Murder rate in London higher than in New York for the first time

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Rob1742 said:

Increasing police presence isn’t the issue, it’s altering the mindset of the people. You could put 20,000 police in Tottenham and they will still want to kill each other. 

 

 

 

 

But everybody who would have been working with those communities - social workers, sure start staff, teachers etc etc etc have seen cuts. 

[Innovindil]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

This is a fair post.

The 'doesn't have to' point is well made. But I would add to it by saying it doesn't have to but does make it more likely by increasing the likelihood that young people will be exposed to conditions that feed gang culture.

Of course it does, nobody likes being poor, it's easy to get angry and take the easy way out. 

 

But when it's all stacked up, being a criminal comes down to a choice. All I want is people to see that. This being a criminal is somewhat justifiable if you're poor is a horrible message to spread. It doesn't. 

[Rob1742]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

But everybody who would have been working with those communities - social workers, sure start staff, teachers etc etc etc have seen cuts. 

It may make a small difference, but the rate of death was still massive when these services were higher. It’s always been there. Increasing services won’t really touch the issue. It’s a wider issue than throwing money at it.

 

 

[Dr The Singh]

40 minutes ago, MattP said:

Definitely. 

 

Personal responsibility should always be a huge part of the Tory philosophy - if we ever get to the point of making excuses for bad behaviour they'll lose my vote.

 

My four grandparents and two parents all grew up "poor" but were taught the difference between right and wrong, nothing the government did would ever have been used as an excuse to commit crime.

 

Vast majority of poor are decent law abiding, crime only "comes with it" if they choose to do so.

I think you touch on a good point, what's the link between poverty and a low moral compass?

 

Does poor mean you have low morals?

 

I was raised in poverty yet the more richer I got the more my morals went down hill, I hate to think how bad they would be if I were a millionaire.

 

And where's my apology Mattp

[Guest Col city fan]

We’re in South London this morning, reading the local rag over breakfast. 

One of the headlines: Rate of homelessness has doubled in this area over last four years.

Poverty certainly seems to be on the increase and I’m guessing will have a negative impact on the crime rate?

 

[Steven]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Personal responsibility should always be a huge part of the Tory philosophy - if we ever get to the point of making excuses for bad behaviour they'll lose my vote..

Self delusion. If that is truly the case what is the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 all about?

 

Tories might say the words but like so many Tory words they don't mean it unless they can see a vote in it.

[SpacedX]

38 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

We’re in South London this morning, reading the local rag over breakfast. 

One of the headlines: Rate of homelessness has doubled in this area over last four years.

Poverty certainly seems to be on the increase and I’m guessing will have a negative impact on the crime rate?

 

As a matter of interest, where are you Col?

 

(Hope you enjoy your visit.)

[Guest Col city fan]

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

As a matter of interest, where are you Col?

 

(Hope you enjoy your visit.)

Greenwich mate.

On our way back now though

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

Sorry @Alf Bentley -too much beer.

 

No need for apologies - particularly not re. excess beer, given my past (and probably future) record in that field.

Anyway, it probably wasn't 100% clear that my original post was tongue-in-cheek, so fair enough to query it.

 

3 hours ago, MattP said:

Definitely. 

 

Personal responsibility should always be a huge part of the Tory philosophy - if we ever get to the point of making excuses for bad behaviour they'll lose my vote.

 

My four grandparents and two parents all grew up "poor" but were taught the difference between right and wrong, nothing the government did would ever have been used as an excuse to commit crime.

 

Vast majority of poor are decent law abiding, crime only "comes with it" if they choose to do so.

 

I'm all in favour of personal responsibility. I also absolutely accept that poverty doesn't inevitably lead to crime.

Most people from a poor upbringing lead decent lives and some achieve great things - and some people from a privileged upbringing under-achieve or get involved in crime, for all sorts of reasons.

 

All sorts of factors can contribute to people ending up in crime: personality weaknesses, irresponsible/absent/struggling parents, relationship/addiction/identity traumas - but also the social environment. Humans are social beings.

 

Consider 2 potential social environments:

1) Two parents on decent incomes, doing jobs that allow them to spend free time with their kids and money to afford out-of-school activities when they're not around. It's a decent area so their kids go to a good school and can see prospects of a decent job/career on the horizon as they grow up. There's probably less crime, but decent levels of policing ensure that criminals don't rule the roost, anyway.

2) Single mother working unsociable hours at low-paid job(s), father absent, maybe in prison. She does her best but simply cannot be around as much as she'd like if she's going to make ends meet - and cannot afford costly out-of-school activities, so has to leave the kids to their own devices more. It's a more downmarket area socially so the school may not be as good and the kids may not see good prospects of success in life - but local drug-dealers seem to be driving around in nice cars with wads of cash. Because of the drugs, gangs and money issues, there's more crime - and police cuts and parents absent at work or elsewhere mean that kids (wrongly) feel they need to carry a knife for protection. Left to their own devices and gadgets, they see social media posts by hostile kids baiting or insulting them or their mates and need to fight back to maintain personal/social status.

 

It's not inevitable that a kid in scenario (1) will lead a successful, law-abiding life - and certainly not that a kid in scenario (2) will get involved in crime. But it is a lot more likely. That's not just because there are a lot more morally deficient people or poor parents in downmarket areas. Social circumstances impact on outcomes. Also, where poor parenting is a factor, social interventions can improve that - whether that involves affordable childcare/out-of-school activities or parenting classes that will help some who may otherwise become poor parents due to a lack of education or role models, though some will still be feckless and irresponsible (though you'll get a few of those in rich areas, as well as poor).

 

Another question re. morality: do we need something to replace the moral/social education that religion used to provide? I ask that as a complete atheist and someone aware of the negative aspects of religion. Family breakdowns are more common now, as I know. With rare exceptions, the only parents of my daughter's friends who are still together are the religious ones. What are the factors causing so much family breakdown - one, but only one, of the factors feeding into crime? Long/unsociable working hours? High housing costs soaking up incomes, causing stress? Unreasonable material expectations? Lack of social spending (council budgets slashed for decades)? Loss of community spirit - due to time pressures, selfish materialism, isolation due to wall-to-wall media/gadgets?

[Alf Bentley]

Extraordinary interview with David Lammy in today's Grauniad, @MattP: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/06/david-lammy-kids-are-getting-killed-where-is-the-prime-minister-where-is-sadiq-khan

 

I had genuinely mixed feelings about the bloke (positive and negative) before reading that - and feel the same after reading it.

 

On the one hand, he comes across as very emotionally volatile (as he does in interviews I've seen) and a bit of an ego-driven drama queen.

On the other hand, he's clearly a lot less cynical than many politicians and it's good to hear someone who genuinely cares about things, whether you agree with what he says or not.

He does argue some good points in that interview, I think - not least re. the complex connections between crime, poverty, morality, community etc.

Yet I can see why he's not made the front bench - not due to racism, but because he'd be a bloody difficult bloke to work with, I'd guess. 

 

It's good that someone can be a passionate advocate for those too often ignored, but at the same time he can be rash: his comments on the number of deaths at Grenfell were rash. I was surprised myself that the number of deaths wasn't higher (presumably because a lot of people escaped due to the fire taking hold outside the building, not inside?), but a bloke in his prominent position shouldn't be throwing about emotional accusations before knowing the evidence.

 

Re. that video footage of him commenting on the lack of police....with a plod in the background (): I did notice on the BBC News that it was the same location where the lad had been stabbed to death, so the plod probably wasn't there usually.

Again, though, that video was amusing evidence that Lammy could do with thinking a bit more carefully before he emotes....or is that just conforming to the dominant cynicism of PR-driven politics?

[Webbo]

15 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Re. that video footage of him commenting on the lack of police....with a plod in the background (): I did notice on the BBC News that it was the same location where the lad had been stabbed to death, so the plod probably wasn't there usually.

Again, though, that video was amusing evidence that Lammy could do with thinking a bit more carefully before he emotes....or is that just conforming to the dominant cynicism of PR-driven politics?

That could have happened to anyone. Nobody should make political capital out of that. It is funny though.

[SpacedX]

47 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

Greenwich mate.

On our way back now though

I like Greenwich - used to go up to Blackheath a lot. Did you visit the observatory and the maritime museum? The market's good too.

 

Safe journey home.

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Of course it does, nobody likes being poor, it's easy to get angry and take the easy way out. 

 

But when it's all stacked up, being a criminal comes down to a choice. All I want is people to see that. This being a criminal is somewhat justifiable if you're poor is a horrible message to spread. It doesn't. 

Some people feel that the current societal system - built by other humans with more power than they and using their own choices - has betrayed them, and then because of that they choose to operate outside that system, and that, apparently, is criminality in some cases, even when another person or persons is not directly or indirectly harmed by the process. I wonder why this is - no system built by humans is ever infallible, surely - how can it be? That just seems way too simplistic and black/white to me.

 

I know that people like to believe that personal choice/responsibility is an absolute or near-absolute because it gives them the comfort that they're somehow in control of their own lives, but in a world as interconnected as it is today, it isn't true IMO.  The choices that people with more power make, people that an individual often will never meet or interact with personally (often based on choices that others made before them) sometimes mean that for some folks the only choices they have are either bad for themselves or bad for society - there are no good options. When that happens...why is it the sole responsibility of the individual involved for the choice they make, and why do they have to bear sole responsibility for the consequences?

[Innovindil]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Some people feel that the current societal system - built by other humans with more power than they and using their own choices - has betrayed them, and then because of that they choose to operate outside that system, and that, apparently, is criminality in some cases, even when another person or persons is not directly or indirectly harmed by the process. I wonder why this is - no system built by humans is ever infallible, surely - how can it be? That just seems way too simplistic and black/white to me.

 

I know that people like to believe that personal choice/responsibility is an absolute or near-absolute because it gives them the comfort that they're somehow in control of their own lives, but in a world as interconnected as it is today, it isn't true IMO.  The choices that people with more power make, people that an individual often will never meet or interact with personally (often based on choices that others made before them) sometimes mean that for some folks the only choices they have are either bad for themselves or bad for society - there are no good options. When that happens...why is it the sole responsibility of the individual involved for the choice they make, and why do they have to bear sole responsibility for the consequences?

I know we don't see eye to eye and you have some pretty extreme feelings towards society, but you're not going to convince me, now or ever, that decisions made by other people, or governments, or whoever is making them, is enough to leave people with the ONLY option of being a gangster and stabbing people. Sorry, but it's horseshit. 

 

We're in England ffs. There are options for ANYONE that wants them, but they have to want them. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

I know we don't see eye to eye and you have some pretty extreme feelings towards society, but you're not going to convince me, now or ever, that decisions made by other people, or governments, or whoever is making them, is enough to leave people with the ONLY option of being a gangster and stabbing people. Sorry, but it's horseshit. 

 

We're in England ffs. There are options for ANYONE that wants them, but they have to want them. 

 

I'd certainly agree that there are other options that exist that don't involve hurting other people in the way that your classic gangster would, and perhaps I'm laying things on a bit thick there, but I just take issue with the proviso that every human is sovereign and if you work hard and do the "right thing" as per the way society is organised and make your choices things will somehow magically come good for you reagrdless of what other people might do to bar your path and how powerful they are - that is horseshit, in my own opinion. For every "fight their way out of the gutter" story of someone disadvantaged from the start who somehow made it there are ten thousand of those who made the same choices, and either worked themselves to keep afloat for no more reward than a nice little empty death and, indeed, those who said fvck it, tried to work outside the system - either hurting people or not - and ended up pinched for it. The decisions that other people take do have an effect on that.

 

You're right in that there is always a choice not to engage in criminality when the deck is stacked against you by the actions of those more powerful than you and if we really want to be morally right with ourselves then that's the one we should take, but when the alternative is the high likelihood of a life full of drudgery unless you get very, very lucky as well as work hard... 

 

 

[The Adjudicator]

 

   There is probably some connection between the decline of Christianity (aided by atheistic, Liberal. Media elites) and sky rocketing crime rates in the UK, over the past several decades. 

 

    Without a clear moral vision, chaos ensues. cf. 2 Timothy chapter 3, verses 1-5 ('The New Testament').:

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

11 hours ago, The Adjudicator said:

 

   There is probably some connection between the decline of Christianity (aided by atheistic, Liberal. Media elites) and sky rocketing crime rates in the UK, over the past several decades. 

 

    Without a clear moral vision, chaos ensues. cf. 2 Timothy chapter 3, verses 1-5 ('The New Testament').:

Vastly underestimated by much of the culture as being an issue

 

Atheism is a psuedo-intellectualism little better than religious fanaticism, imo

[breadandcheese]

We're not going to eradicate crime. No government can. So my focus is on why crime (and in that gang culture) has become more violent? I'm interested to hear why others think the violence has increased.

[Milo]

4 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

We're not going to eradicate crime. No government can. So my focus is on why crime (and in that gang culture) has become more violent? I'm interested to hear why others think the violence has increased.

Has it? According to the ONS, I thought it had decreased...

[Buce]

13 hours ago, The Adjudicator said:

 

   There is probably some connection between the decline of Christianity (aided by atheistic, Liberal. Media elites) and sky rocketing crime rates in the UK, over the past several decades. 

 

    Without a clear moral vision, chaos ensues. cf. 2 Timothy chapter 3, verses 1-5 ('The New Testament').:

 

2 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Vastly underestimated by much of the culture as being an issue

 

Atheism is a psuedo-intellectualism little better than religious fanaticism, imo

 

So, why did we not have a crime-free society in God-fearing Victorian England?

 

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/crime/banerjee1.html

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

45 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

So, why did we not have a crime-free society in God-fearing Victorian England?

 

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/crime/banerjee1.html

Errrrr.....

 

Dont have time to come up with some linguistic gymanstics to justify something absurd i have said, maybe be back later to explain.... probably not though 

 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, breadandcheese said:

We're not going to eradicate crime. No government can. So my focus is on why crime (and in that gang culture) has become more violent? I'm interested to hear why others think the violence has increased.

 

The sudden spike in violent crime is particularly interesting. Figures on Marr this morning suggested 2018 murders, stabbings and shootings are all up by 20-30% on 2017....that's a very sudden increase.

If it was only in London, you might attribute it to localised feuding, but it applies nationwide, apparently. I suppose the good news is that if it can rise that quickly, it can fall just as quickly - if we find out what's causing it.

 

I'd guess that fear and feuding being infectious is part of it. If you get the impression that you might get stabbed, you're more likely to carry a knife "for protection" and so are others...so you're more likely to stab or be stabbed.

Likewise, feuds escalate: someone hurts/insults you, your mate or a member of your gang, you retaliate, their side retaliates....can quickly escalate. Thus, social culture/expectations can change quickly (less likely with property crime?).

 

A lot of reports suggest that much of the violence is NOT linked to proper organised gangs but to feuds between individuals / groups, often fueled by insults and video clips posted on social media.

To the extent that organised gangs are involved, it seems there has been a rise in urban drug dealers making big money selling cocaine to middle-class people in provincial towns - maybe violence associated with gang rivalries over this drug revenue?

[Jon the Hat]

5 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Vastly underestimated by much of the culture as being an issue

 

Atheism is a psuedo-intellectualism little better than religious fanaticism, imo

Bullshit.  The vast majority of atheists just want religion to leave them alone.  Yes there are a few who like to argue about it, Dawkins et al, but the rest of us would like them to sod off as well.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Bullshit.  The vast majority of atheists just want religion to leave them alone.  Yes there are a few who like to argue about it, Dawkins et al, but the rest of us would like them to sod off as well.

Going by his posting in the past, I'm going to give AOTFYN the beneft of the doubt that he was engaging in some kind of esoteric pisstaking here rather than saying what he said sincerely.

 

Taking one religious text that was written (and rehashed) by men a few hundred years ago as an absolute moral code and saying that is responsible for the moral upkeep of society is...laughable, IMO.

[breadandcheese]

5 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The sudden spike in violent crime is particularly interesting. Figures on Marr this morning suggested 2018 murders, stabbings and shootings are all up by 20-30% on 2017....that's a very sudden increase.

If it was only in London, you might attribute it to localised feuding, but it applies nationwide, apparently. I suppose the good news is that if it can rise that quickly, it can fall just as quickly - if we find out what's causing it.

 

I'd guess that fear and feuding being infectious is part of it. If you get the impression that you might get stabbed, you're more likely to carry a knife "for protection" and so are others...so you're more likely to stab or be stabbed.

Likewise, feuds escalate: someone hurts/insults you, your mate or a member of your gang, you retaliate, their side retaliates....can quickly escalate. Thus, social culture/expectations can change quickly (less likely with property crime?).

 

A lot of reports suggest that much of the violence is NOT linked to proper organised gangs but to feuds between individuals / groups, often fueled by insults and video clips posted on social media.

To the extent that organised gangs are involved, it seems there has been a rise in urban drug dealers making big money selling cocaine to middle-class people in provincial towns - maybe violence associated with gang rivalries over this drug revenue?

Interesting perspective. As I say, I've got no experience of anything approaching this problem and so am generally interested in what people think is causing this rapid rise in violence. 

 

There's suggestions that we should follow New York's approach under Giuliani and crack down on low level offences. As a centre right leaning poster, this naturally appeals as it sends the message that the law and order is there, as well as allowing for possible early intervention for young petty criminals before they potentially drift into heavier criminal activity.

 

But as I know very little of the violence I don't know whether it's just confirmation bias preferring the approach above, rather than actually knowing enough on the subject.