[Julian658]

@Julian658,

hablas espanol?!?!?!?

Soy Latino tambien. Me encanta grita palabras de maldicion mexicana. Como "A la verga Hijo de PUUUUUTAAAAAAAA!!" I yell then whem I'm drunk and out on the town. There is usually a random Mexican somewhere that gives me a high five afterwards.


For the record, I'm not Mexican.

¡Claro que sí! Pero llevo millones de años en EU. Aca dicen "hijo de la gran puta" para poner énfasis a la madre. Otra frase favorita era "cágate en tu madre".

[Godstud]

Chinga tu madre wei!

Right back atcha! Malaka!

[Julian658]

This is a very good article on it:
The numbers behind the UK’s knife crime “national emergency”
https://qz.com/1567231/the-statistics-b ... emergency/

As for the Mayor of London...

Sadiq Khan, the knife-crime fall guy
But is this a true reflection of the facts? Knife crime, it’s true, has risen in London, but it is not significantly higher than it was in 2011/12. There were just over 14,000 knife or sharp instrument crimes recorded by the Metropolitan Police in 2011/12; there were 14,700 in 2017/18.

The more worrying statistic, in fact, is that knife crime is rising more steeply outside the capital, beyond Khan’s purview. 42 out of the 44 police forces across England and Wales have reported rises since 2011. There were 39,818 offences in the 12 months to September 2018, compared with 23,945 in the year ending March 2014. Knife crime has now risen for the fourth consecutive year in England and Wales.

Britain’s most senior police chief, Cressida Dick, appears to agree, and has claimed that there is “some link” between violent crime and falling police numbers. The number of police officers in England and Wales has been cut by more than 20,000 since 2010. This seems the most obvious place to start pointing the finger. However Theresa May caused consternation earlier this year when she said there was “no direct correlation between certain crimes and police numbers”.
https://unherd.com/2019/07/sadiq-khan-t ... -fall-guy/

You can yell racism all day long, but knife crime is concentrated in certain groups that were not indigenous to the UK.

Although the majority of black boys in London achieve well in school and thereafter, a few things cannot be denied: black boys in London are massively over-represented in stabbings; black-on-black violence is significantly gang-related;

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... lack-knife

[Godstud]

And... your point?

Are you implying this is an immigrant problem(which is is not)? I know you are very anti-immigration.

Most people in England are not indigenous.

Also, in case you forget, crime is generally linked to poverty.

[Julian658]

And... your point?

Are you implying this is an immigrant problem(which is is not)? I know you are very anti-immigration.

Most people in England are not indigenous.

Also, in case you forget, crime is generally linked to poverty.

This is a bit like Chicago and Baltimore. Most of the knife crime is related to certain groups (over here is done with guns). These people already live here, nothing can be done other than heavy policing which is opposed by the left.

The idea is not to import any potential criminal into the country.

Yes crime is related to poverty.
The question is: WHy are some people poor? Do you know the answer?

[Julian658]

The other question that begs an answer:
Who does most of the crime in Canada?

[Nonsense]

Poverty presents an opportunity for the poor to 'level' things out somewhat.

I'm not sure that the cost to the system of rectifying crime in America is cost effective, unless, of course, you resort to the 'shoot first...' method of controlling it, but then America is a litle more 'refined' nowadays in punishment for capital crimes for instance.

Reason says that it would be better if the money spent on problems, would be better spent on preventing them in the first place, it's for partly that reason that I think that immigration should be strictly controlled for balancing available resources with demand for them & that quality of life is more important than material chaos.
It's ironic really, how western countries with a history of 'christian' government's & law carried out the most barbaric methods of punishment than the country's that they traditionally decry.

If migrants are allowed entry into any country, with the express objective to work to support themselves with their dependents,then they should be allowed in on that basis only, for which no support from the host country should ever be provided in the event of losing their job.

Any migrant committing an offence with a conviction should be immediately deported.

It's not migrants that are a cause of poverty or crime, it's poor governance of the country, which allows unfettered increases in the population with little or no provision of additional resources to cope, particularly when there is always demand for more spending by local or central government.

A government which deprives the country of those resources at the same time as cutting taxes for the rich & benefit cuts for the poor is Phillistinian in intent & should be ejected from office.

The 'problem' in it's proper context is that the expansion of the population when resources are limited, along with lower living standards for many people, in or out of work, create the necessary conditions for all types of crime to escalate.

Even when the police have had the resources, they are more apt at sending out multiple cars, along with officers, to a minor incident such as a road traffic accident(RTA), than responding with the required compliment of officers to a more serious crime of violence in the U.K.


At the end of the day, people cannot complain about poverty or crime, if the causes are a direct result of the way in which they vote or not as the case may be.

[Pants-of-dog]

AN epidemic of murder by knife in London is not a meme. It is a fact and you are welcomed to investigate that. The major of London a Muslim man has been accused of being extremely soft on crime.

Since you have presented absolutely no facts or any other evidence, there is no reason to assume it is true.

A nice African kid growing up in an African neighborhood in London is in danger of being a victim of a knife crime. That it is more dangerous than back in Africa is worrisome. At least this is how some parents see it.

If it is less dangerous in Africa, then that means that Africans are less violent that English people.

That means that London would be less violent if there were more Africans.

[Rancid]

¡Claro que sí! Pero llevo millones de años en EU. Aca dicen "hijo de la gran puta" para poner énfasis a la madre. Otra frase favorita era "cágate en tu madre".

Que bueno.

Yo no escribo espanol tan bien. Me crie en Miami, entonces, yo hables mucho mas que escribir.

[Pants-of-dog]

Hay que leer arto para poder escribir bien, y eso es verdad en todas idiomas.

[Julian658]

Since you have presented absolutely no facts or any other evidence, there is no reason to assume it is true.

Knife crime is a problem over there. You want to ignore that, OK. You live in a lefty echo chamber.

If it is less dangerous in Africa, then that means that Africans are less violent that English people.

That means that London would be less violent if there were more Africans.

Both black and white are perfectly capable of doing knife crime. But, black gangs seem to do it more and they target fellow Africans more. They kill black more frequently and it is an issue of black on black violence just like in the USA. Any sane parent would remove the children from those areas.


https://www.google.com/search?q=the+his ... kVQoNQjm1M:

[Julian658]

Poverty presents an opportunity for the poor to 'level' things out somewhat.

I'm not sure that the cost to the system of rectifying crime in America is cost effective, unless, of course, you resort to the 'shoot first...' method of controlling it, but then America is a litle more 'refined' nowadays in punishment for capital crimes for instance.

Reason says that it would be better if the money spent on problems, would be better spent on preventing them in the first place, it's for partly that reason that I think that immigration should be strictly controlled for balancing available resources with demand for them & that quality of life is more important than material chaos.
It's ironic really, how western countries with a history of 'christian' government's & law carried out the most barbaric methods of punishment than the country's that they traditionally decry.

If migrants are allowed entry into any country, with the express objective to work to support themselves with their dependents,then they should be allowed in on that basis only, for which no support from the host country should ever be provided in the event of losing their job.

Any migrant committing an offence with a conviction should be immediately deported.

It's not migrants that are a cause of poverty or crime, it's poor governance of the country, which allows unfettered increases in the population with little or no provision of additional resources to cope, particularly when there is always demand for more spending by local or central government.

A government which deprives the country of those resources at the same time as cutting taxes for the rich & benefit cuts for the poor is Phillistinian in intent & should be ejected from office.

The 'problem' in it's proper context is that the expansion of the population when resources are limited, along with lower living standards for many people, in or out of work, create the necessary conditions for all types of crime to escalate.

Even when the police have had the resources, they are more apt at sending out multiple cars, along with officers, to a minor incident such as a road traffic accident(RTA), than responding with the required compliment of officers to a more serious crime of violence in the U.K.


At the end of the day, people cannot complain about poverty or crime, if the causes are a direct result of the way in which they vote or not as the case may be.

The biggest predictors of poverty are one parent home, low intelligence, and bad memes passed from generation to generation.

[Nonsense]

The biggest predictors of poverty are one parent home, low intelligence, and bad memes passed from generation to generation.

I'm sure you are correct,though they affect an individual in different ways.

The nuclear family is the best model, all things considered.

Single parent families are not traditional, anymore than same sex 'couples' with children are, although not generalising, I am sure that there are statistics around that show the 'true' picture, however, it does appear that a female single parent has a 'problem' raising a child relatively free of problems & with any sense of direction imbued in them.
I know there are thousands of female single parents that are true heroes in raising children alone, to them I have enormous respect, but as we know, male or female, there are good & bad in any situation.
Problems of intelligence again, comes down to the attitude of parents, the habits of parents & consumption of alcohol or drugs in whatever form they take.

Drugs affect the brain, which affects behaviour from attitudinal changes,it follows that such habits also affect intelligence & cognition of those affected.

State benefits should be considered for being withdrawn from 'problem' families, it is much too easy nowadays to claim state benefits, for which there was once much stigma attached to the receipt of such money.

If people are fit, with job vacancies to hand, anyone claiming benefits related to inability to find work, should be subjected to the most stringent test of elligibility before receiving them.

Sometimes, if not most, you have to be tough, in order to be kind & to achieve the required change in those people's attitude.

I am also sure that there are traditional families where identical problems present themselves, usually, the result of parents having absolutely not one jot of interest in their children, just the state benefits they receive, for which, without those children, those benefits would not be there, which is why all benefits should be conditional on compliance with conditions of receipt of such benefits.

[Nonsense]

Since you have presented absolutely no facts or any other evidence, there is no reason to assume it is true.



If it is less dangerous in Africa, then that means that Africans are less violent that English people.

That means that London would be less violent if there were more Africans.

I think the assumption above is highly questionable P-o-D.

I may be wrong, but without facts being available, are you not assuming that the violence is more likely the fault of white 'British' people?

I believe that in London last year, only some 25% of victims were actually black,that same percentage were males aged 16-24 , some 58% of suspects, who were most likely to be in the 16-24 year old range, were drug dealers or users.

[SSDR]

If it is less dangerous in Africa, then that means that Africans are less violent that English people.

That means that London would be less violent if there were more Africans.

Incorrect.

Africa is EXTREMELY more dangerous than Britain in terms of crime, domestic abuse, and corruption. It is not reported as how it is in Britain because violence is not viewed as violence in Africa due to their cultures and politics. Africa has a higher testosterone rate. Africa has a much higher rape rate. Africa is also more religious, to cope with their violence. Africa also has a lower intelligence level, which contributes to higher crime that is not reported.

[Julian658]

Incorrect.

Africa is EXTREMELY more dangerous than Britain in terms of crime, domestic abuse, and corruption. It is not reported as how it is in Britain because violence is not viewed as violence in Africa due to their cultures and politics. Africa has a higher testosterone rate. Africa has a much higher rape rate. Africa is also more religious, to cope with their violence. Africa also has a lower intelligence level, which contributes to higher crime that is not reported.

Oops, you mentioned IQ. You will be called a racist by the SJWs.
The question that begs an answer is why does the left excuses the violence and tries to blame others.

[Julian658]

I'm sure you are correct,though they affect an individual in different ways.

The nuclear family is the best model, all things considered.

Single parent families are not traditional, anymore than same sex 'couples' with children are, although not generalising, I am sure that there are statistics around that show the 'true' picture, however, it does appear that a female single parent has a 'problem' raising a child relatively free of problems & with any sense of direction imbued in them.
I know there are thousands of female single parents that are true heroes in raising children alone, to them I have enormous respect, but as we know, male or female, there are good & bad in any situation.
Problems of intelligence again, comes down to the attitude of parents, the habits of parents & consumption of alcohol or drugs in whatever form they take.

Drugs affect the brain, which affects behaviour from attitudinal changes,it follows that such habits also affect intelligence & cognition of those affected.

State benefits should be considered for being withdrawn from 'problem' families, it is much too easy nowadays to claim state benefits, for which there was once much stigma attached to the receipt of such money.

If people are fit, with job vacancies to hand, anyone claiming benefits related to inability to find work, should be subjected to the most stringent test of elligibility before receiving them.

Sometimes, if not most, you have to be tough, in order to be kind & to achieve the required change in those people's attitude.

I am also sure that there are traditional families where identical problems present themselves, usually, the result of parents having absolutely not one jot of interest in their children, just the state benefits they receive, for which, without those children, those benefits would not be there, which is why all benefits should be conditional on compliance with conditions of receipt of such benefits.

I agree, there are many studies that say poverty reduces IQ. But, this is just a correlation. Maybe IQ is a predictor of poverty.

Why is Japan so advanced?

[Godstud]

Who does most of the crime in Canada?

The people committing crimes are people living in lower middle class, mentally ill, or poor people. Same the world over.

Maybe IQ is a predictor of poverty.

Nope. IQ is also influenced heavily by education and nutrition. IQ does not determine work ethic, attitude, or other traits.

Why is Japan so advanced?

Education and nutrition are two big factors. Culture is a big one.

[Julian658]

The people committing crimes are people living in lower middle class, mentally ill, or poor people. Same the world over.

That is true. If i was running a country I would screen migrants carefully

Nope. IQ is also influenced heavily by education and nutrition. IQ does not determine work ethic, attitude, or other traits.

Do you think it is possible to teach intelligence?

Education and nutrition are two big factors. Culture is a big one.

East Asians on the average have high IQ and work hard. CUlture is HUGE!

[Godstud]

If i was running a country I would screen migrants carefully.

Most countries already do screen immigrants very carefully. USA and Canada have amongst the highest level of vetting in the world.

Do you think it is possible to teach intelligence?

Yes, you can raise your IQ. Education. Very important.
https://www.success.com/5-smart-ways-to ... tic-stone/

East Asians on the average have high IQ and work hard. CUlture is HUGE!

QFT, although you can't lump all East Asians into one category, as South Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese have very strict cultures, and others are not necessarily the same.