Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Birkenhead, over the river, is the capital of random violence.


Growing up in Birkenhead made me think random violence was part of everyone's life. Much as I'd like to blame it all on Maggie, there is a long history of violence there.


I have no idea why it's so bad on Merseyside, but it makes me sad.

Statistics probably don't back up LadyD's version because people don't tell the police.


I remember when I was staying at a friends for a few weeks when I'd gone up to Liverpool to do a work placement. One night we were on the way back from the pub, and there was a bloke kicking the shit out of some young lad (probably only 15/16) on the pavement. We ran up, and he stopped. It turned out he lived over the road, and knew my mate. He'd caught the lad trying to break in his house, and decided to teach him a lesson.


Anyway, he strolled back to his house, and we asked the boy if he was okay. Someone called out the window that they'd called the police, and the lad legged it. The police turned up a minute later and shone torches on our shoes looking for blood. Noone came out and said a word to them about who it was, even though the whole street had seen it out of their windows. The person who called the police did it to end the kicking, they had no intention of the bloke actually getting caught.


Most scousers I knew were lovely lovely people, and I love the place. I did however see a lot of fights and trouble, and it seemed accepted as a fact of life.


Look at that young black lad killed a few years ago. That wasn't your average attack, that was fucking brutal!

Violent attacks happen everywhere. Ask the police policing a friday or saturday night in ANY city in the country. I spent 19 years of my life in Liverpool and never saw any violence personally, or knew anyone who was a vicitm of a random violent attack.............whereas in London.....


AND I absolutely refute that people in Liverpool accept violence as a fact of life. I still have family and many friends up there and they and their communities definitely do NOT think violence is ok.


You can't make assumptions like those above about any city and it's people. People don't carry out vicious brutal crimes because of their location. They do so because they are f*ckd up and people like that are found everywhere.


If however we want to draw conclusions about places and people because of rare high profile heinous crimes then it's London and the South East we should be talking about really.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_crimes_in_the_United_Kingdom#Child_Killers.2FKillings

Not sure which part you grew up in, but I expected to get jumped any time I had to walk through neighbouring areas and actually did on more than one occasion.


It was even worse for my brothers. The police were just as brutal.


When I came to London, I was really surprised that some people argued fiercely without glassing each other and I lived in Elephant & Castle.


I was most shocked by the fact that people were able to shout at police without getting dragged into a van and beaten up. No matter what DJKQ experienced in Liverpool, the experience of many people I know who grew up in Birkenhead was totally different.


Just remembered the last time I was out in Liverpool centre at a club about 5 yrs ago and there were bouncers every 10ft inside the club. On that one night, I saw someone get glassed, another person got bottled indide the club and a guy outside had his shirt off, covered in blood, shouting to some other guys to fight him if they were hard enough.


I'd forgotten how often I'd witnessed scenes like that both in Luverpool and Birkenhead. The only time I've ever seen anything close in London was at The Henry Cooper down Old Kent Rd in the 80's.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> I spent 19 years of my life in

> Liverpool and never saw any violence personally,

> or knew anyone who was a vicitm of a random

> violent attack.............whereas in London.....


I spent only 3 years of my life in Liverpool, and unfortunately knew many more people who were violently attacked (or witnessed attacks) than in London. Although of course it does depend on the circles you mix in, and attacking students was something of a hobby for a small number of local teenagers. But generally the violence seemed a lot more random and pointless than in London.


> AND I absolutely refute that people in Liverpool

> accept violence as a fact of life. I still have

> family and many friends up there and they and

> their communities definitely do NOT think violence

> is ok.


I'm sure you have a fair point, it's entirely possible that the kind of situation otta describes may be restricted to certain roads/areas/individuals.



> People don't carry out vicious brutal crimes because of their location.

> They do so because they are f*ckd up and people

> like that are found everywhere.


I disagree. Some areas have a greater concentration of fucked up people than others (i.e. these people are often a product of their environment). Certain areas of Liverpool are seriously unsafe.

Lived in the Pool in the mid 80s, when Thatcher had stuck the knife in (another case of corporate manslaughter?). Saw a couple of real Wild West brawls in late night bars with fists and glasses being thrown. More like a film set than a boxing match. That was about it really. Someone asked me the time outside a pub once. He wanted to know the time, rather than check out my accent and punch me. My mate answered in a dreadful attempt at a scouse accent - bit like George Osbourne really, and he was from just up the road in a posh bit bit of Merseyside.


Clearly sad news, but don't tar scousers all with the same brush (my sterotypical scousers stories, including nasty nasty touts, will wait for another time).


Went to a wedding at Birkinhead registry office. Seemed surprisingly nice. And mates live in Wallassey which is rather nice, and tolerent (can be a bit homophobic on the other side of the Mersey). And anywhwere assoicated with Half Man Half Biscuit must be half OK.

I dont think Pool is any more violent than other large Norf cities to be fair. Especially ones that are still experiencing the rough transition to a post industrial stage- But its not about the cities as such, its about the social conditions that relate to certain areas & the ingrained poverty / deprivation and all that lefty stuff as well blates. Not going to get all fucking Durkheim and Weber though, Ill leave that for them guardian reader with letters after their names innit.

Things may have changed since I left in the 80's, but I know from my brother, who still lives up there that downtown Birkenhead still isn't safe on a Friday or Saturday night.


Anyway, I know there are loads of nice people who live on Merseyside, but I think there is also a very big underclass who don't follow the 'nice' rules and live a pretty brutal life. That's why the hideous acts of violence exhibited by young kids in instances like this, never surprise me.


I don't think denying there is a problem with violence in tbe area helps anyone.

Liverpool/ Merseyside covers a wide area (Birkenhead is just a small section of the Wirral which is a pretty wealthy area on the whole).....and of course it has some spots that are worse than others...but every city has that.


I've seen plenty of violent crime in London....including seeing a 16 year old boy being stabbed and glassed by a group of other teensgers on my doorstep. I was a victim of a very serious random violent crime myself within two years of moving here. BUT....just because of those things I would never say London is unsafe or any better or worse for crime than anywhere else.


The insinuation by the above comments is that Liverpool/ Birkenhead has a violent mentality and that people tolerate it as normal. That just is not true. I can drag up plenty of stats that show that Liverpool is better than half a dozen other large cities including London for all types of crime.

Here's a nice site aimed at students so they can judge which university cities are more crime ridden than others.............


http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/preparing-to-go/staying-safe-and-secure/how-safe-is-your-city/


Liverpool has a similar level of violent crime to Cambridge! But the important issue is that there are 15 other UK cities that score higher for violent crime.


Even the ONS duplicates this data


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/crime-in-england-and-wales-2010-to-2011


Open 'Police force area data tables - Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 (Microsoft Excel file - 393kb)'


....and you will see that Merseyside has for 2010/11, 15,239 reported crimes of violence against the person. Compare this to Manchester 40,034, Lancashire 21,956, West Yorkshire 29,509, Staffordshire 18,309, West Midlands 41,499, London 166,596, Hampshire 32,023, Kent 20,073, Sussex 19,608, Thames Valley 35,906, Avon and Somerset 25,822, Devon and Cornwall 20,424, South Wales 18,274, even Essex is higher 20,995!


There's an awful lot of southern violent crime there too, somewhat blowing the myth that violence is more prevalent in the North.


What leads to violent crime is perhaps another debate, but I think the data above illustrates the danger is making assunptions about areas and the people that live in them. I think it also illustrates how perception is often wrong in the face of the data.

I grew up in sleepy hertfordshire, as a sixth former went out in Hitchin where the general order of things was


Go out, have a few pint

Chat up girls

have more pints

watch a fight or two

have more pint

get kebab

watch another three or fights

wait in cab rank

watch at least two more fights

go home.


Casual violence comes from boredom, youth and/or a drinking to oblivion culture and is endemic.


The bruter kind comes from being fucked up in one form or another, hence why it's more commonly associated with a generational cycle of poor parenting fostered by the usual social deprivational suspects, and is closely associated with troubled inner city areas, be they in Birkenhead, Peckham, Chapeltown etc etc etc.


You're all grown up enough to know this.


North, South, East, West, Scotland, England, South Wales, North Wales, yaaaaaawn, it's silly to even pursue this argument.


And of course nothing is black and white, I don't doubt Birkenhead is more dangerous than Hitchin, but as stated, it produced Half Man Half Biscuit and is worthy of veneration for that alone.

err yes, that's my point.

Sorry perhaps I wasn't clearly enough, getting drunk and punching each other is casual.

Despite the apparently casual manner in which these kids perpetrated this horror I would definitely file it under brutal violence.


The latter comes from neglect, abuse blah blah and is, 'more closely associated with inner city..social deprivation'.

Of course there's nothing to prevent it happening elsewhere.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> Here's a nice site aimed at students so they can

> judge which university cities are more crime

> ridden than others.............

>

> http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/prepar

> ing-to-go/staying-safe-and-secure/how-safe-is-your

> -city/

>

> Liverpool has a similar level of violent crime to

> Cambridge! But the important issue is that there

> are 15 other UK cities that score higher for

> violent crime.

>

> Even the ONS duplicates this data

>

> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/crime-i

> n-england-and-wales-2010-to-2011

>

> Open 'Police force area data tables - Crime in

> England and Wales 2010/11 (Microsoft Excel file -

> 393kb)'

>

> ....and you will see that Merseyside has for

> 2010/11, 15,239 reported crimes of violence

> against the person. Compare this to Manchester

> 40,034, Lancashire 21,956, West Yorkshire 29,509,

> Staffordshire 18,309, West Midlands 41,499, London

> 166,596, Hampshire 32,023, Kent 20,073, Sussex

> 19,608, Thames Valley 35,906, Avon and Somerset

> 25,822, Devon and Cornwall 20,424, South Wales

> 18,274, even Essex is higher 20,995!

>

> There's an awful lot of southern violent crime

> there too, somewhat blowing the myth that violence

> is more prevalent in the North.

>

> What leads to violent crime is perhaps another

> debate, but I think the data above illustrates the

> danger is making assunptions about areas and the

> people that live in them. I think it also

> illustrates how perception is often wrong in the

> face of the data.


I would suggest that in Liverpool there is a tendancy to under-report crime...having spent equal time there and in Cambridge, I definately saw more trouble in Liverpool.


Lovely place though. And it's not just Liverpool that under-records crime. And let us not forget how brutal the Met police were back in the 1980s during the miner's strikes.

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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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