Today's news from London

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thor wrote:

Again

Why did they fall into crime?

Why is it that no matter the time frame, we see young people fall into crime and this case, it being 5% of the prison population?

What were the actual crimes?

What backgrounds did they come from?

Should not the view be to help ensure people do not fall into crime?

Because they obviously have no respect for the law...




And flap... 3 stabbings in a week in Birmingham...

Thor wrote:So lets present some facts then


The income poverty rate varies substantially between ethnic groups: Bangladeshis (65%), Pakistanis (55%) and black Africans (45%) have the highest rates; black Caribbeans (30%), Indians (25%), white Other (25%) and white British (20%) have the lowest rates.

That was ten years ago and this is more revent

http://www.irr.org.uk/research/statistics/poverty/

Based on my reason of relative poverty, its easy to see how young people from these groups are drawn into this based on the stats Tommy gave on Blacks and Muslims.

How easy was that for me to show a correlation?

Thor wrote:See how he dodges the question on demographics and relative poverty

I will give him a clue

In some  US towns, they have high poverty and low crime rates

gelico wrote:

why are we talking about poverty anyway

does being poor mean you have no moral compass?

is being poor a valid excuse to commit crime?

my dad grew up in poverty and he's never committed a crime in his life.

wtf?

stop making fucking excuses

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:So lets present some facts then


The income poverty rate varies substantially between ethnic groups: Bangladeshis (65%), Pakistanis (55%) and black Africans (45%) have the highest rates; black Caribbeans (30%), Indians (25%), white Other (25%) and white British (20%) have the lowest rates.

That was ten years ago and this is more revent

http://www.irr.org.uk/research/statistics/poverty/

Based on my reason of relative poverty, its easy to see how young people from these groups are drawn into this based on the stats Tommy gave on Blacks and Muslims.

How easy was that for me to show a correlation?

what are the stats on poor white kids, we keep getting told by labour a million or so are below the poverty line

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:See how he dodges the question on demographics and relative poverty

I will give him a clue

In some  US towns, they have high poverty and low crime rates

in the same way you dodged his question?

gelico wrote:

why are we talking about poverty anyway

does being poor mean you have no moral compass?

is being poor a valid excuse to commit crime?

my dad grew up in poverty and he's never committed a crime in his life.

wtf?

stop making fucking excuses

The Devil, You Know wrote:it is far too simplistic to try an pin it on one cause. One parent families may be another cause, except few Muslim families dont have a father figure. My view ispart of the cause is down to not teaching kids respect from an early age. Not to demand it but to earn it.

gelico wrote:


to come back to tommys stats, i still say it's a shocking amount compared to the percentage population

i don't know how anyone can say it isn't

Thor wrote:

gelico wrote:


to come back to tommys stats, i still say it's a shocking amount compared to the percentage population

i don't know how anyone can say it isn't

So I am a tad at a loss as to why you are shocked

gelico wrote:

Thor wrote:



So I am a tad at a loss as to why you are shocked

ok, well don't hurt yourself trying to figure it out

no worries

gelico wrote:i know what relative poverty is didge thank you

he just said himself  ''relative poverty is where the guy next door has a bigger tv than you do''

jealousy is what that is known as and it's ugly

there is no excuse for this and you seem to keep trying to find ''reasons'' for crime.  crime is crime and everyone has a choice in life.

furthermore,  i don't need your help, if i do, i'll ask for it

to come back to tommys stats, i still say it's a shocking amount compared to the percentage population

i don't know how anyone can say it isn't

Eilzel wrote:

gelico wrote:i know what relative poverty is didge thank you

he just said himself  ''relative poverty is where the guy next door has a bigger tv than you do''

jealousy is what that is known as and it's ugly

there is no excuse for this and you seem to keep trying to find ''reasons'' for crime.  crime is crime and everyone has a choice in life.

furthermore,  i don't need your help, if i do, i'll ask for it

to come back to tommys stats, i still say it's a shocking amount compared to the percentage population

i don't know how anyone can say it isn't

This going to be a simplistic overview of why I believe crime comes more often from deprived areas. Before I go into it, know that this isn't any justification, but a fair cycle that occurs.

Poorer people have access to lower standards of education. Poorer people, those with worse education, and people from certain backgrounds, have less opportunity to get the best jobs, so less chance of getting out of their economic difficulties. (Again, and this is important, that doesn't mean mean can't or don't climb the mobility ladder, but in a lot of cases, possibly the majority, this is the way of things).

People who struggle financially and live in deprived areas are likely to have high levels of stress and depression. This makes for less happier homes (again, not always, but often), where rows can be expected to be frequent. Rows often leader to anger and anger can lead to violence (rarely, but still).

Kids from these places are therefore majorly disadvantaged when compared to kids from financially secure families who live in nice areas and send their kids to good schools. Jealousy might be wrong but it is as much a part of human nature as anger, greed and other 'sins'. So petty crime is always going to come more from deprived areas. Petty crime can put someone on a path to worse things. This is also of course fertile ground for the growth of gangs.

Religious extremities add another factor, but it isn't only or even mostly the culture that is the problem, only in so much as people of certain cultures are more likely to find themselves with certain disadvantages (such as being born in a family living in a deprived area).

There are a lot of cans, mights, sometimes etc... here; but they are not issues that exist so much, sometimes at all, in more affluent or even nice, middle class areas.

Again, no making excuses, crime is crime. But the reasons are many and largely connected. If we want to tackle these problems from the start we need to look at solving the issue of growing income inequality, improve education in schools in deprived areas as well as having greater numbers of police in these areas.

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

gelico wrote:i know what relative poverty is didge thank you

he just said himself  ''relative poverty is where the guy next door has a bigger tv than you do''

jealousy is what that is known as and it's ugly

there is no excuse for this and you seem to keep trying to find ''reasons'' for crime.  crime is crime and everyone has a choice in life.

furthermore,  i don't need your help, if i do, i'll ask for it

to come back to tommys stats, i still say it's a shocking amount compared to the percentage population

i don't know how anyone can say it isn't

This going to be a simplistic overview of why I believe crime comes more often from deprived areas. Before I go into it, know that this isn't any justification, but a fair cycle that occurs.

Poorer people have access to lower standards of education. Poorer people, those with worse education, and people from certain backgrounds, have less opportunity to get the best jobs, so less chance of getting out of their economic difficulties. (Again, and this is important, that doesn't mean mean can't or don't climb the mobility ladder, but in a lot of cases, possibly the majority, this is the way of things).

People who struggle financially and live in deprived areas are likely to have high levels of stress and depression. This makes for less happier homes (again, not always, but often), where rows can be expected to be frequent. Rows often leader to anger and anger can lead to violence (rarely, but still).

Kids from these places are therefore majorly disadvantaged when compared to kids from financially secure families who live in nice areas and send their kids to good schools. Jealousy might be wrong but it is as much a part of human nature as anger, greed and other 'sins'. So petty crime is always going to come more from deprived areas. Petty crime can put someone on a path to worse things. This is also of course fertile ground for the growth of gangs.

Religious extremities add another factor, but it isn't only or even mostly the culture that is the problem, only in so much as people of certain cultures are more likely to find themselves with certain disadvantages (such as being born in a family living in a deprived area).

There are a lot of cans, mights, sometimes etc... here; but they are not issues that exist so much, sometimes at all, in more affluent or even nice, middle class areas.

Again, no making excuses, crime is crime. But the reasons are many and largely connected. If we want to tackle these problems from the start we need to look at solving the issue of growing income inequality, improve education in schools in deprived areas as well as having greater numbers of police in these areas.

Well done mate, but you never went far enough and why again i was never surprised at the stats, as gelico was.

The reason she is surprised is based on not understanding the reality of inequality

Its never an excuse, but anyone with even a half sense of criminology, through the ages. Understands, those less privileged and disenfranchised from society. Based on many different factors. Will turn to groups that offer an escape from this conception they have formed as non-rewarding life. Its why many gangs in the US. Whether it be Hispanic, black, Italians, jewish, Irish etc. Were able to capitalise on the poor as street gang thuggs. Its why the same has been the case throughout history and in many countries.

Thus we have criminals easily able to manipulate those most disadvantaged. Its why they are also able to entice people with ideologies like islamic extremism, or Black gang mentality. Which also an ideology formed in the US, that has been imported over here

So when Gelico says she is surprised and i am not. Its because she has no idea on criminology. Her view point is based on Muslim and black and not on history and inequality. All she is seeing is the timeframe we see today

Its why I brought up Glasgow, and how she had no answer, as they were whitethe many gangs. Living in poverty, alongside those very rich

So when Tommy brings up about the youth, based on Muslim and black

That is all she sees, is Muslim and black

Not that they are one in a long line of groups disenfranchised and brought up in poverty, alongside many far better off. In how they are more susceptible to falling into crime. The lure of black gang drug culture, has music and ideology behind this. Hence its a very  easy lure for many young black men

So you are bang on the money, sadly gelico is being closeminded on this. As she only sees people committing crimes, but never looks to see what draws them to criminality. As she badly claimed. She thinks this is an excuse. As much as I respect gelico. Its not been one of her finest moments buying into the Tommy racial bias cho cho train

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Well done mate, but you never went far enough and why again i was never surprised at the stats, as gelico was.

The reason she is surprised is based on not understanding the reality of inequality

Its never an excuse, but anyone with even a half sense of criminology, through the ages. Understands, those less privileged and disenfranchised from society. Based on many different factors. Will turn to groups that offer an escape from this conception they have formed as non-rewarding life. Its why many gangs in the US. Whether it be Hispanic, black, Italians, jewish, Irish etc. Were able to capitalise on the poor as street gang thuggs. Its why the same has been the case throughout history and in many countries.

Thus we have criminals easily able to manipulate those most disadvantaged. Its why they are also able to entice people with ideologies like islamic extremism, or Black gang mentality. Which also an ideology formed in the US, that has been imported over here

So when Gelico says she is surprised and i am not. Its because she has no idea on criminology. Her view point is based on Muslim and black and not on history and inequality. All she is seeing is the timeframe we see today

Its why I brought up Glasgow, and how she had no answer, as they were whitethe many gangs. Living in poverty, alongside those very rich

So when Tommy brings up about the youth, based on Muslim and black

That is all she sees, is Muslim and black

Not that they are one in a long line of groups disenfranchised and brought up in poverty, alongside many far better off. In how they are more susceptible to falling into crime. The lure of black gang drug culture, has music and ideology behind this. Hence its a very  easy lure for many young black men

So you are bang on the money, sadly gelico is being closeminded on this. As she only sees people committing crimes, but never looks to see what draws them to criminality. As she badly claimed. She thinks this is an excuse. As much as I respect gelico. Its not been one of her finest moments buying into the Tommy racial bias cho cho train

Yeah, I left the ending of my post, the bit about gangs, to speak for itself. The only surprise for me is that people can't work this out for themselves.

You rightly mentioned already how gang crime in decades gone by used to come from white people in less socially affluent areas - yet no one called it a problem with white people then...

It's all too easy to see diverse faces and foreugn sounding names to make an immediate association between 'them' and 'crime'. The grotesque straight line is almost laughably simple when looked at from a historic standpoint.

But for many I suppose going just a tad deeper is too much like hardwork - and makes for less excitig headlines.

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Well done mate, but you never went far enough and why again i was never surprised at the stats, as gelico was.

The reason she is surprised is based on not understanding the reality of inequality

Its never an excuse, but anyone with even a half sense of criminology, through the ages. Understands, those less privileged and disenfranchised from society. Based on many different factors. Will turn to groups that offer an escape from this conception they have formed as non-rewarding life. Its why many gangs in the US. Whether it be Hispanic, black, Italians, jewish, Irish etc. Were able to capitalise on the poor as street gang thuggs. Its why the same has been the case throughout history and in many countries.

Thus we have criminals easily able to manipulate those most disadvantaged. Its why they are also able to entice people with ideologies like islamic extremism, or Black gang mentality. Which also an ideology formed in the US, that has been imported over here

So when Gelico says she is surprised and i am not. Its because she has no idea on criminology. Her view point is based on Muslim and black and not on history and inequality. All she is seeing is the timeframe we see today

Its why I brought up Glasgow, and how she had no answer, as they were whitethe many gangs. Living in poverty, alongside those very rich

So when Tommy brings up about the youth, based on Muslim and black

That is all she sees, is Muslim and black

Not that they are one in a long line of groups disenfranchised and brought up in poverty, alongside many far better off. In how they are more susceptible to falling into crime. The lure of black gang drug culture, has music and ideology behind this. Hence its a very  easy lure for many young black men

So you are bang on the money, sadly gelico is being closeminded on this. As she only sees people committing crimes, but never looks to see what draws them to criminality. As she badly claimed. She thinks this is an excuse. As much as I respect gelico. Its not been one of her finest moments buying into the Tommy racial bias cho cho train

Yeah, I left the ending of my post, the bit about gangs, to speak for itself. The only surprise for me is that people can't work this out for themselves.

You rightly mentioned already how gang crime in decades gone by used to come from white people in less socially affluent areas - yet no one called it a problem with white people then...

It's all too easy to see diverse faces and foreugn sounding names to make an immediate association between 'them' and 'crime'. The grotesque straight line is almost laughably simple when looked at from a historic standpoint.

But for many I suppose going just a tad deeper is too much like hardwork - and makes for less excitig headlines.

PS: totally agree on the agenda here

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Well done mate, but you never went far enough and why again i was never surprised at the stats, as gelico was.

The reason she is surprised is based on not understanding the reality of inequality

Its never an excuse, but anyone with even a half sense of criminology, through the ages. Understands, those less privileged and disenfranchised from society. Based on many different factors. Will turn to groups that offer an escape from this conception they have formed as non-rewarding life. Its why many gangs in the US. Whether it be Hispanic, black, Italians, jewish, Irish etc. Were able to capitalise on the poor as street gang thuggs. Its why the same has been the case throughout history and in many countries.

Thus we have criminals easily able to manipulate those most disadvantaged. Its why they are also able to entice people with ideologies like islamic extremism, or Black gang mentality. Which also an ideology formed in the US, that has been imported over here

So when Gelico says she is surprised and i am not. Its because she has no idea on criminology. Her view point is based on Muslim and black and not on history and inequality. All she is seeing is the timeframe we see today

Its why I brought up Glasgow, and how she had no answer, as they were whitethe many gangs. Living in poverty, alongside those very rich

So when Tommy brings up about the youth, based on Muslim and black

That is all she sees, is Muslim and black

Not that they are one in a long line of groups disenfranchised and brought up in poverty, alongside many far better off. In how they are more susceptible to falling into crime. The lure of black gang drug culture, has music and ideology behind this. Hence its a very  easy lure for many young black men

So you are bang on the money, sadly gelico is being closeminded on this. As she only sees people committing crimes, but never looks to see what draws them to criminality. As she badly claimed. She thinks this is an excuse. As much as I respect gelico. Its not been one of her finest moments buying into the Tommy racial bias cho cho train

Yeah, I left the ending of my post, the bit about gangs, to speak for itself. The only surprise for me is that people can't work this out for themselves.

You rightly mentioned already how gang crime in decades gone by used to come from white people in less socially affluent areas - yet no one called it a problem with white people then...

It's all too easy to see diverse faces and foreugn sounding names to make an immediate association between 'them' and 'crime'. The grotesque straight line is almost laughably simple when looked at from a historic standpoint.

But for many I suppose going just a tad deeper is too much like hardwork - and makes for less excitig headlines.

This is the disappointing fact on this. Is that i tried to have a genuine conversation with gelico with this

She wrongly again thought I was defending criminality

No, what we are doing its actually looking to the root cause of what drives people to criminality in the main when young

In this case, its either islamic ideology or Black gang culture. Which by the way has fragmented to include asian and whites within. Its actually become very much inclusive, which it never was before. Its why whites and asians have been involved in such gang crimes

Yet they want to go off stats, failing to even then use this stats to understand the actual problem

Its why when Tommy goes off stop and search. He fails to understand, its yet another recruiting factor towards crime

No criminal act is every right, yet the pair of them would be aghast at people groomed into sex

So why are they not aghast at people groomed into crime?

London for example has been plagued by this very problem for centuries and always off those disenfranchised and lacking any privilege

When the fuck are they going to both wake up and see the problems for what they are

They only look with a time frame for the present, with never learning from the past or helping to make a brighter future

Its always about identity politics for them

Thor wrote:So lets present some facts then


The income poverty rate varies substantially between ethnic groups: Bangladeshis (65%), Pakistanis (55%) and black Africans (45%) have the highest rates; black Caribbeans (30%), Indians (25%), white Other (25%) and white British (20%) have the lowest rates.

That was ten years ago and this is more revent

http://www.irr.org.uk/research/statistics/poverty/

Based on my reason of relative poverty, its easy to see how young people from these groups are drawn into this based on the stats Tommy gave on Blacks and Muslims.

How easy was that for me to show a correlation?

Tommy Monk wrote:

How many more excuses can you come out with...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:Waffle...

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Waffle...

Tommybot default ACTIVATED

File: 'New Arguments' no longer accessible...

Type 'waffle' and abort mission.

END PROGRAMME

gelico wrote:

first of all i found this

in 2016/17, more young people were in custody for violence against the person compared with any other type of offence, accounting for 29.7% of White young people in custody and 47.3% of those from all other ethnic groups combined


29.7=47.3 - 77%  so what happened to the missing 23%?

Thor wrote:

Would anyone else like to point out Gelicos stupidity here?  

You are subtracting the wrong numbers against each other

Doh

Look at the types of crimes listed and the percentages for each groups and do the maths by adding them up

Hilarious and you are on the board of Governeors at a school, with that bad ability at maths?

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/courts-sentencing-and-tribunals/young-people-in-custody/latest

secondly, having been on the school board of governors for many years i have learnt that any stats can be twisted and skewed to give you any result you want to see.

Thor wrote:Fuck all relevance and even worse you cannot even read states properly, which is evident to all with the previous failier to read the ones provided on a link for you here

i said it was shocking IF true.  that's all.  i have no idea where tommy got that figure from anyway.

Thor wrote:That is because it was bullshit and he made it up

also, i have worked for the inner london probationn service for a couple of years in the past and reading through the case files i can tell you there can be hundreds of contributing factors to crime, some of these people were so young and had been from severely disfuntional homes, abused/neglected, some had passed round from pillar to post within the care system.  many had turned to drugs to heal the pain which inevitably leads to more crime.  do you seriously think i don't understand?  i assure you i do, very much so. I used to quite often think that it's no wonder these poor sods turn to crime,,,,,,, BUT, no matter how hard it is, at some point people have to take personal responsibility for their actions. that's what.

Thor wrote:Yes we know there is many contributing factorsd for crime, but what was being explained to you which you still cannot grasp is why a number of people are drawn tro crime
So you are not saying anything knew, accpet people should take responsibility for their lives
Many do, some do not as, other doors become open to them that lead to a life of crime

with regards to the childish ''tommy sheep train'' comment.  i'm pretty much certain that if ian huntley had been black no way would tommy be searching for flaws or phone signal discrepancies etc.  if the killers of stephen lawrence had been black it would have just been a shrug and another 'enriching' comment or whatever.  you seriously think that just because i dont always comment that i don't see what's going on?

Thor wrote:Well you did buy into his states without a single shred of evidence, but then you always have been gullible and even worse you cannot even  understand a breakdonw in percetages per crime and really stupidly stubtracted black from white on the same crime.
Where agin the percentages are even more leading when you see how much less people are in custody

lastly, the thought of someone who is that desperate for attention that they put their phone number in public and try to goad someone offline, trying to talk down to me is kinda hilarious

carry on

Eilzel wrote:Why is it that when many on the Right hear explanations of why crime is higher from certain regions or communities, they translate it as 'excuses'?

No one is making excuses, they are explanations.

Is it because you don't like the complexity of addressing longterm issues that require bigger policy changes to alleviate the circumstances leading to crime?

Is it the allure of 'THESE people are bad! Throw em in jail/deport them/stop letting more of THEM in!'?

In which case, thank god such minded people are NOT running the country

Thor wrote:Yet have never defended or questioned the conviction of a Black or Asian, have you Tommy?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thor wrote:Yet have never defended or questioned the conviction of a Black or Asian, have you Tommy?

Can you show us any examples of where YOU have ever done that here dodge...!!!???


Or where anyone else has done so here, while raising any legitimate questions over major inconsistencies in the evidence against any of them...!!!???


No!!!


You just try to defend black and Muslim criminals who are banged to right's... not by questioning whether they did the crimes or not... not even by questioning any of the evidence against them... but by trying to make excuses for their criminal behaviour by saying that they were driven to it because they were "relatively poor" and because everyone else was too racist against them which was stopping them from getting up every day and doing a hard day's work instead for their money, like so many other blacks and Muslims manage to do every day..!!!



You just talk shit dodge!!!

Lord Foul wrote:so what you are saying didge ....is that if i burgle my richer neighbour, steal his goods rape his wife and kill his first born because his house is bigger than mine and he has a flasher car than me and a 50 inch telly but mines only 46 inch......I'm not really a jealous criminal scum bag but a misunderstood "relatively poor" person who is suppressed by relative poverty and oppressed by a richer society??

or wouldnt that apply to a whitey then??????

Lord Foul wrote:so what you are saying didge ....is that if i burgle my richer neighbour, steal his goods rape his wife and kill his first born because his house is bigger than mine and he has a flasher car than me and a 50 inch telly but mines only 46 inch......I'm not really a jealous criminal scum bag but a misunderstood "relatively poor" person who is suppressed by relative poverty and oppressed by a richer society??

or wouldnt that apply to a whitey then??????

Thor wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:so what you are saying didge ....is that if i burgle my richer neighbour, steal his goods rape his wife and kill his first born because his house is bigger than mine and he has a flasher car than me and a 50 inch telly but mines only 46 inch......I'm not really a jealous criminal scum bag but a misunderstood "relatively poor" person who is suppressed by relative poverty and oppressed by a richer society??

or wouldnt that apply to a whitey then??????

Where did I say that? I never did, your poor pig ignorant perceptions formed the wrong conclusion

If I told you, your rich white neighbour was advantaged and you will never be, would that lead to resentment?

The same works in reverse also, no matter the skin colour

So lets talk about how hate is used, as you seem to be pig ignorant of this

Who was scapegoated for the nazi's to rise to power and then commit crimes against humanity? How then were many people who acted normal lives then  able to murder countless people?

Do you think perceptions played no part?

I seriously will wrap your ignorance up in knots over this, when you make the most idiotic Cathy newman claims to nothing I actualky said

Stop being an arse and actually understand what i am saying

Thor wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:so what you are saying didge ....is that if i burgle my richer neighbour, steal his goods rape his wife and kill his first born because his house is bigger than mine and he has a flasher car than me and a 50 inch telly but mines only 46 inch......I'm not really a jealous criminal scum bag but a misunderstood "relatively poor" person who is suppressed by relative poverty and oppressed by a richer society??

or wouldnt that apply to a whitey then??????

Where did I say that? I never did, your poor pig ignorant perceptions formed the wrong conclusion

If I told you, your rich white neighbour was advantaged and you will never be, would that lead to resentment?

Of course he;s feckin advantaged you gert dope....thats why he's richer...jesus it aint rocket science, either he's inherited OR he had a better chance than me at some time or whatever.....and, without a huge dollop of sheer luck there aint no way I'm gonna catch him up, well thats tough for me....and good luck to him.....I dont spend my life consumed by jealousy of someone who has more than me.....there are more important things than "things" nope I aint ever going to have his "advantage" whatever it was (and tbf i'm not sure i would necessarily want it anyway.....)

on one level I have an old baikal 12 bore and a browing B725 12 bore
he's got a pair of purdeys

he STILL cant get more than 10/100 at the clay ground
hes also got a very expensive flat thing for a motor I have a vauxhall van

he's got a bad back
and he's as tight as a ducks arse....first out the cab , last in the pub type.......

his sole redeeming feature is that he's an otherwise decent sort of chap, and I'm gradually converting him into the jed clampit MkII of the area (me being MkI)



The same works in reverse also, no matter the skin colour

So lets talk about how hate is used, as you seem to be pig ignorant of this

nothing to do with hate...crimes of avarice and greed, spurred on be jealousy are exactly that....... crimes...and require no understanding

Who was scapegoated for the nazi's to rise to power and then commit crimes against humanity? How then were many people who acted normal lives then  able to murder countless people?

pure hyperbole

Do you think perceptions played no part?

I seriously will wrap your ignorance up in knots over this, when you make the most idiotic Cathy newman claims to nothing I actualky said

Stop being an arse and actually understand what i am saying

Eilzel wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:so what you are saying didge ....is that if i burgle my richer neighbour, steal his goods rape his wife and kill his first born because his house is bigger than mine and he has a flasher car than me and a 50 inch telly but mines only 46 inch......I'm not really a jealous criminal scum bag but a misunderstood "relatively poor" person who is suppressed by relative poverty and oppressed by a richer society??

or wouldnt that apply to a whitey then??????

Oh FFS.

"Crime is often born of unfortunate or unfair circumstances related to various long term factors. We need therefore to deal with social injustice and economic inequality."

"Criminals should be dealt with harshly and made to take responsibility for their own actions."

Contary to what you and others seem deluded into thinking, these two beliefs are NOT mutually exclusive. We CAN do one while doing to other.

Do you actually want to reduce crime? Or just beat people with a stick?

Lord Foul wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:so what you are saying didge ....is that if i burgle my richer neighbour, steal his goods rape his wife and kill his first born because his house is bigger than mine and he has a flasher car than me and a 50 inch telly but mines only 46 inch......I'm not really a jealous criminal scum bag but a misunderstood "relatively poor" person who is suppressed by relative poverty and oppressed by a richer society??

or wouldnt that apply to a whitey then??????

Oh FFS.

"Crime is often born of unfortunate or unfair circumstances related to various long term factors. We need therefore to deal with social injustice and economic inequality."

"Criminals should be dealt with harshly and made to take responsibility for their own actions."

Contary to what you and others seem deluded into thinking, these two beliefs are NOT mutually exclusive. We CAN do one while doing to other.

Do you actually want to reduce crime? Or just beat people with a stick?

quote  
      "if you compare yourself with others you will become vain and bitter (describes most of these "gang types to a T) for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself"

Its about time some folks learned that by heart and understood it