Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Huguenot, apologies if I have misconstrued Vince's point about ED being 'better' than Peckham and Brixton..and all the connotations that the adjective 'better' implies in this context. of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. I think perhaps a different adjective might have been less inflammatory in that context.

I am not accusing anyone of being 'racist'. Apologies again if that is how it sounded (I don't think it did...). I am keen to understand how ED is 'better' than its surrounding areas.

How is ED better than its surrounding areas? Let's see.

It's got some woods. It's got a nice park. It's got Horniman Museum and a wonderful gallery.

It's got a pretty good high street and a village area.

It's got a world famous and picturesque college.

It has lower crime than the surrounding areas.

It's got Beauberry House surrounded by fields.

All of this and most of it is in Zone 2.

How's that for starters?

That is true, but what else is there to say?


I'm sure everybody's sorry to hear it happened, will be a bit more wary and most appreciate the warning etc - but we're four pages in now. The truth is that without the inevitable plunge in to postcodes/peckham/class war/organic onions - these threads would drop off the board in half a day, instead of attracting four thousand views and staying at the top.

don,t get me started on organic onions, bloody rip-off, as is most organic stuff.


but i agree with bob, as i pointed out in my original post, somebodys been mugged,big deal. obviously its a big deal to them, and i speak from experience but you get over it, learn from the experience and move on. we live in a big city, muggings happen, its a part of the deal with living in the smoke, and while its not acceptable, i would suggest that most people accept that it happens but hope not to them or their kin.

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> That doesn't tell you anything about ED honk, that

> just tells you what Vince thinks.

>

> I don't believe that what I think will tell you

> anything about Singapore, nor anything about

> Beijing or anywhere else I've lived.


True, I just couldn't read vince's post without reading it in a 'Margo from the Good Life' voice.


It suggests that Vince might think the denizens of all these areas Vince denounces would secretly sell their own mother for the chance to live in a Victorian semi on Curtain-twitch Lane in ED.


Somehow I doubt it.

lenk Wrote:

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

> It suggests that Vince might think the denizens of

> all these areas Vince denounces would secretly

> sell their own mother for the chance to live in a

> Victorian semi on Curtain-twitch Lane in ED.

>

> Somehow I doubt it.


Well, not ED, but I'd seriously think about it for Kew.. :-S

I offer no opinion on the Arming the Populace debate (although I am sure I will get it in the neck anyway from some PC trendy wishing to be offended by everything anyone says) but I believe the general concensus amongst academic studies is that in areas of US allowing concealed carry of firearms, there has been noticable reduction in crimes of violence against the person.


Any thoughts?

Such silly responses. Firstly Huegenot, the comparison was not with another country - it was an examination of trends over time in the same locale I believe. Sherwick, I assume that is meant to be tongue-in-cheek but it is interesting that any evidence of crime patterns that does not fit a PC agenda is automatically assumed to have come from a right-wing interested lobby group.


I will certainly post to the evidence online.

No Domitianus, the comparison is vital to the study.


We may for example discover that in gun states crime is ten times more than the UK, and that in concealed gun states, it's only 9.5 times.


It may be that the concealment has result of a 5% reduction in crimes against the person, but if the gun itsef still raises crime by 900%, then it's a false saving.

Huegenot, you are embarrassingly wrong. In order to assess the impact of a single variable - change in legislation on concealed carry of firearms - on crime trends, it is necessary that as many other variables as possible be consistent. Comparing the US with a culturally, ethnically and geographically different region - the UK - which has a blanket ban on handguns in private hands, introduces a vast number of confounding variables into the situation.


The comparison can only realistically be made by assessing crime trends in the same locale over time, before and after legislative change.

If you can't compare the US with the UK then what's the point of stating 'in areas of US allowing concealed carry of firearms, there has been noticable reduction in crimes of violence against the person.'.


This implies that it would have the same effect in the UK. But as you just stated, one shouldn't do that.


In fact, even if your'e correct that introducing handguns led to a reduction in crimes of violence in the USA, indtroducing handguns in the UK could lead to the opposite because it is 'a culturally ethnically and geographically different region'.


Ergo, there was no reason for your initial post.

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 SE22 Evri delivery family are lovely, and always say hello wherever we spot them in the area. We gave them a box of chocolates during Covid as they were working their socks off at Christmas
    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
    • The purge of hard left members that were part of Corbyn's, Mcdonnel's and Lansmans momentum that purged the party of right wing and centrist members. That's politics. It's what Blair did to win, its what Starmer had to do to win. This country doesn't vote in extreme left or right governments. That's partly why Corbyn lost  We're pretty much a centrist bunch.  It doesn't make it false either. It's an opinion based on the voting patterns, demography and statistics. Can you explain then why former mining constituencies that despise the tories voted for them or abstained rather than vote for Corbyns Labour?  What is the truth then? But he never got elected!!! Why? He should have been binned off there and then. Why he was allowed to hang about is an outrage. I hold him party responsible for the shit show that we've had to endure since. 
    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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