bignumber5

I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make about gangs and gang violence. London street violence is largely influenced by gangs on the estates and each area. Gangs of the "Crips and Bloods" variety rather than the Krays, but gangs none-the-less. And if you live on an estate dominated by a gang, there are unlikely to be any violent crimes that the gangs of the area don't know about or have a hand in, save for the odd tragic event of domestic origin, crime of passion etc etc. That IS what the Krays did, they were just one very hard gang with a very large patch, reigning supreme. The fact that they were white Londoners who wore suits, got photographed by David Bailey and loved their mum should not excuse their wanton savagery in anyones eyes. No, I would not rejoice if one gang of thugs got so powerful that they could make such promises. That would be organised crime. If I wanted to live under that particular type of rule, I'd move to Chicago and get to know those nice Sicilian fellas - far more stylish ;-)

double posting error!

Back when we were into it with some BNP supporters on a previous thread, the subject of "indigenous" was raised by a very dull individual, namely me. To recap, it's the people who were resident in a nation prior to the last invasion. So unless anyone can trace their roots back and confirm that their ancestors were here before the French invasion of the late 11th century, lets at least agree that none of us are too likely to be indigenous.

Indeed. News this morning had Brooke Kinsella (of eastenders fame and cousin of the late Ben Kinsella) suggesting that the answer is to bring back national service, that way young people would understand the damage that a weapon can do and not embark upon the macho quest with firearms on the street, as well as the discipline and sense of purpose...

But there wouldn't have been all this mindless street crime - Ronnie and Reggie wouldn't have allowed it ;-)

Think of arguing with such people as a reaffirmation of wooly liberal left wing faith ;-)

Hey, I'd have fitted nicely into that cannon if you hadn't veto'd it - just improvising now. At my size the career options are usually limited to human cannon-ball, being thrown about or cleaning the underside of the elephant using a hat with a brush on it, which smells and I'm not doing it again.

Please do...

And if I stick my head a really long way into the sand, I can't see anything bad at all...

I've never seen anyone being shot in Peckham. Does that mean it's not happening?

yes, link

Right then, this calls for a drastic comeback effort: our houses are mostly Victorian, so on that theme... *waxes hair and 'tash, dons leopard-print unitard and brushes teeth in preparation for bending iron bars between them*

Tony, i'm sorry to burst your bubble, but i know a good few of the staff in Sidcup A&E and it's not a stabbing-free zone. If you're in Welling, that's as close to your doorstep as the lastest Peckham stabbing is to mine. I'd conceed that it's less obvious and you are far less likely to get caught up in something as an innocent bystander, but don't kid yourself that nobody has ever been bottled/stabbed in your neck of the woods. And looking at your own area with rose-tinted specs isn't exactly helping the situation of postcode division, where people in the burbs don't give a shit about the rising violent-crime rate because they (wrongly) assert that it doesn't concern their sleepy little world. This is a national problem. Cheaper housing and a "British feel", whatever that may be, don't change that. Everywhere feels the effects of different problems, but they don't stand alone.

*Bows into the ring wearing sparkly boiler suit, cape, heavily wrapped white scarf and flying cap with goggles, twidling oversized moustache* *awaits clowns to wheel out suspiciously large cannon*

Over the recent times of increased violent street crime, the police have taken a lot of flak for the stop-and-search approach, mostly because of targeting young black males almost exclusively. But a major complain seems to be that when an individual is anything less than 100% cooperative, the back-up of a dozen or more officers can be needed as there is then the issue of the safety of the officers as well as the potential severity of the incident. The major complaint of bystanders and community members in the dispatches special on monday night was that this was an unnecessary amount of resources for searching 2 kids, who turned out to be carrying nothing more harmful than a small bag of cannabis. The program then showed us the approach of the Police in Chicago, who, immediately after an incident, flood the area with a visible Police presence to assure the residents of the area who had nothing to do with it that they don't need to hide in their homes from the gangs. They stopped any likely looking gang members (bandanas etc) but working as pairs of officers, rather than the displayed UK incidence of 12 officers to search 2 teenagers. In asking why the American Police are able to do this so much more efficiently without large numbers of supporting officers but whilst maintaining their own personal safety, the fact that they are armed cannot be ignored. So the inevitable question is: Should the Police in the UK be armed? For the record, my own opinion on this is still a resounding "NO", violence begets violence and all that, but I found myself asking the question. Discuss?

The learned author of "Bravo Two Zero" tells of a childhood growing up in Peckham, in which they went to Dulwich Village to rob the rich people... ;-)

*Hugs* So the info that seems to be piping through about this speaks more in the direction of domestic dispute turned nasty? And, if fact, more all day drinking that drug related street weapons and gangs?

ratty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the indication of a smiley would indicate > that it was tounge in cheek, although it may have > turned out to be a bit more foot in mouth. > > Oh wait, I am actually a drug and alcohol worker > and manage rehab projects in South London so > perhaps it's the truth. :-$ big sorry, ratty. Am tired and used to work in king's A&E, am easily baited on this one. A bit out of my depth, i suspect. Sorry again. *sits in corner looking sheepish, like small child listening to older siblings friends*

Not to attack you, James. And not to look the most pc. No one is disagreeing with you because you are gay, they are disagreeing with you because they feel that you, James, one man, without reference to your sexual orientation, are wrong. Ssying that we are victimising you in this situation because you are gay smacks of Ali G and the "is it cos I is black?" defence. If not being yielded to on every opinion that you express is something that you see as an attack on your sexuality, then I can't help thinking that you are failing to take responsibility for yourself and your interactions as James rather than James-a-gay-man. Just to be clear, my last post was disagreeing with you, James, about the one issue under discussion. It is not a declaration that gay men aren't entitled to opinions. I am not oppressing you for your sexuality, and you are not my victim - we are 2 people with different opinions having a discussion, yes?

ratty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's no problem - I made a fortune out of it > when I lived there! :) Is this one of those clever forum sense of humour situations that I occasionally miss, or are you actually so ridiculous as to proudly admit to involvement serious crime on a thread that has turned to debating public safety in the area? Does the post from snoozequeen1 bounce off you completely, ratty? I'd genuinely like to know if the utter crap that you have posted is just having a giggle to get a rise out of me and people similar to me, or if you are just that much of a social bottom feeder that it's true. If it's a clever joke, apologies for my mental slowness... ...Please let it be a joke...

SeanMac - interestingly, i've been of the receiving end of both types of prejudice, of sorts, despite neither of them applying to me. As a bloke in nursing it is frequently assumed that I am gay, and I get called a range of derogatory names for such fairly regularly (and occasionally asked-out by chaps with crap gay-dar... all pre-wedding ring, obviously ;-) ). And when I shaved my head one summer, I suddenly realised that a tall blonde man is unremarkable but a big fair guy with a shaved head is a target for big groups of black teenagers looking for agro with anyone who might look a bit skinhead-ish. James, I sympathise with your experiences (note- sympathise, NOT empathise, I am not claiming that the experiences that I have relayed are at all the same) as much as muffintops (to be racially slurred and patronised in one sentance by a pinstriped walrus, well done for not rising to them) but I think that which hate-attack is or is not "quite as bad" is unfair. To be attacked for anything that you are is deeply personal, and I suspect that only an openly gay person of mixed race who has experienced both could give anthing resembling an answer, but even then it would only be which gets to that individual more, not which is "worse".

I think we debated this one . I'm a fan of no.12 to Lambeth North (less of an underground maze with overground rush hour than l'elephant) then bakerloo to Paddington. Not necessarily the fastest but the best balance between fast and low number of changes - particularly with luggage, as gets you on both bus and tube early enough in their journey to get seated and entrenched with your bags. PS: just seen why timtim started this thread - may be a bit late, sorry!

maybe i've got cabin fever from being cooped up indoors and not enjoying the weather, but does anyone else look at the above post and feel interested in the rental arrangements of "let the meat cake"? ;-)

In one of TP's books (feet of clay, i think it was) a coldly logical character points out that atheism is not an absence of belief, it is the confident belief that there is no higher being, which is a valid religious standpoint. Does that make it a religion? "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" sounds like a good summary of what it means to be a true Atheist. To be Agnostic, on the other hand, is to lack a set beliefs. So it comes down to how certain you are, I suppose...

Cool! how nice. a quick word to the wise - check any exposed bearings, they can get disrupted by pressure washers. But really nice of them - v.lucky.