Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Following list C & P from the BBC.


Just an attempt to bring some balance to the sometimes pessimistic view that surfaces here on occasion.


Nice to see that despite the fact that there have been some unfortunate examples in our area recently.

Statistically this is NOT a bad place to be .....


My gut feeling is that the vast majority of my family/friends & neighbours do not have any direct experience with crime against either their person or their property.

Sadly it does happen, but it is not the norm, nor is it to be expected.

Guarded against, of course....... & actively & vigilantly reported & fought against. But we shouldn't be living in fear ... as on the vast majority of occasions, nothing will happen.


BURGLARY HOTSPOTS

NG5 Arnold, Notts

LE3 Leicester

NG2 West Bridgford

CH66 Ellesmere Port, Cheshire

LS8 Roundhay, Leeds

SW11 Battersea, south London

S8 Sheffield

N8 Hornsey, north London

CR0 Croydon, Surrey

BN3 Hove, Sussex

NG3 Sherwood, Notts

NG8 Bilborough, Notts

BR3 Beckenham, Kent

M28 Worsley, Gtr Manchester

LS15 Crossgates, Leeds

E17 Walthamstow, east London

BS7 Bristol

SW6 Fulham, south-west London

SE23 Forest Hill, south-east London

SL6 Maidenhead, Berks

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/7536-national-burglary-hotspots/
Share on other sites

For those of us living on SE23 borders or in SE23...


Anyways, I would point out that such stats may be slightly biased, as this is presumably reported burglaries. People who are uninsured - largely the poor, who often can't afford insurance - will often not report. So I'd say the official figures probably under-represent burglary in poorer post-codes. There may be other factors that warp the stats, but that's the main one I suspect.

In the countries that mutilate they have no burglars or theft of any kind.

A buddy visited one and was carrying his laptop when he met up with his contact they had to walk for a couple of miles to their next engagement and the contact said leave that here pointing to his laptop.

He left it on the steps of a public building came back 2 hours later and the laptop was there waiting, no one had touched it no one had damaged it.


That could happen here if there were proper controls of the thieving bar studs, if you are not 'at it' you have nothing to fear, which means 95+ percent of us.


They only do it because they believe they can get away with it.

If those countries have "no burglars or theft of any kind" they also have no freedom of any kind Steve - as well you know


And the last country to claim "no crime" was the old soviet empire which, as we now know, kept a secrecy lid on everything and turned out to be full of all sorts of shenanigans.


What you are doing Steve, is substituting a genuine desire to curb criminal activity with your own, very personal desire to mutilate and inflict violence on others


Whatever we fear, we can avoid by taking excessive means to avoid - but that leads to misery so we lead of life of managed risk - I live in London with the obvious risk of being mugged. i could move to Zeal Monochorum in Devon in the vain hope of not getting mugged - but to what purpose?


This argument has been had - if you want less crime you can look to less... zealous countries than Saudi Arabia et al. But you wouldn't tolerate the "nanny state" that involves. So you say "off with their limbs"


I would rather engage with the burglars in question than a "good citizen" who wants to perform mutilative surgery on them. Well, to be honest I would rather solve the problem of criminal behaviour GENERALLY, but your method is a road to madness

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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


> And the last country to claim "no crime" was the

> old soviet empire which, as we now know, kept a

> secrecy lid on everything and turned out to be

> full of all sorts of shenanigans.


Apart from sticking one on SteveT's nose Sean has also raised another all too important Question.


"Why is Russia the pikey shithole that it is?"


Now, many will blame communism for turning it into a barren waste of missed opportunity where everything tastes of ashes but you've also got to take into account that the former Soviet Union was simply too big a country to run and administrate properly.


It's strange in a way that even a nation as notorious as Russia has somehow managed to completely go back in time.


Firstly, there was feudal system run by an aristocratic elite that shared blood ties with many of the other leading and influencial monarchies across Europe. The people starved.


Secondly, some incredibly drastic changes were made by the people and the whole shebang was run on a basis of abject terror by the state and political slavery for the masses.


Thirdly, the regime crumbles. The majority of state assets are flogged to just about the shadiest bunch of politicians/gangsters/gypo's on Ebay. Russia now also has proper 'real life' peasant's like off Robin Hood Prince Of Thieves who live in huts made of mud and dung.


Can I be more clearer than that?


Just in case you didn't know, here's a few facts.


1) Russia has got a rock hard army full of rock hard men who probably eat rocks for breakfast that is run by an archaic collection of dinosaurs. They honestly don't give a f_ck. Do you remember the seige at Beslan? Their special forces were wearing Hi-Tec trainers. It speaks volumes.


2) Russian cities are targeted by Chechen seperatists in a bombing campaign against apartment blocks. Vladimir 'hammer of Grozny' Putin orders Russian artilery crews to target all the ophanages in the Chechen capital.


3) I once saw an episode of Tarrant on T.V where he'd look at mock foreign television. One such target of humour was a Russian show where the contestant has to steal a car in Moscow and evade capture from the real life Police who coincidentaly have absolutely no idea that it's a game show. The funny yet chilling punch line to that programme was that after it was dropped there were still a lot of families who hadn't seen there loved ones because they'd been arrested, charged and according to official sources simply 'disappeared' in the barbaric Russian penal camps on the wrong side of the Urals.

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

    • I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
    • My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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