Lordship Lane incident

[SeanMacGabhann]

Whilst not disagreeing with the factual part of your post DPF I wonder what your point is ?

It could be read as "because they are from a specific demographic we dont have to worry to much about policy specifics. Just round em up "

But i hope thats not what you meant. Does it really matter who does it? Surely "why" is more important than "who"?

[macroban]

> Surely "why" is more important than "who"?

Only from your armchair.

In real life time knowing "who?" enables a risk reduction strategy.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Go on then macro. . How does that work ? Practically. . Talk me through it. .

[Keef]

does nobody else think that if they carry a knife they deserve to get injured/ killed

Thinking that anyone "deserves" to get killed makes you a bit of a nut IMO.

[Wombat]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> jimmy, wombat, etc... I think you're taking a very

> simplistic view of the situation. No, these kids

> are not being "forced" to carry knives, nobody is

> saying that. But as I said earlier, people are

> products of their environment, nobody is born

> "evil", nobody is born a murderer.

>

> So don't you agree that it could be a good idea to

> take a look at what's happening in their lives,

> try and figure out why kids are turning out like

> this? Or would you prefer we just ignored the root

> cause of the problem?

Absolutely agree that the root causes need to be looked at, but in tandem with appropriate punishments. People know that they will get umpteen opportunities before 'really' being sentenced which translate into a number of (literally) get out of jail free cards.

So what happens is that invariably said offender simply keeps on doing what they want when they want UNTIL they get nicked for something judged important enough to warrant a custodial sentence.

And that's when the bleating begins. And that's what I'm bored of. But that's frequently what gets them off the hook because there are professional apologists out there writing in-depth reports on the effect of social deprivation on these people.

Right and wrong is very easy to understand. Seriously. Why make excuses for people who choose to ignore the difference?

[SeanMacGabhann]

That makes it sound like you consistently tread the path of "right" and studiously avoid that of "wrong" wombat?

I'd be surprised if that was the case as very few of us manage it - many of us can't even agree on what's wrong and what's right half the time

Which isn't to put stabbing people into "the right" category (it can be very hard discussing this for the very reason that people try and misrepresent.. aaanyway)

but one's "right" and "wrong" can be violently challenged by circumstance. I have read many a poster on here say waht they would happily do to perpetrators of violence on their family. Which just goes to show.... given a circumstance anyone can flip and become the aggressor

That doesn't make me an apologist at all - but merely calling people "scum" as some have done on here doesn't really... help. I am as against the people who commit violence as I am those who vote BNP. I can see the warped logic behind the rationale of the people in either case - I just don't accept any of the arguments. But where I do agree with the apologists (and not the people themselves) is that these people (be they black youths with knives or white poor people with racist views) don't come from nowhere. There are reasons..

[matthew123]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> cheap and easy line matthew123 - what does it

> mean?

>

> You make it sound like life is hard for all of us

> but only lazy scum with excuses bother to stab

> people - the rest of us work a bit harder? Surely

> a bit more complicated than that?

No, I was talking about this growing culture of excuses which cultivate an environment in which as a nation we become increasingly soft - people will take the piss. We could spend an eternity searching for a magic pill whilst society becomes irreversibly lawless. People blubbering about how unfair it is to be stopped and searched should not stop this country getting back on track - let's stop being selfish and think about stopping crime not pandering to excuses.

[jimmy two times]

Maybe I do see things 'simplistically' as someone has put it. But in my mind things are very simple. Putting a knife in someone is wrong. There can be no type of upbringing that will enable a mindset to be formed that thinks its right. They know it's wrong when they're doing it.

[LegalEagle-ish]

What about if it is in self-defence?

Or defence of one's property?

Or defence of one's family?

Or defence of one's friends?

If you feel that you are likely to be targeted by someone who may kill you or others you care about, is it ok then to stab someone?

[Wombat]

LegalEagle-ish Wrote:

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

> What about if it is in self-defence?

>

> Or defence of one's property?

>

> Or defence of one's family?

>

> Or defence of one's friends?

>

> If you feel that you are likely to be targeted by

> someone who may kill you or others you care about,

> is it ok then to stab someone?

Good God. What a ridiculous response. Clearly it's about context.

And to respond to Sean's post about me treading the line of right and wrong: I'm not perfect, I would hate for anybody to be perfect. But the issues we're talking about here aren't little "ooh, I only tipped 5% for my toasted sandwich" incidents, they're ones where our society has VERY clear views on what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. So why pick faults in the terminology. We all (even the apologists) are aware of what is absolutely not permissible in our society as do the people who commit the crimes yet they CHOOSE to ignore the fact.

[thebeard]

STOP and SEARCH Poll

(Pity there?s no start a poll option in this forum)

How many stop and searches have you seen in the last 12 months.

A. On Lordship during the day?

B. Anywhere else in East Dulwich during the day?

C. Anywhere else London during the day?

D. Anywhere else in the UK during the day?

E. On a council estate during a Police raid?

F. Following an incident outside Night Club or similar at night.

My answers

A. 0

B. 0

C. 0

D. 0

E. 0

F. 0

The last stop and search I saw was 3-4 years ago in Brixton.

My suspicion is that the Police figures are NOT what we are lead to believe I believe the great majority of stop and searches are in the categories E and F.

[Mark]

I've seen 4 stop and searches on East Dulwich Road this year

[LegalEagle-ish]

LegalEagle-ish Wrote:

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

> What about if it is in self-defence?

>

> Or defence of one's property?

>

> Or defence of one's family?

>

> Or defence of one's friends?

>

> If you feel that you are likely to be targeted by

> someone who may kill you or others you care about,

> is it ok then to stab someone?

> Good God. What a ridiculous response. Clearly it's about context.

Is this what you mean by context? If it's you or your loved ones being targeted or threatened then it's ok, but if it's an 'urban' youth being targeted or threatened then they should be strung up or banged up for life?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

g. never

[Wombat]

LegalEagle-ish Wrote:

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

> LegalEagle-ish Wrote:

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

> -----

> > What about if it is in self-defence?

> >

> > Or defence of one's property?

> >

> > Or defence of one's family?

> >

> > Or defence of one's friends?

> >

> > If you feel that you are likely to be targeted

> by

> > someone who may kill you or others you care

> about,

> > is it ok then to stab someone?

>

> > Good God. What a ridiculous response. Clearly

> it's about context.

>

> Is this what you mean by context? If it's you or

> your loved ones being targeted or threatened then

> it's ok, but if it's an 'urban' youth being

> targeted or threatened then they should be strung

> up or banged up for life?

No. What I mean by context is someone walking around with a weapon on the streets. If someone comes into my house and threatens my loved ones the law allows for my need for defence. We also put in place a system in this society that allows someone who's being targeted or threatened (your words) to go to the police and ask for assistance.

(I'm leaving this section blank for your inevitable response about these 'urban' youths not feeling able to go to the police. Blah.)

There's the option for all of these people to not put themselves in the situations they put themselves into. Yes, there are the situations where someone who's entirely innocent has no choice but to end up in the wrong place/ time (e.g. Damilola Taylor) but more often that not there are the people who choose to be in a certain place doing what they choose to do.

On one hand it's admirable that you look for the good in these people but on the other hand I feel my sense of society in this country eroding as a result of their actions.

[jimmy two times]

LeagleEaglish I'm sure you are aware of the self defence laws in this country. It is all about reasonable force. To stab someone in self defence not only would you have to be in a position where someone has attacked you with a knife or a gun, but you'd also have to give an explanation of why you had a knife on your person in the first place.

[espelli]

There's the option for all of these people to not put themselves in the situations they put themselves into. Yes, there are the situations where someone who's entirely innocent has no choice but to end up in the wrong place/ time (e.g. Damilola Taylor) but more often that not there are the people who choose to be in a certain place doing what they choose to do.

Wombat, I disagree. You have the option not to put yourself in those situations. You assume that everyone else does too.

I think that any of us who didn't grow up living on an estate where there is a large gang presence can not really understand how young people end up doing things that as an individual they would never do.

The children who go on to join these gangs are scared of what will happen when they get older. Children as young as 9 are seeing close up what is happening and it scares them that they cannot see another way to live. It is all very well for someone who goes home to their comfortable life to tell them that they have choices, but they don't always see that they do.

Some of them get involved young as an insurance policy, others hold out for as long as they can but often turn to the gangs when an older family member has something bad happen to them. A few manage to steer their way through it unscathed. For the children I work with this is their future as they see it. None of them are bad, they are children who are scared to grow up because they have seen what happens when you do. I am not making excuses for any of the violence and nor do I think it should go unpunished. I am pointing out that from our perspective, on the outside, we may not see the whole picture.

[jimmy two times]

Espelli did you grow up on a council estate? I did and I've never stabbed anyone.

[espelli]

Jimmy two times: Yes I did and I haven't stabbed anyone either. But there was not a large gang presence where I grew up. My point was that it is the presence of gangs that provides the climate in which it is more likely to happen.

If you re-read my post I also did not say that anyone who grew up on a council estate is likely to stab someone!

[jimmy two times]

You're making excuses for them mate.

[????]

now, who was it that said "A liberal's a conservative that hasn't been mugged"?

[Wombat]

espelli Wrote:

>

> Wombat, I disagree. You have the option not to put

> yourself in those situations. You assume that

> everyone else does too.

>

> I think that any of us who didn't grow up living

> on an estate where there is a large gang presence

> can not really understand how young people end up

> doing things that as an individual they would

> never do.

>

> The children who go on to join these gangs are

> scared of what will happen when they get older.

> Children as young as 9 are seeing close up what is

> happening and it scares them that they cannot see

> another way to live. It is all very well for

> someone who goes home to their comfortable life to

> tell them that they have choices, but they don't

> always see that they do.

>

> Some of them get involved young as an insurance

> policy, others hold out for as long as they can

> but often turn to the gangs when an older family

> member has something bad happen to them. A few

> manage to steer their way through it unscathed.

> For the children I work with this is their future

> as they see it. None of them are bad, they are

> children who are scared to grow up because they

> have seen what happens when you do. I am not

> making excuses for any of the violence and nor do

> I think it should go unpunished. I am pointing out

> that from our perspective, on the outside, we may

> not see the whole picture.

I don't doubt that there's difficulty in being able to fully escape from the reaches of such gangs but there are ways in which they can be avoided and many choose not to follow those ways. Those people are who I'm talking about. The ones who make a conscious decision to go down that path. And there are many. My point is that when they finally face a significant charge in court they bleat the argument that you use and get supported by the many professional apologists. Net result = they get yet another chance.

My point is that there are those who do have little choice, absolutely, yet there are many who fully choose the 'wrong'. And they get comforted with the same blanket argument in court that they're a product of their environment. It's an easy 'out'. And they exploit it to the full.

[matthew123]

There is an argument that prosperity for all will fix many of the cultural problems that drive youth crime ... but unfortunately the country is on it's knees (as always seems to be the case) so a different solution is needed.

Stop and search is a good concept, but we have to ask what motivates the Police. Someone mentioned they've seen Stop and Search performed on East Dulwich Road 4 times, well that is the only place I've seen it done and on numerous occasions. It always seemed to be a Dog Van stopping another vehicle, with 5 or 6 officers performing Stop and Search on 1 or 2 occupants. Someone who worked for the Police told me that some Police units have quotas to meet each month in arrests, so often a dog van will cruise the main roads looking for a vehicle they can pull over with a defect (e.g. broken light) with what they believe has people aboard who they can arrest for some other technicality as a result of stop and search.

But I have never seen any youths subjected to stop and search in SE22, even though many of the alleged criminals reported on this forum are often described as youths. Stop & Search needs to be stepped up, even if 100% of people who are stopped and searched for weapons are clean it will still help send a message that crime is being increasingly tackled.

[lenk]

I've been away since Thursday and haven't had time to read this thread.

Anyone care for a precis?

Have we imposed marshall law yet?

I must knoe as I'm off to ED for dinner shortly..

[*Bob*]

Well, Lenk.. according to which camp you're in:

a) civilization as we know it in Britain has ceased to exist and the only workable remedy is to bring back hanging.

b) group hugs and Clannad piped from loudspeakers on street corners could provide the answer.

Reality and truth, as ever, will be somewhere in the middle. But don't expect to find that on here.