't really have a useful "skill level" though, because they are the ones who didn't bother with school or qualifications because they were too busy strutting around looking "hard" and generally being c*nts to everyone around them. I could imagine them lasting a day or two in a job, cos the first time someone told them to do something properly, they would hit him, or threaten to kill him, or something.
> 
> Giles..



Well, quite - but it is hard to blame children - which is what they are, under 18, or even 14 really by the time the attitudes you are talking of have formed - for their lack of self-development, in the absence of any framework or encouragement - familial / cultural / whatever.

We don't just "trust kids to turn out OK" and leave them to it - not our own and nor is it what happened to most of us - so we shouldn't be surprised that when they are left to it, many of them don't.


----------



## zoltan (Feb 22, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> The guys we are talking about don't really have a useful "skill level" though, because they are the ones who didn't bother with school or qualifications because they were too busy strutting around looking "hard" and generally being c*nts to everyone around them. I could imagine them lasting a day or two in a job, cos the first time someone told them to do something properly, they would hit him, or threaten to kill him, or something.
> 
> Giles..



Its called Survival I think - and the theft of a childhood


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 22, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> The guys we are talking about don't really have a useful "skill level" though, because they are the ones who didn't bother with school or qualifications because they were too busy strutting around looking "hard" and generally being c*nts to everyone around them. I could imagine them lasting a day or two in a job, cos the first time someone told them to do something properly, they would hit him, or threaten to kill him, or something.
> 
> Giles..


Giles, are you even remotely aware of the appalling standards of inner London schools? It's not just 'not wanting to learn' - it's more often not being allowed to by the system'


----------



## Giles (Feb 22, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> Giles, are you even remotely aware of the appalling standards of inner London schools? It's not just 'not wanting to learn' - it's more often not being allowed to by the system'



I am aware of this. Its because once you have more than a certain percentage of kids in a class who just don't want to learn, and who won't do a thing that they are told to do, teaching becomes pretty much impossible. 

What can you do?

Giles..


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 22, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> I am aware of this. Its because once you have more than a certain percentage of kids in a class who just don't want to learn, and who won't do a thing that they are told to do, teaching becomes pretty much impossible.
> 
> What can you do?
> 
> Giles..


no it is NOT! it is because there's never enough resources to go round, no teacher wants to work there when they can have it eeasy in the home counties, and there's a built in culture of failure.
as you would know if you didn't inhabit some smug home counties tory fantasyland


----------



## Giles (Feb 22, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> no it is NOT! it is because there's never enough resources to go round, no teacher wants to work there when they can have it eeasy in the home counties, and there's a built in culture of failure.
> as you would know if you didn't inhabit some smug home counties tory fantasyland



Why don't teachers want to teach there? Perhaps because the kids are so f***ing disruptive and out-of-control that its a nightmare for them?

Giles..


----------



## Cloo (Feb 22, 2007)

It must be said, I've certainly read about deprived areas where extensive summer activity schemes were run for 'da yoof' saw a massive drop in crime that continued for some time after. Trouble is, there's just not the money for that sort of intervention everywhere that needs it.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 22, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> Why don't teachers want to teach there? Perhaps because the kids are so f***ing disruptive and out-of-control that its a nightmare for them?
> 
> Giles..


no it isn't and you REALLY haven't a f-ing clue, you smug bourgeois tory twunt. It is the combination of a culture of low expectation, lack of resources, political footballing, and because embattled w/c areas tend to produce tough, resentful kids. 
Have you EVER spent so  much as a day of your life in an inner city area?


----------



## Cowley (Feb 22, 2007)

> Why don't teachers want to teach there? Perhaps because the kids are so f***ing disruptive and out-of-control that its a nightmare for them?
> 
> Giles..



What a pathetic post.  Do you have any idea what it is like to live and be brought up in a deprived area?

You really haven't got a fuckin clue have you?


----------



## Cowley (Feb 22, 2007)

> Precisely.
> 
> I think there are probably pretty much as many opportunities for youths in inner city areas to do things than in any other place and, due to the ease of being able to access all of London and everything it has got, arguably shedloads more.
> 
> But what there isn't is the resourcing of the human support networks needed to replace the parenting which is present in greater amounts in other areas.



It's easy to access facilities when you have money in your pocket but when you've been brought up by a single parent or a low income family....swanning around Town using the facilities isn't the easiest thing to do is it?


----------



## Giles (Feb 22, 2007)

Cowley said:
			
		

> What a pathetic post.  Do you have any idea what it is like to live and be brought up in a deprived area?
> 
> You really haven't got a fuckin clue have you?



Is that not true then? I have mates who work as teachers and they have told me horror stories about some schools where there is effectively no discipline and trhey just waste lesson after lesson in "crowd control" rather than any worthwhile teaching.....

Giles..


----------



## Cowley (Feb 22, 2007)

> Is that not true then? I have mates who work as teachers and they have told me horror stories about some schools where there is effectively no discipline and trhey just waste lesson after lesson in "crowd control" rather than any worthwhile teaching.....
> 
> Giles..



Gimme a break.  It's not about truth...it's about stereo typing a class or group of people from a particular area.  That's what you have done off the back of "well my mates work in a particular said school so it must be true"  

I went to school in Stockwell at Stockwell Park School...it really wasn't a very good school then and still isn't now......so I hear....but not all of us were running riot.

P.S. Is it not the teachers job collectively to keep discipline?


----------



## Cowley (Feb 22, 2007)

> Is that not true then? I have mates who work as teachers and they have told me horror stories about some schools where there is effectively no discipline and trhey just waste lesson after lesson in "crowd control" rather than any worthwhile teaching.....
> 
> Giles..



Gimme a break.  It's not about truth...it's about stereo typing a class or group of people from a particular area.  That's what you have done off the back of "well my mates work in a particular said school so it must be true"  

I went to school in Stockwell at Stockwell Park School...it really wasn't a very good school then and still isn't now......so I hear....but not all of us were running riot.

P.S. Is it not the teachers job collectively to keep discipline?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Feb 23, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> Is that not true then? I have mates who work as teachers and they have told me horror stories about some schools where there is effectively no discipline and trhey just waste lesson after lesson in "crowd control" rather than any worthwhile teaching.....
> 
> Giles..



I know 4 differnt teachers that work in 4 different deprived schools and they say the same thing.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 23, 2007)

Fact: discipline is worse in FE colleges than in schools. Why? Because FE Colleges work on the "bums on seats" principle and so are reluctant to exclude anyone, regardless of how disruptive or violent they are. FE Colleges are also dumping grounds for delinquent 14 year olds who have been excluded from school.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 23, 2007)

Cowley said:
			
		

> I went to school in Stockwell at Stockwell Park School...


So did a very senior police officer ....


----------

