Today's news from London

Lord Foul wrote:ahh so we.ve come down to "subjective bull shit" in other words i cant answer you ....

i'll give you one last chance to answer my question......WHAT...exactly and HOW do you propose to reduce the relative poverty gap...NOT what has denmark done......since you havnt actually even stated that  merely said it is so but not how they did it..

given that merely raising the living wage wouldnt work, for reasons that should be obvious to even a child these days.....for a hint look at the late 60's early 70's massive wage rises and massive inflation.......

what POLICIES would you enforce to close that gap?

Lord Foul wrote:so in fact you havnt a clue as to how you could do this....

nothing less than I expected

Lord Foul wrote:unlike you I havnt "claimed" anything...except that I doubt YOUR claims......

and no ...nowhwhere have I agreed that lower inequality equates to lower crime.....

and all I'm asking is that you show me that IF what you say is correct.....how you propose it should be done.......

because the reality is ...you havnt got the foggiest idea......All you are doing is sitting in the fog wailing "somebody do something"

AND.....where does "relative poverty stop"??? because what you are saying is justifying the man on 30,000 a year stealing the wallet of the man on 50,000 a year

Lord Foul wrote:which is an american prescription for american woes....

3 items of which are unapplicable here in the UK in anycase.
Its also somewhat subjective since it posits that the lowest paid dont have a decent standard of living..

First you have to define "decent standard of living"  and that as you should well be aware is a very subjective matter.......

Lord Foul wrote:yeah well come on big man...that thing from america posits some ideas...BUT  it doesnt actually MEAN anything ...it has as much substance as so much fresh air....

lets got down to it.....

what is a decent standard of living....unless we understand THAT the whole thing is pointless....

what I consider decent standard of living is likely considerably different to what you or fred up the road or joe in his cardboard box under the bridge considers decent.
are we talking decent as in decently opulent
or as in merely basic
or as in one step from begging on the street homeless?
or what?

what would "satisfy" these gangsters?

Thor wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:yeah well come on big man...that thing from america posits some ideas...BUT  it doesnt actually MEAN anything ...it has as much substance as so much fresh air....

lets got down to it.....

what is a decent standard of living....unless we understand THAT the whole thing is pointless....

what I consider decent standard of living is likely considerably different to what you or fred up the road or joe in his cardboard box under the bridge considers decent.
are we talking decent as in decently opulent
or as in merely basic
or as in one step from begging on the street homeless?
or what?

what would "satisfy" these gangsters?

So basically you are in disagreement to how to bring down wealth inequality

So what

You wanted methods

i provided them

You need to prove they are unworkable

Not just offer up your opinions, why you do not like them

All of which is very much a side show to the points at hand

The very fact lower wealth inquality means lower crime rates

I am not here to debate the merits of plans how to lower wealth inequality

I am here to debate and show it means lower crime rates

Hence you are posing up a red herring argument and really do not care about your views on what you think is workable for having lower wealth inequality. As that is not my main point at all,= and you know it to be so, hence this farcical stance you are nnow taking

Lord Foul wrote:and....on a side note................... if you listen to the few of these gangsters talking its NOT soley "money" standards of living etc...Its POWER, these gang leaders and their deputies are tribal warlords..you have to face and deal with that too, and you wont spend your way out of that.

Lord Foul wrote:

Thor wrote:


So basically you are in disagreement to how to bring down wealth inequality

So what

You wanted methods

i provided them

You need to prove they are unworkable

Not just offer up your opinions, why you do not like them

All of which is very much a side show to the points at hand

The very fact lower wealth inquality means lower crime rates

I am not here to debate the merits of plans how to lower wealth inequality

I am here to debate and show it means lower crime rates

Hence you are posing up a red herring argument and really do not care about your views on what you think is workable for having lower wealth inequality. As that is not my main point at all,= and you know it to be so, hence this farcical stance you are nnow taking

in otherwords...you havnt got a clue.....

Thor wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:and....on a side note................... if you listen to the few of these gangsters talking its NOT soley "money" standards of living etc...Its POWER, these gang leaders and their deputies are tribal warlords..you have to face and deal with that too, and you wont spend your way out of that.

I suggest you read back to my comments on what drives people to gangs and the actual gang leaders themselves

I already made the point that an element of this is power

There is a very simple way to tackle the drug gang problems in the UK

Decriminalise drugs

Make a number of drugs legal and deny them of their source of revenue

It will make drugs safer and cheaper

The war on drugs has never worked in any single country

Lord Foul wrote:

Thor wrote:


I suggest you read back to my comments on what drives people to gangs and the actual gang leaders themselves

I already made the point that an element of this is power

There is a very simple way to tackle the drug gang problems in the UK

Decriminalise drugs

Make a number of drugs legal and deny them of their source of revenue

It will make drugs safer and cheaper

The war on drugs has never worked in any single country

you wont get any argument from me on that one

BUT...some must remain utterly illegal

even to the point of carrying a death penalty for having enough for "supply"  like "spice" and krokdil...although krokodil is a bit different since its mostly "home brewed".

Thor wrote:So that is your view how to make it work

And the evidence to show that it would work?

Seems to me, you are just offering up your solution to obtain this

Whoopdeedoo

Reading that, was like watching paint dry, seriously and is again a distraction from the points at hand about high crime levels


What has that got to do though with you not recognising how lower wealth inequality means lower crime rates?

Thor wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Thor wrote:


I suggest you read back to my comments on what drives people to gangs and the actual gang leaders themselves

I already made the point that an element of this is power

There is a very simple way to tackle the drug gang problems in the UK

Decriminalise drugs

Make a number of drugs legal and deny them of their source of revenue

It will make drugs safer and cheaper

The war on drugs has never worked in any single country

you wont get any argument from me on that one

BUT...some must remain utterly illegal

even to the point of carrying a death penalty for having enough for "supply"  like "spice" and krokdil...although krokodil is a bit different since its mostly "home brewed".

And when ever has the death penalty been an effective deterrent to crime?

true but......in the case of drug runners AND producers/providers if yo had a rigid policy of stretching them...or shortening them by a head if that floats your boat...i suspect you might rather quickly at least reduce the numbers of volunteers to a level where the problem becomes manageable......

Not saying all should be made legal, but many should be

Lord Foul wrote:

Thor wrote:So that is your view how to make it work

And the evidence to show that it would work?

Seems to me, you are just offering up your solution to obtain this

Whoopdeedoo

Reading that, was like watching paint dry, seriously and is again a distraction from the points at hand about high crime levels


What has that got to do though with you not recognising how lower wealth inequality means lower crime rates?

At least I can offer one potential solution to making it work and one that would I think be acceptable to most......since its fair....which is more than you seem to be able to do.....

because I dont think that there are many, even in those places in london where any significant amount of these gangster types are, are living below a "decent standard of living"  So i think your argument is based on a false premise. IF it was the case that their living standards are below par then the same MUST by common logic ALSO apply to anyone who is living on welfare....and yet?????????

Lord Foul wrote:aand how does YOUR idea ride with this???

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t26497-grandmother-of-teenage-girl-stabbed-in-unprovoked-london-attack-calls-for-city-s-street-violence-to-end

un provoked no reason ...just "thrill kill" so it seems at the moment....

Thor wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Thor wrote:So that is your view how to make it work

And the evidence to show that it would work?

Seems to me, you are just offering up your solution to obtain this

Whoopdeedoo

Reading that, was like watching paint dry, seriously and is again a distraction from the points at hand about high crime levels


What has that got to do though with you not recognising how lower wealth inequality means lower crime rates?

At least I can offer one potential solution to making it work and one that would I think be acceptable to most......since its fair....which is more than you seem to be able to do.....

because I dont think that there are many, even in those places in london where any significant amount of these gangster types are, are living below a "decent standard of living"  So i think your argument is based on a false premise. IF it was the case that their living standards are below par then the same MUST by common logic ALSO apply to anyone who is living on welfare....and yet?????????

Was my main point about how to obtain wealth inequality, or to show, that there is a big correlation with crime levels?

I even cited the Dutch for you, that is even closing prisons

and I showed you swedish that have the same income levels more or less than  the dutch......YOU CLAIMED DENMARK...make your mind up..... but whatever and STILL have their cities in a mess...and holland isnt the crime free utopia you think it is I game on WoW with a number of dutch players...and they tell a different story....one of official "turning of a blind eye" to many many crimes.....then propaganderise the result into how good their system is.....Its so bad most dont bother reporting say burglary, since it will just be noted and forgotten.....

You then end with a claim about the gangsters. Not backed by any evidence from you Even though the evidence again is overwhelming that gang memebers come from deprived areas within London. They are even targeting and recruiting kids from primary schools these days.

and ....so what...if its true for the deprived areas in london...why is it that it isnt country wide.........my "local" town isnt exactly the place to be by any means...and has its share of deprivation.....yet we dont have the daily slaughter...ok there's a fair bit of nuisance crime, the odd domestic and about 1 murder a year or so and YET...I live in what is reckoned to be the richest shire in the country...more football millionaires per square than anywhere so theres plenty of disparity of income visible and hence plenty of "relative poverty"

so whats different???


So how is my argument then a false premise, now based on an opinion you hold, that you have not backed up with any evidence?

Lord Foul wrote:ahh so we.ve come down to "subjective bull shit" in other words i cant answer you ....

i'll give you one last chance to answer my question......WHAT...exactly and HOW do you propose to reduce the relative poverty gap...NOT what has denmark done......since you havnt actually even stated that  merely said it is so but not how they did it..

given that merely raising the living wage wouldnt work, for reasons that should be obvious to even a child these days.....for a hint look at the late 60's early 70's massive wage rises and massive inflation.......

what POLICIES would you enforce to close that gap?

Thor wrote:It is so bad your reply, I cannot make head or tail of who's post is who

You need to start placing your name to posts in brackets, to show the difference

1) I said the Dutch, it was you that said denmark, not me. I suggest you read back and see your error Victor

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t26149p250-today-s-news-from-london

ah ok ...my mistake....however my comments on the matter still stand.....
1 sweden tells a different story
2 People LIVING in holland tell a different story


2) show crime stats for your area and levels of wealth inequality, compared to other areas like London

tell me where to find em

I really dont buy hearsay

Lord Foul wrote:ah ok ...my mistake....however my comments on the matter still stand.....
1 sweden tells a different story
2 People LIVING in holland tell a different story

tell me where to find em

Lord Foul wrote:And the point you just made about comparing one area to another does lead back to "what level is relative poverty is justification for violent criminal enterprise" ?

Eilzel wrote:I've skimmed over some of this, but I feel that 'giving money to gangsters' is not a good idea, nor anything like what didge or I were suggesting.

Long term causes. I'm sure that doesn't need explaining.

It is near impossible to stop current gang members from continuing to embrace crime. We still should, and rehabilitation programmes in prison are part of that. But the real solution here is to stop more young people from wanting join in the first place - by improving local amenities and enduring education provides them the same opportunities as those in schools in more privelidged areas. Those currently involved in crime sadly have to sort themselves out or feel the full force of the law.

On economic inequality, I like some of LF's ideas (as I always have) but some of the higher tax rates are extortionate and not practical in the world we live in.

The tax rates always were "illustrative" and open to discussion...BUT NOT the bonus one...those big bonuses are odious

Firstly, the minimum wage should be high enough for a decent standard of living in London. Not the outer perimetres, but the main residential areas of London.
I hope you are not suggesting that the minimum wage outside of central london should not support a decent standard of living

There was also a popular idea a few years back, Sphinx used to mention it, in which the highest and lowest earners in a company had their earnings linked: i.e. if the Managing Director earned a raise, so did the cleaners. Obviously they are still far apart in terms of income, but the gap doesn't grow and everyone benefits from a job well done.

Obviously much more needs to be done, but these are just a few ideas.

Eilzel wrote:No, I meant the minimun wage should support a decent standard of living in London - the wage itself should apply everywhere. That means if I live in Manchester, and I earn the minimun, I could afford (if I wanted to) to live in London.

I cannot say what the margin is for the decent standard Vic, because it's different in different areas. But paying utility bills, rents and mortgages, running cars etc while managing a job (or two) are all things that some low income families struggle with (and in those sad cases are broken by) and add to stress which leads to other long term problems. I'm neither a politician nor economist, but clearly the current situation is not working in areas where crime is more common.

Eilzel wrote:No, I meant the minimun wage should support a decent standard of living in London - the wage itself should apply everywhere. That means if I live in Manchester, and I earn the minimun, I could afford (if I wanted to) to live in London.

I cannot say what the margin is for the decent standard Vic, because it's different in different areas. But paying utility bills, rents and mortgages, running cars etc while managing a job (or two) are all things that some low income families struggle with (and in those sad cases are broken by) and add to stress which leads to other long term problems. I'm neither a politician nor economist, but clearly the current situation is not working in areas where crime is more common.

Lord Foul wrote:

Eilzel wrote:No, I meant the minimun wage should support a decent standard of living in London - the wage itself should apply everywhere. That means if I live in Manchester, and I earn the minimun, I could afford (if I wanted to) to live in London.

I cannot say what the margin is for the decent standard Vic, because it's different in different areas. But paying utility bills, rents and mortgages, running cars etc while managing a job (or two) are all things that some low income families struggle with (and in those sad cases are broken by) and add to stress which leads to other long term problems. I'm neither a politician nor economist, but clearly the current situation is not working in areas where crime is more common.

utility bills....well they need offsetting in some way I suggest a "leaving and return" tax on the general population of london so that if you live in central london and you venture outside the M25 you pay a tax and the same on return...twould be fair and progressive as the big boss leaves regularly for his home in the sticks and returns he will pay a lot more than anyone else...and it may serve to keep townies where townies belong...in the towns ...win win.....

 

Eilzel wrote:No, I meant the minimun wage should support a decent standard of living in London - the wage itself should apply everywhere. That means if I live in Manchester, and I earn the minimun, I could afford (if I wanted to) to live in London.

I cannot say what the margin is for the decent standard Vic, because it's different in different areas. But paying utility bills, rents and mortgages, running cars etc while managing a job (or two) are all things that some low income families struggle with (and in those sad cases are broken by) and add to stress which leads to other long term problems. I'm neither a politician nor economist, but clearly the current situation is not working in areas where crime is more common.

Thor wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Eilzel wrote:No, I meant the minimun wage should support a decent standard of living in London - the wage itself should apply everywhere. That means if I live in Manchester, and I earn the minimun, I could afford (if I wanted to) to live in London.

I cannot say what the margin is for the decent standard Vic, because it's different in different areas. But paying utility bills, rents and mortgages, running cars etc while managing a job (or two) are all things that some low income families struggle with (and in those sad cases are broken by) and add to stress which leads to other long term problems. I'm neither a politician nor economist, but clearly the current situation is not working in areas where crime is more common.

utility bills....well they need offsetting in some way I suggest a "leaving and return" tax on the general population of london so that if you live in central london and you venture outside the M25 you pay a tax and the same on return...twould be fair and progressive as the big boss leaves regularly for his home in the sticks and returns he will pay a lot more than anyone else...and it may serve to keep townies where townies belong...in the towns ...win win.....

 

Well that is fine then if you want to create and even bigger divide between north and the South say in wealth

So the South east will just pay for its own schooling, health etc?

I think you will find that without London and the South East's wealth, the rest of the country would suffer further, but dont let me get in the way of your really poor idea here

Lord Foul wrote:

Thor wrote:

Well that is fine then if you want to create and even bigger divide between north and the South say in wealth

So the South east will just pay for its own schooling, health etc?

I think you will find that without London and the South East's wealth, the rest of the country would suffer further, but dont let me get in the way of your really poor idea here

yeah like how the south when it got flooded was provided with umpteen millions of aid whilst cumbria had to "make do"
like how the south got plenty of support but the north was devastated by maggies planned hatred of the industrial north
like how the south was supported and encouraged and paid for from london whilst the north had the biggest jobs and financial collapse since the great depression and still many of its areas are riddled with poverty because ....there are no jobs...just vague promises of "the (mythical) northern powerhouse"

yeah sure the wealth of the south and london is REALLY apparent in the north....Oh and BTW....MY county is richer than yours (apparently)  with more millionaires per square than anywhere else...footballers mainly (apparently) BUT...my local town........is a shite hole due to the collapse of its railway engineering......

Tommy Monk wrote:

Do stop with the spurious waffle and the twisting please dodge...

Thor wrote:Thousands of children in England identify as being part of a gang but only a small number are on the radar of authorities, a major report has warned.

It estimates there are around 27,000 child gang members in the country, according to the Children's Commissioner Anne Longfield.

Criminal groups are believed to be recruiting younger children and girls because their "profile" means they are less likely to be known to police.

The findings prompted calls for the Government to designate child criminal exploitation as a "national priority".

Publishing the study, Children's Commissioner Ms Longfield said: "The criminal gangs operating in England are complex and ruthless organisations, using sophisticated techniques to groom children, and chilling levels of violence to keep them compliant.

"At the moment it is too easy for them to succeed. Thousands of children in towns and cities across England are at risk and the same attention must be paid to protecting them as to other major threats to children.

"However, I am worried that all the mistakes that led to serious safeguarding failings in relation to child sexual exploitation in towns and cities up and down the country are now being repeated.

"Many local areas are not facing up to the scale of the problem, they are not taking notice of the risk factors in front of them, and they are not listening to parents and communities who ask for help."

Confidence in child safeguarding arrangements has been rocked by a string of sexual exploitation cases in recent years.

Analysis of crime survey data by the Office of the Children's Commissioner suggests there are 27,000 children aged between 10 and 17 who identify as a member of a street gang.

A street gang is defined as a group of young people who hang around together and have a specific area or territory, have a name or other identifier, possibly have rules or a leader, and who may commit crimes together.

A Government spokeswoman said: "We are committed to protecting vulnerable children by cracking down on the ruthless gangs that seek to exploit them and by offering them the support and skills they need to lead lives free of violence.”

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/27000-children-in-england-say-they-are-gang-members-major-study-warns-a4078631.html


Which really debunks Tommy's irrational claim, about gang members not wanting to work. The vast majority are not of an age when they can work and all of them found in the study are all of a school age. There is clearly a massive problem here with the exploitation by the gang leaders of young vunerable children. Which needs to be tackled

Thor wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Thor wrote:

Well that is fine then if you want to create and even bigger divide between north and the South say in wealth

So the South east will just pay for its own schooling, health etc?

I think you will find that without London and the South East's wealth, the rest of the country would suffer further, but dont let me get in the way of your really poor idea here

yeah like how the south when it got flooded was provided with umpteen millions of aid whilst cumbria had to "make do"
like how the south got plenty of support but the north was devastated by maggies planned hatred of the industrial north
like how the south was supported and encouraged and paid for from london whilst the north had the biggest jobs and financial collapse since the great depression and still many of its areas are riddled with poverty because ....there are no jobs...just vague promises of "the (mythical) northern powerhouse"

yeah sure the wealth of the south and london is REALLY apparent in the north....Oh and BTW....MY county is richer than yours (apparently)  with more millionaires per square than anywhere else...footballers mainly (apparently) BUT...my local town........is a shite hole due to the collapse of its railway engineering......

Look its not my fault you are a Northern Monkey b  





The reality is here, the wealth of the nation should be spread around evenly and even that does not happen today

The view you have to isolate certain problems and to have towns pay for themselves. Defeats the very essence of what a nation is together

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thor wrote:Thousands of children in England identify as being part of a gang but only a small number are on the radar of authorities, a major report has warned.

It estimates there are around 27,000 child gang members in the country, according to the Children's Commissioner Anne Longfield.

Criminal groups are believed to be recruiting younger children and girls because their "profile" means they are less likely to be known to police.

The findings prompted calls for the Government to designate child criminal exploitation as a "national priority".

Publishing the study, Children's Commissioner Ms Longfield said: "The criminal gangs operating in England are complex and ruthless organisations, using sophisticated techniques to groom children, and chilling levels of violence to keep them compliant.

"At the moment it is too easy for them to succeed. Thousands of children in towns and cities across England are at risk and the same attention must be paid to protecting them as to other major threats to children.

"However, I am worried that all the mistakes that led to serious safeguarding failings in relation to child sexual exploitation in towns and cities up and down the country are now being repeated.

"Many local areas are not facing up to the scale of the problem, they are not taking notice of the risk factors in front of them, and they are not listening to parents and communities who ask for help."

Confidence in child safeguarding arrangements has been rocked by a string of sexual exploitation cases in recent years.

Analysis of crime survey data by the Office of the Children's Commissioner suggests there are 27,000 children aged between 10 and 17 who identify as a member of a street gang.

A street gang is defined as a group of young people who hang around together and have a specific area or territory, have a name or other identifier, possibly have rules or a leader, and who may commit crimes together.

A Government spokeswoman said: "We are committed to protecting vulnerable children by cracking down on the ruthless gangs that seek to exploit them and by offering them the support and skills they need to lead lives free of violence.”

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/27000-children-in-england-say-they-are-gang-members-major-study-warns-a4078631.html


Which really debunks Tommy's irrational claim, about gang members not wanting to work. The vast majority are not of an age when they can work and all of them found in the study are all of a school age. There is clearly a massive problem here with the exploitation by the gang leaders of young vunerable children. Which needs to be tackled

This is pure bullshit!!!