Jump to content

Recommended Posts

basher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 'Youths' doesn't mean 'young men'. You're drawing

> an inference about gender based on the

> circumstances described. No doubt you are

> correct. But this shows the importance of

> considering why we choose to use particular words.

> Which I guess is the point being made by Meister.


Yes, it does, esp. in this case. As Lulu said, young people or teens or whatever would have been used instead.

Every mugging and/or attack that has been perpetrated on my family members and their friends(and it amounts to many) in the area around Dulwich was carried out by groups of people of the same ethnicity, age and gender! Except for the evening a man exposed himself to my daughter and her friend at the end of Court Lane

meister Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No one mentioned the ethnicity of the female

> victim. Point made.



I think that not mentioning ethnicity could be more racist, as that would assume one if not specifically mentioned as the other depending on statistics.


Why do we want to identify the victim.

Glad most people realise that meister is acting like a plonker. It is no more racist than it is "heightist", ageist, or discriminatory against those who tend to hang around in groups of three.


Please can people stop posting such ridiculous fucking nonsense.

tallulah71 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's awful - poor woman. Makes me sick...

>

> Of course you need to mention their ethnicity as

> an ingtegral part of an accurate description -

> What's the matter with you?

>

> Tall? Short? Ginger? Fat? skinny? Glasses? Black?

> What's the difference? I think they lost their

> rights to 'political correctness' the day they

> chose to kick and punch a lone defenceless woman

> for a handbag.



Well said - I mean if you were giving a witness statement to the police surely you would have to state, colour, sex, height distinctive marks, scars - missing limbs etc... so why do people get their backs up when its mentioned on here, especially colour.

DonGee Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> tallulah71 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > That's awful - poor woman. Makes me sick...

> >

> > Of course you need to mention their ethnicity

> as

> > an ingtegral part of an accurate description -

> > What's the matter with you?

> >

> > Tall? Short? Ginger? Fat? skinny? Glasses?

> Black?

> > What's the difference? I think they lost their

> > rights to 'political correctness' the day they

> > chose to kick and punch a lone defenceless

> woman

> > for a handbag.

>

>

> Well said - I mean if you were giving a witness

> statement to the police surely you would have to

> state, colour, sex, height distinctive marks,

> scars - missing limbs etc... so why do people get

> their backs up when its mentioned on here,

> especially colour.


Thankfully it wasn't people, just meister really, with a bit of support from basher.....off you go meister.

Perhaps because these descriptions feed into popular stereo-types. Perhaps because a police report is one thing and the forum is another. Perhaps because the demonisation of certain social groups is very prevalent in some societies, some people are rightly concerned about these issues. I wonder about the efficacy of posting these reports on the forum and whether the forum is a part of a crime prevention strategy of some kind.

The funny thing here is people (on many threads of this nature) attack OPs and other posters for use of words like 'black', the inference being that the tip of some racist iceberg has been uncovered.

It's pathetic. East Dulwich and it's environs, and the people within that post on here and I meet out and about, are mainly fine people.

It's tiresome to continually see posters hauled-up for, basically, f*ck-all.

Racism, and anything that touches anywhere near it, is a pretty big accusation, so if you think it just come out and accuse someone of it, rather than posturing 'hmm sounds like you're being...', '..could be construed as...' bullsh!t.

No-one's being racist OK ?

Oh, and another bit of demographic, that I personally have witnessed (so you can't say is unrepresentative) - the only racism I have ever witnessed in SE22/SE15 has been black on white/asian. It's an observation. I've never seen white on asian or white on black.

By that I mean people picking on other people and using terminology that identifies the target solely by their ethnicity as the chief topic during the interaction.


Why doesn't someone post the term 'white man' on this thread and really push the boat out !?

meister Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No one mentioned the ethnicity of the female

> victim. Point made.


Just to add to the general message of "you are a pillock"


Nobody is looking for the victim, why do we need to know her ethnicity?

First, I want to let the victim know that she has my sympathy and concern and that I hope whoever did this to her is caught and severely punished. Second, I want to say that Atticus acted bravely and I am sure there was no intentional hidden agenda in the post.


BUT Meister is correct even if he /she didn?t express it clearly. Just substitute the description with??A woman was attached by 3 white youths. Call the police if you see them.?- and it should be clear what?s wrong. The first question people would ask is ?what do they look like?? And the reason is 3 white / black youths is not a meaningful description to catch someone. The height descriptions Atticus gave helps, but putting out a call to catch 3 assailants without being able to give more than a very generic description (lacking weight, hairstyle, clothing, precise details of physical appearance) is simply a witch hunt.


If the goal is to warn people to be careful rather than to apprehend (because you didn?t see the attackers well enough to give a meaningful description) then there is no need for any physical description of the assailants at all.


The issue is, without intending to, a generic description like the one provided is basically saying, call the police and or be very careful if you see 3 young black men. That?s what people have an issue with because even though people of certain races and ages and genders commit a disproportionate amount of the local crime, the vast majority of young men and black people don?t and never have and shouldn?t be treated with suspicion or caution as a first response.

Sorry LondonMix, but I disagree.


If somebody reading the OP had seen three young white men of the heights given in the vicinity of the incident at around this time, then they will know that they weren't the attackers.


However if they saw three young black men of those heights in the area at the relevant time, then it's possible that they were the attackers, and they may have information which could help the police, eg to say in which direction they were heading.


ETA: And I believe that if they had been white, then that would have been included as part of the description. However in this case they were black.

jimmyay Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Black youths do nearly all the mugging and robbery

> round here. Sad but true. Not racist to say so.


xxxxxxx


That's not the point.


The point is that in this particular case the attackers were black.


If nobody had seen whether they were black, white or something else then it would be racist to assume that they were black when looking for them, regardless of statistics.


"Nearly all" is far from being the same as "all", and even if it had been "all" you can't extrapolate from that to make an accurate assessment of a new case. You might be able to give a probability, that's all, which obviously would not be sufficient identification.

I am not saying that race doesn't belong in the description. Race along with all distinguishing characteristics do. All I am saying is that it only belongs with a full description that is actually able to apprehend someone.


In the hypothetical scenario I mentioned, if the only thing someone saw was that the assailants were young, male and white, they would likely say they didn?t get a good enough look at them to give a description. The same should apply regardless of the race of the attackers for the reasons I have already mentioned.


Jimmyay, I don?t think its racist to acknowledge that a disproportionate amount of the crime is committed by young black men but was that the point of the post? Is that the discussion we are having?


*Edited to reflect the right name

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy, I don?t think its racist to acknowledge

> that a disproportionate amount of the crime is

> committed by young black men but was that the

> point of the post? Is that the discussion we are

> having?


You are confusing me with jimmyay.


(and I would like to point out that I don't think that jimmyay's point was constructive in the context of this thread).

I tend to here the police use IC1, IC2, IC3 etc as a primary part of their descriptions of criminals.


LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am not saying that race doesn't belong in the

> description. Race along with all distinguishing

> characteristics do. All I am saying is that it

> only belongs with a full description that is

> actually able to apprehend someone.

>

> In the hypothetical scenario I mentioned, if the

> only thing someone saw was that the assailants

> were young, male and white, they would likely say

> they didn?t get a good enough look at them to give

> a description. The same should apply regardless

> of the race of the attackers for the reasons I

> have already mentioned.

>

> Jimmyay, I don?t think its racist to acknowledge

> that a disproportionate amount of the crime is

> committed by young black men but was that the

> point of the post? Is that the discussion we are

> having?

>

> *Edited to reflect the right name

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Girls In Your City - No Selfie - Anonymous Casual Dating https://SecreLocal.com [url=https://SecreLocal.com] Girls In Your City [/url] - Anonymous Casual Dating - No Selfie New Girls [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/molly-15.html]Molly[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/cheryl-blossom-48.html]Cheryl Blossom[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/carola-conymegan-116.html]Carola Conymegan[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/pupa-41.html]Pupa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/mia-candy-43.html]Mia Candy[/url]
    • This is a remarkable interpretation of history. Wikipedia (with more footnotes and citations than you could shake a shitty stick at sez: The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. In his June 2010 budget speech, Osborne identified two goals. The first was that the structural current budget deficit would be eliminated to "achieve [a] cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period". The second was that national debt as a percentage of GDP would fall. The government intended to achieve both of its goals through substantial reductions in public expenditure.[21] This was to be achieved by a combination of public spending cuts and tax increases amounting to £110 billion.[26] Between 2010 and 2013, the Coalition government said that it had reduced public spending by £14.3 billion compared with 2009–10.[27] Growth remained low, while unemployment rose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme From memory, last time around they were against the LTNs and competing with the Tories to pick up backlash votes - both failed. They had no counterproposals or ideas about how to manage congestion or pollution. This time around they're simply silent on the matter: https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/your-local-lib-dem-team/goosegreen Also, as we have seen from Mr Barber's comments on the new development on the old Jewsons yard, "leading campaigns to protect the character of East Dulwich and Goose Green" is code for "blocking new housing".
    • @Insuflo NO, please no, please don't encourage him to post more often! 😒
    • Revealing of what, exactly? I resurrected this thread, after a year, to highlight the foolishness of the OP’s op. And how posturing would be sagacity is quickly undermined by events, dear boy, events. The thread is about Mandelson. I knew he was a wrong ‘un all along, we all did; the Epstein shit just proves it. In reality, Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew as well but accepted it, because they found him useful. As did a large proportion of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs who were personally vetted and approved by Mandelson.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...