LondonMix

I did not scream loudly at you and I don't need your condescending invitation to participate on the forum. You are the only person screaming and throwing around insults. I was at times specifically responding to a question you quoted asking me regarding All Lives Matter. Within a debate around black lives matter, it's not unreasonable to question why you are questioning the correlation of stats as concerns black shooting deaths. If you simply were on a tangent about statistical correlations with zero intention to suggest there was a lack of bias in shootings so be it but honestly multiple people thought you were questioning the existence of bias, so your intention es not crystal clear. Even those trying to defend you had know idea what you were on about... Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You have all the necessary information, LM, but > just can't piece it together. > > BB posted a query about the original stat that I > posted and suggest there was a correlation, so I > asked BB to apply it to another stat - one that I > believed that BB would accept more > unquestioningly. The point being to show that the > correlation BB was suggesting was not valid and > show this by applying it to a different stat. BB > then put forward a related stat so I posted the > stats to show that wasn't actually correct. My > entire point from the start was even if the > correlation did exist, it would not necessarily > show causation anyway. Yet - and rather > ironically - you read it as if I was providing it > as 'evidence' of whatever it was you had decided > to get you knickers in a twist about. > > Whilst I agree that understanding the finer points > of that wasn't terribly easy, coming to the > conclusions you managed to make was really rather > ridiculous. You somehow made "2 + 2 = fish". > Loudly. > > As further information (though with the associated > danger that you will misconstrue this just as > badly), the 'male prison rates' stat is > interesting. As civilservant agreed, there is a > significant bias in the justice system against > men... but there is also studies to show men > commit more crimes than women. So what does the > 93% male prison population conclude?? On its own, > absolutely nothing. You can't make the stat show > causation - and this is important - for EITHER > argument. It can signal that there may be a > problem with bias or discrimination, but you have > to dig further to find additional evidence to make > any claim. > > We had good debate in here until you came in. You > are more than welcome to join in, but stop putting > words in people's mouths - it is offensive. > Constantly screaming highly random versions of "SO > YOU THINK THIS" is tiresome and, yes, gets my back > up. If you ask - nicely - for clarification, you > will get it. If you jump up and down like a > little child you will be treated accordingly. > > > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > And here is the quote since you keep saying, > I'm > > not quoting you.... > > > > Loz Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Blah Blah Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > And I wonder what percentage of crime > > > (especially violent crime) is carried out by > > men? > > > There's > > > > probably a correlation there Loz. > > > > > > And if you do the same exercise with > ethnicity > > in > > > the US?

Sally???

And here is the quote since you keep saying, I'm not quoting you.... Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > And I wonder what percentage of crime > (especially violent crime) is carried out by men? > There's > > probably a correlation there Loz. > > And if you do the same exercise with ethnicity in > the US?

Fine Loz-- I've asked you twice to explain what your point was in both posts and instead all you do is continue to insult me for assuming what you mean rather than explaining what you actually meant (if its different). Either tell me or don't. Its up to you of course but stop accusing me of not trying to engage with you to clarify your thoughts. Also, Blah Blah responded to your point about men suggesting men commit most of the crime and suggested the rate of black deaths was disproportionate and therefore a sign of bias. You brought in the suggestion that ethnicity was also proportionate and therefore... (what exactly was the point?) Anyhow, the rate of police shootings of unarmed black people is highly disproportionate (5 times as likely as unarmed white individuals). This point was later made by other posters who provided links so I won't belabor it now.

The Glazier, hardware store, DIY shops, locksmith, joiner, etc are all still in ED. Sometimes I wonder if people who complain about a lack of useful shops actually live here. The only thing to go is the garden centre and there are two elsewhere in Dulwich within walking distance. gabys1st Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can't help wondering if you are fairly new to the > area, and maybe a high earner. Some of us will > remember when Lordship Lane had useful shops for > example glaziers and hardware, and people on lower > incomes need shops like Iceland.

I should add, its not that I know nothing-- I actually am a volunteer in the Southwark youth justice system dealing with young people on referral orders. However, despite living here for 11 years and my experience in the justice system, I get the sense that in the UK racial and class politics are even more complex than in the US. For instance, white working class males have the worst academic performance of all socio-economic groups in this country. Despite whatever racial biases exist in the justice system and other state institutions, race privilege seems much more nuanced and complex in the UK, intersecting with other forms of identity. I still don't feel I've gotten to grips with it entirely which is why I'm refraining from joining in the fray regarding opinions on the UK BLM movement.

Okay fair enough. I don't know enough about the UK movement or UK racial politics and history to have a strong opinion on that.

I intentionally didn't say anyone in particular said that. However, comments like 'Billy isn't the only one not getting his food...' and the seeming questioning of the existence of racial bias in the US as arguments against the BLM do come across that way to me. Like I said it feels like a combination of two arguments taking aim at the legitimacy of the BLM: 1). other people (including men and Billy) have it worse particularly when looking at proportional stats, and 2). looking at certain stats, its not clear there is any real bias at all. Maybe that's not what e people are trying to put across but that's how it comes across to me. Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'm really not sure what riles so many on this > > thread about the movement. Why can't the black > > community in your view come together in protest > > against unarmed shootings? There seems to be an > > under current of 'we don't really think you > have > > it that bad, so just be quiet' among the > objectors > > that I find unsettling. > > > > That's kind of putting words in to people's mouths > LM. > > I would likely support a BLM movement with a clear > purpose (I say likely because I'd want to know > what the clear purpose was). But when I saw those > people blocking the road to Heathrow, I just > thought "do you even know why you're doing this?".

I read the entire thread and what you wrote. Please, correct me if I'm wrong but it read to me as if you were essentially saying that as the rate of shootings is less than the proportion of the prison population, that's evidence of no specific racial bias in the way the criminal justice system treats black people. If that was not the point of those stats please tell me what was. My point is that's uniformed nonsense. I think if anyone is going to try to argue there is a lack of racial bias in the U.S. they should know something about the issues that have been heavily debated in congress including the repeal of certain laws found to have significant bias. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > If you really care, educate yourself about the > issues you are raising. If you don't really have > > the time or inclination to do a deep dive into > the political issues at hand (which is totally > > understandable), stop criticizing something you > don't actually know much about. > > 1) Please read the whole thread before picking out > one comment, as you don't seem to have followed > the context in which it was written. There was a > whole conversation around that post and stats. > Read the previous posts and you will see the > context of why those stats are in that post. And > especially read the first line of my post. > > 2) Don't use the term 'educate yourself'. It is > only used by pompous idiots who think their view > on a subject is the only acceptable view, and I > doubt you want people to think that of you.

I've never said anything one way or another about the UK movement. I've not responded to comments about the UK movement only the U.S. DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "I'm really not sure what riles so many on this > thread about the movement. Why can't the black > community in your view come together in protest > against unarmed shootings? There seems to be an > under current of 'we don't really think you have > it that bad, so just be quiet' among the objectors > that I find unsettling." > > Is the BLM movement in the UK protesting about > unarmed shootings in the US (in which case why are > they blockading Heathrow instead of marching to > the US embassy) or are they concerned about > unarmed shootings in the UK (in which case, by any > sensible comparison this is a vanishingly small > problem, and there are better targets for their > energy) > > I am sympathetic to any campaign to eradicate > prejudice, especially from the law > enforcement/criminal justice system, but I don't > buy this.

Ok Loz, please explain the relevance you see in posting statistics about men in a discussion of BLM. I'm having a hard time grasping the point you were trying to make. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Are you saying that until all social issues are > resolved that impact all groups, black > > people have no right to advocate for changes > specifically impacting their community? > > Why does that make sense to you? > > No, I didn't say that at all. But I assume you > must have known that, as you didn't quote anything > I've written that comes anywhere close to saying > that. > > Why are you putting words in people's mouths and > setting up nonsensical strawmen?

If you really cared about this issue you'd know more than the surface story that prison stats tell. Without getting into every facet of the US criminal justice system, there is significant evidence provided by many legal scholars and research organizations regarding drug crime and mass incarceration that help explain in party why blacks are proportionally incarcerated at higher rates. *Drug offenses make up a significant portion of the incarceration in the US, particularly as it concerns new admissions to prison (less so in terms of percentage at any given time, though even that is circa 1/5th). *The penalties for different drugs (sentence length etc) show significant racial bias, with crack cocaine (cheaper and historically more popular in the black community) receiving significantly longer sentences than powder cocaine (more expensive and more popular with non-minority communities). 3. Blacks are estimated to be arrested for drug crimes at 3 to 4 times the rate of whites even though they are statistically no more likely to use or sell drugs than white people. https://www.brookings.edu/2014/09/30/how-the-war-on-drugs-damages-black-social-mobility/ Anyhow, that is just one small element of the US criminal justice system, which complex and broken on a number of fronts. If you really care, educate yourself about the issues you are raising. If you don't really have the time or inclination to do a deep dive into the political issues at hand (which is totally understandable), stop criticizing something you don't actually know much about. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not sure arrest rates or even prison stats are > a good justification for police killing stats, but > for the moment I'll go with that. > > I can't find arrest rates, but looking at prison > rates from 2010 (from > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the > _United_States#Ethnicity ). People with an > ethnicity of 'black' comprised 40% of the US > prison population. > > And, in 2015, according to data from the Guardian > (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive > /2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-databa > se ) people with an ethnicity of 'black' comprised > 306 of 1147 people killed by police, or 26.7%. > > I know those dates are not the same, but I doubt > the US prison population ethnic make-up has > changed markedly over those years.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely 'black live matter' is an incontrovertible > truism. In the wake of some high profile shootings > of unarmed black men, it seems to me like a > completely appropriate slogan around which to > campaign. I don't get the objections. As an American I can say you've nailed it. The BLM began as a response to the acquittal of the shooter of Trevon Martin who was an unarmed teenager walking to his own house who was shot by a neighbour who perceived him as a threat. Since then the movement has largely focused on excessive police force including killings involving unarmed black men and women. I'm really not sure what riles so many on this thread about the movement. Why can't the black community in your view come together in protest against unarmed shootings? There seems to be an under current of 'we don't really think you have it that bad, so just be quiet' among the objectors that I find unsettling.

what does that have to do with anything. If you want to advocate for men go ahead but none of that negates the right of the black community to advocate for itself. Are you saying that until all social issues are resolved that impact all groups, black people have no right to advocate for changes specifically impacting their community? Why does that make sense to you? Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > If white people were disproportionately killed > by Police Officers, there would be a similar > protest. > > And yet, as I pointed out before, the proportion > of male victims of police killings is wildly > disproportional (about 95% in the US) and yet > nobody raises a peep.

If someone was advocating for breast cancer and someone who'd never suffered from it criticised them and told them it was only appropriate to advocate for wider cancer awareness I think most people would find the objectors comment objectionable, callous and unreasonable. All lives matter is only offensive when telling an advocacy group they can't advocate for themselves. That's the context in which the phrase exists. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > No one ever asks breast cancer awareness groups > to acknowledge that all cancers > > matter (or in fact all disease). > > But, that works both ways. If someone did say > 'all cancers matter', I'm fairly sure they > wouldn't be pressed to say that phrase is > 'offensive' and apologise for saying it. > > https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jul/12/cult > -singer-ian-astbury-apologises-for-all-lives-matte > r

Exactly. By saying that black lives matter, the campaign is intentionally highlighting that all lives are not in fact treated equally. The slogan is 100% perfect as it is. 'Black Lives Matter' as a statement is an accusation of unequal treatment which would be significantly diluted if altered. Anyhow, when groups try to raise aware about specific issues, they always focus on their specific issue. No one ever asks breast cancer awareness groups to acknowledge that all cancers matter (or in fact all disease). That this keeps coming up regarding the black lives matter movement strikes me as extremely petty and shows a fundamental lack of empathy and understanding. Somehow, if another group was saying something akin in the face a scandalous mistreatment, like: 'Children's lives matter', or 'Poor Lives matter', or 'the Elderly matter' somehow, I doubt there would be all this 'confusion'... Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely the point of BLM is to highlight that some > people are treated differently and unfairly. > > "ALM" seems to me like an ignorant refutation of > that.

That's true. If the view can be from the loft, anything south of Whately road on the uphill slope will get you that. It's also true of Mundania road etc. Curmudgeon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Underhill road > > Any of the roads on a slope > > Depends on elevation...the loft conversions on > Heber to Pellatt, and probably beyond, have great > city views

Supper is equivalent to lunch (light meal but in the evening rather than the afternoon). Dinner can be anytime of the day as long as its seen as the main most substantial meal. For most of US history, people ate dinner in the early afternoon and men carried 'dinner pales' to work rather than lunch pales. Main meals in the evening is a rather modern (urban) development, at least in the US. first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree, I really cannot imagine that Louisa's > guests would have been open to this sort of thing > at all. However, if Louisa could manage to get Jay > Rayner over for supper or dinner (oh no, which is > it now) we could trial the art of eating a slap up > british meal, using only fingers.

Yes, the generations before us were made of much sterner stuff for better and for worse. My friends dad used to trap rats in a bag and just kill them by slamming them on the floor. He was totally unfussed but my friend was traumatized just witnessing it. We have to remember though that ours is one of the first few generations in which most men haven't had to actual kill people in war, haven't had live through famine, etc. We are privileged (and therefore able to be softer / kinder) in a way previous generations couldn't have imagined. We can't judge them by our standards. malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My dad drowned stray kittens in a sack. He said > it was one of the most awful things he ever did. > This was a time before animal charities newtered > strays. He's long since departed and it was > probably the most humane way he knew of - unless > you break into a chemists and steal the > chloroform. The first litter he found homes for. > > He once put a fork through a mouse nest in the > compost heap kiling the mother by accident. He > then forked through the babies explaining that > they would die in any case. Me as a six year old > wasn't traumatised. A different world then. > > I can just about stab slugs. Snails are easier as > I try to teach them to fly.

We have (had) two cats. They weren't really interested in helping out. We also tried the sonic device which we kept using after they were gone. Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you could always borrow a cat and they woudl > quickly disappear. > > having said that , if my cat catches one she > doesn't really 'get it' and just sits on the > little thing and suffocates it. > > practically, figure out where the gaps are - under > kitchen units and so on and plug them > > http://everydayroots.com/how-to-get-rid-of-mice - > /how-to-get-rid-of-mice > > some good ideas here

Yes, they are cruel. However none of the other traps we used worked. It was our last option. We had several mice and the numbers and droppings were multiplying in our kitchen. Unfortunately, they were coming up to our flat from our neighbors' lower flats through the walls and we couldn't find the holes they were using. Let's just say it was a horrific experience for the mice and for my husband. ETA: One of the main issues PETA has with glue traps are people throwing the animals away while they are still alive, leaving them to starve to death etc. That's why my husband killed them immediately. Still, trapping an animal for any length of time is cruel (including in a humane trap). Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > glue traps are really cruel.

I think they are humane for the humans more so than the mice. Killing mice can be rather traumatic. I've never done it but my husband has caught them on glue traps and had to hit them on the head with hammers... Let's just say its not something he likes to talk about. Got rid of them though when nothing else worked in our first flat together.

Eating at the dining table everyday is dead posh!

That's true Mic Mac. The impact won't be the same everywhere at all.

Your most senior colleagues have analysed the housing market in East Dulwich? That only makes sense if you work for an estate agent. When people are uncertain, they hold off on major decisions. People may be more nervous about basic things like job security. A shift like that in demand in and of itself is more than enough to reduce prices in SE22, regardless of how nice you feel the area is. Long term, I don't think the area is going into terminal decline but a short term price adjustment is happening all over London.