What's wrong with Britain: London murder rate overtakes New York's - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14903540
Suntzu wrote:Yep, Blacks make up about 25% of NYC residents and only 12% of London residents. Still, Blacks commit more than half the murders in London.


But you're being racist and scapegoating Blacks as you always do. What is your obsession with Black people? Anyone else here would blame Muslims but not you; when in doubt blame Blacks for problems we ourselves caused. Seriously, instead blaming Blacks for being disfranchise why not blame what's really killing white Britons.: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 24276.html

Besides whites commit more crimes against each other: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 93521.html

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ate-crimes

http://www.dw.com/en/is-the-uks-racist- ... a-40935838

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/28/bri ... ull-bloom/

http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-tory-e ... 3-May2017/

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la- ... story.html
Whites hate themselves more than the Pakistanis I guess.
:|
And the murders are against other Blacks than whites, so I didn't know you care about Black on Black crime. You say Blacks commit violence but you never said to what race.

Why not talk about white on white crime in america instead or in general? Stop projecting and admit that London even during the middle ages was even more of a shithole than Africa cities.
#14903555
"The Metropolitan Police report indicate that though blacks are less than fifteen percent of London’s population, they are responsible for way over a half of violent crimes in the city while the race are also victims of two-third of such crimes. The literature includes articles, national statistics, police, survey, etc. The participants listed poverty, drugs, lack-of-interest in education, lack of trust, etc as obvious factors for which they felt let down by the police and government.
Many of the black communities in Britain find themselves inadvertently at the lower wrung of the socio-economic strata, a development that is made worse by broken homes where there are no father figures and most male young adults find themselves ignoring the only available parent that they live with, often the mothers, and go on to make life changing decisions that gradually see them lose interest and then drop from formal education or work and then, with peer pressure, they start leaning towards gangs and similar groups within their immediate neighbourhoods, who lure them with promise of easy money and all that comes with it.
Even where the young person is fortunate to have an older male in the family, such as an uncle, a lot of them rather turn out as negative role models as they are also likely to be neck-deep in crime and may have no good leadership to offer the younger man. As poverty get entrenched in the family, they rely more and more on state benefit and any cut in that respect does not only highly affect their daily living and may only serve as an impetus to take to crime or get engrossed in anti-establishment mayhem as witnessed in the Summer 2011 London riot."
#14903586
@Suntzu


Again, saying the same thing I put out. Again we're the designer of their crime rate. Stop disfranchising Blacks and they will stop committing crimes. Are you implying that only Blacks have a tendency for crime regardless of income? Are you implying that poor whites in Britain also do not experience this same fate.

Let talk about Chicago when it was 90% white:

Voila! Chicago had approximately 14 murders per 100,000 residents in 1930.

http://chicagocrimescenes.blogspot.com/ ... icago.html

Meanwhile, the national U.S. homicide rate for the same year was 8.8 per 100,000.

http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/usa.htm

In other words, for the year 1930 Chicago's murder rate was at least 37% greater than the national average.

Now New York City has a greater Black pop than London, by your logic it should have more crime. Yet it's the safest since the 1950s.

Also Chicago isn't even the most violent city, not even in top 50 and is decreasing.

So again, why are you blaming Blacks?
Last edited by Libertarian353 on 06 Apr 2018 20:44, edited 2 times in total.
#14903592
Yet for the moment, at least, people seem very happy with Khan. His approval ratings are high. Those who watch him closely — most of his Labour colleagues in councils and the London Assembly, a handful of journalists — know he’s not doing well. But why hasn’t the public noticed?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/04/sad ... e-noticed/

Sadiq Khan is a lousy London Mayor. Why hasn’t anyone noticed?
Outside the realm of the press release and the TV interview, Khan is underachieving badly

Andrew Gilligan

7 April 2018

According to people at City Hall, Sadiq Khan writes some of his own press releases. I can believe it: they’ve certainly become a lot more excitable since he took over. I like to imagine the Mayor of London, late at night, combing the thesaurus for fresh superlatives to bugle his ‘unprecedented programme of far-reaching improvements’ for the taxi trade (allowing black cabs in more bus lanes) or his ‘bold package of measures’ to revive street markets (creating a London Markets Board and an interactive map). One release even panted that Khan had ‘personally scrutinised’ the New Year’s Eve fireworks display ‘to make the acclaimed event the most exciting yet’.

Language like this — the bold mayor, the German Democratic Republic, the powerful Commons paperclips committee — is normally taken to mean the exact opposite of what its user intends. Yet even though we are nearly halfway through Khan’s term, most people still accept him at face value. Few seem to have noticed that, outside the realm of the press release and the TV interview, he is underachieving badly.

I worked for Khan’s predecessor, Boris Johnson, so perhaps I’m biased. But the figures aren’t biased. Before the election, Khan promised that his housing policy would ‘rival the NHS with its transformative effect on society’. He said he would ‘support housing associations… to ensure a minimum of 80,000 new homes a year’, more than in any year, save one, in London’s entire history.

Few expected Khan to keep such epoch-making promises. But we did expect him to do something. City Hall figures show, however, that in the first year of Khan’s term, London did not start building a single social rented home. By comparison, Johnson started 7,439 homes for social rent in his first year as mayor and 1,687 in the first year of his second term, after the economic crash. With two years of Khan’s term nearly now gone, the great social justice warrior has finally managed to begin (drum roll) 1,263 social rent homes, many of a type he once denounced as ‘not genuinely affordable’.

The same pattern applies in most other mayoral policy areas: big promises, followed by things going inexorably backwards. Crime is up by 12 per cent since he took office, with a far bigger rise in murders. February and March were the first months in history when London homicides exceeded New York’s. On transport, Khan claimed that he could ‘both freeze fares and invest record amounts modernising London’s transport infrastructure’. Fares have, in fact, only been frozen for some travellers. But the impact (together with a cut in government grant) has still left Transport for London so short of money that it can no longer pay the interest on its debts.


As it said in a leaked memo: ‘If this was our household budget, this would be the same as not having enough money left over from our salary each month to pay our interest–only mortgage or get our car serviced.’ TfL has now been forced to suspend routine road maintenance, stop many investment programmes, and make serious cuts to the bus network. Even the first phase of this has reduced services by 7 per cent overall — and on some routes by 50 per cent.

For the first time in 25 years, public transport use is falling, with tangible impacts on congestion. The drop might, of course, have been greater without the fares freeze: but in London it is the quantity and quality of service, more than its price, which has driven usage. And each year, the revenue foregone, and the damage to services, will compound.

Khan’s promise of both real-terms fare cuts and increased investment exemplifies his greatest weakness — his wish to have it both ways, or more brutally his long-standing inability to make decisions. Depending on how strictly you count it, for instance, Khan as mayor has voiced between two and six different ‘no. 1 priorities’. As an MP, he once went straight from voting in parliament for post office closures to a public meeting where he protested against post office closures. He wobbled interminably over Boris’s Garden Bridge, reversing his position five times. He was against Heathrow expansion, then in favour, and is now against it once more — and so the list goes on.

In politics, making decisions which make a difference — building homes, raising fares to invest, taking roadspace for cycle lanes — is contested and risky. So it’s easy to see why Khan prefers to act like the shadow cabinet member he once was, using the job mainly as a platform to build his personal profile and attack the government. It wasn’t me, Miss, it was the Tories!

But Khan is not in opposition. He is in office, the holder of substantial powers and responsibilities, and there is a limit to how long he can carry on blaming all London’s problems on others. Nor is it in Londoners’ interests to attack the government constantly when it gives you most of the money you spend. Perhaps Khan is becalmed because he saw the mayoralty mainly as a stepping stone to his actual goal of the Labour leadership. Now that option has receded, his lack of purpose at City Hall has become clearer.

Yet for the moment, at least, people seem very happy with Khan. His approval ratings are high. Those who watch him closely — most of his Labour colleagues in councils and the London Assembly, a handful of journalists — know he’s not doing well. But why hasn’t the public noticed?

For one, the mayor of London is under less political and media scrutiny than any other major leader. London’s paper, the Evening Standard, does a bit but not enough. The national press sees him largely as local news. Most people’s knowledge of Khan is limited to favourable snapshots: lantern-jawed TV clips after terror attacks, or encounters with the kind of enemies anyone would kill for. Every ding-dong with Donald Trump, Chris Grayling or a far-right turniphead disrupting one of his speeches is political gold for him.

Khan also benefits from two important hopes held by most decent people: that Britain’s multi-faith society should succeed, and that Labour should be rescued from the claws of the hard left. At the same time it’s assumed he speaks for Londoners on Brexit — Londoners who are happy only because the regressive impacts of his policies haven’t bitten yet (the bus cuts, for instance).

But it’s also because the Tories are so useless. Khan’s underperformance — along with the gift that is Momentum — could help them avoid at least total disaster in May’s London borough elections. Why aren’t they jumping on it?

Andrew Gilligan writes for the Sunday Times.
#14903604
Again we're the designer of their crime rate.

@Libertarian353
Do you understand what a disservice this is to all the families who raise ‘good People’ despite the handicaps?
People who commit crimes make a choice. They have free will. The crime is all on them, not society. They should be separated, not conflated. We should address societies inequalities, not use them to justify criminal behavior.
#14903635
Libertarian353 wrote:@Suntzu Again, saying the same thing I put out. Again we're the designer of their crime rate. Stop disfranchising Blacks and they will stop committing crimes. Are you implying that only Blacks have a tendency for crime regardless of income? Are you implying that poor whites in Britain also do not experience this same fate.

Let talk about Chicago when it was 90% white:

Voila! Chicago had approximately 14 murders per 100,000 residents in 1930.

http://chicagocrimescenes.blogspot.com/ ... icago.html

Meanwhile, the national U.S. homicide rate for the same year was 8.8 per 100,000.

http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/usa.htm

In other words, for the year 1930 Chicago's murder rate was at least 37% greater than the national average.

Now New York City has a greater Black pop than London, by your logic it should have more crime. Yet it's the safest since the 1950s.

Also Chicago isn't even the most violent city, not even in top 50 and is decreasing.

So again, why are you blaming Blacks?


Pretty much. There are about as many poor Whites as poor Blacks. A higher percentage of Blacks attend college after high school than Whites. Do you think vestigages of slavery are the reasons for the high Black crime rate in London?
#14903718
One Degree wrote:Do you understand what a disservice this is to all the families who raise ‘good People’ despite the handicaps?


Do he not understand what disservice to all the loyal Black Britons that contribute and died for our white country by saying that?

One Degree wrote:People who commit crimes make a choice. They have free will. The crime is all on them, not society.


And apparently he wants lump all Blacks who never committed crimes into this. So I will do the same to us. We put them in the rung. Like we did the Irish and they committed crimes, like the Irish before them. Stop disfranchising both and the crime rate will go down, it's that simple. :|

One Degree wrote:We should address societies inequalities, not use them to justify criminal behavior.



He is using the race card to justified more criminal activities against them(via Hate crimes, police brutally etc). I agree with you, but you're sending this to the wrong person.

Suntzu wrote:
Pretty much. There are about as many poor Whites as poor Blacks. A higher percentage of Blacks attend college after high school than Whites. Do you think vestigages of slavery are the reasons for the high Black crime rate in London?


Well I don't know much about British society and race relations to give an answer. Could be job discrimination, where Blacks are just as qualified than any white still not get picked. I remember reading some report/journal reason Blacks joined gangs is due to monetary reasons. There was an interview with one gang leader(I can't remember what the title was, it was years ago) who was very intelligence had degrees and everything. He joined a gang cause white society denied him his dream career. Since trump was elected due to whites losing their jobs, I can image how bad the job rates are for Blacks?
#14903768
This thread reminds me, many years ago a freind visited London. About the people, she raved particullary about the black there, "they are cute", or "they are black of the cute kind" can't remember. Meaning the Carbeans descent Londoners are not the Black of the American ghettos. The question is what happened in between, how the good natured British blacks become "not so cute". One answer is the municipal policy, the incompetent mayor which failed them, the other can be demographic changes with many new arrivals from war torn countries like Somalia.
#14903775
noir wrote:This thread reminds me, many years ago a freind visited London. About the people, she raved particullary about the black there, "they are cute", or "they are black of the cute kind" can't remember. Meaning the Carbeans descent Londoners are not the Black of the American ghettos. The question is what happened in between, how the good natured British blacks become "not so cute". One answer is the municipal policy, the incompetent mayor which failed them, the other can be demographic changes with many new arrivals from war torn countries like Somalia.

Hmmm, maybe a world wide effort to convince them they are so discriminated against that there is no hope of improving through their own efforts. I can’t imagine a Black in London being immune to this even though it is directed at the US. If I am convinced all around me secretly hate me, I might act out violently.
#14903784
noir wrote:This thread reminds me, many years ago a freind visited London. About the people, she raved particullary about the black there, "they are cute", or "they are black of the cute kind" can't remember. Meaning the Carbeans descent Londoners are not the Black of the American ghettos. The question is what happened in between, how the good natured British blacks become "not so cute". One answer is the municipal policy, the incompetent mayor which failed them, the other can be demographic changes with many new arrivals from war torn countries like Somalia.


It certainly can't be their fault!

:lol: :lol: :lol:
#14903814
One Degree wrote:Hmmm, maybe a world wide effort to convince them they are so discriminated against that there is no hope of improving through their own efforts. I can’t imagine a Black in London being immune to this even though it is directed at the US. If I am convinced all around me secretly hate me, I might act out violently.



There is good chapter from The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam by Douglas Murray.

"In 2016 I watched a BLM protest of several thousand people marching through the centre of London giving black-power salutes and chanting, among other BLM themes, ‘Hands up, don’t shoot’. All the while they were escorted along the route of their march by British police officers, who of course do not carry guns. Whatever was comedic about this evaporated weeks later when on one of the hottest nights of the year a large crowd chanting BLM slogans met in Hyde Park. By the end of the evening one police officer had been stabbed and four other officers injured. Elsewhere the protest spilled over into one of London’s busiest streets where a man was set upon by three men armed with a machete. It was the most serious violence in the capital for years."

Spoiler: show
Domestically, the situation has the potential to become infinitely worse. Just one consequence of having ‘diversity’ and ‘difference’ rather than ‘colour blindness’ and proper integration as a goal is that Europe in the twenty-first century is obsessed with race. Rather than diminishing, the subject grows larger by the day. It is the same story in politics, sport and even television, where not a single reality-TV programme seems immune from the endless obsession with race. If a non-white, non-European does well he or she is hailed as an example to everyone and a model of successful integration. If that person is voted out there is yet another national debate about racism and whether the individual was voted out because of their ethnicity. On a more serious level, nobody has any idea long term where any of this will go.

For instance, in Britain it might have been thought that since the 1980s at least, racial divisions have significantly diminished. Yet thanks to the internationalising of societies, nobody can predict the consequences of events happening anywhere in the world and their effect on domestic politics. For example, the Black Lives Matter movement that started in the United States in 2012, as a result of a number of killings by police of unarmed black men, eventually spread to Britain and other European countries. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the BLM movement in America, almost none of the circumstances for such a movement exist in Britain. In 2016 I watched a BLM protest of several thousand people marching through the centre of London giving black-power salutes and chanting, among other BLM themes, ‘Hands up, don’t shoot’. All the while they were escorted along the route of their march by British police officers, who of course do not carry guns. Whatever was comedic about this evaporated weeks later when on one of the hottest nights of the year a large crowd chanting BLM slogans met in Hyde Park. By the end of the evening one police officer had been stabbed and four other officers injured. Elsewhere the protest spilled over into one of London’s busiest streets where a man was set upon by three men armed with a machete. It was the most serious violence in the capital for years.

The virulence with which such basic demands were debated was a reminder that absolutely none of this had been planned for in the post-war years. It was just the latest part of a ‘make it up as we go along’ process. And it meant that even the terms being used were constantly changing. As the historian and critic of multiculturalism, Rumy Hasan, said in a book published at this time, the distinct phases of Britain’s post-war immigration was one demonstration of this fact. During the first phase (from the 1940s to the 1970s) non-white settlers from the Commonwealth were known as ‘coloured immigrants’ and recognised as different from the rest of society. Then during the 1970s and 1980s, partly in an effort to tackle discrimination, these people became ‘Black British’ and began to be viewed as normal and equal citizens. Soon afterwards the country became characterised as a ‘multicultural’ society in the sense that it contained people from different cultures. As Hasan says, a ‘multiracial’ or ‘multi-ethnic’ society would have been a better description, but the discrediting of the idea of ‘race’ by that time meant that ‘multiculturalism’ seemed to be the best term on offer. However, if its intentions were to unite people under one national umbrella, the new definition ended up having the opposite effect. Indeed, rather than leading to a unified identity it led to a fracturing of identities, where instead of making society colour- or identity-blind, it suddenly made identity into everything.
A version of ‘pork barrel’ politics entered society. Organisations and interest groups were thrown up that claimed to represent and speak for all manner of identity groups. The ambitious, generally self-appointed figures who claimed these roles became the middlemen between the authorities and a particular community. They were not the only ones to benefit from this approach. Local and national politicians were also able to gain from a process that made their lives so much easier, giving as it did the impression that it was possible to pick up a phone and get a particular community. Of course, to be on the side of a particular community created the potential for getting that allegedly monolithic community’s votes, and in some cases the communities delivered.
Inevitably, local councils and others funnelled money to particular ethnic and religious groups. And although some of this was done to win votes, some of it was also done for nobler reasons, not least a genuine desire to tackle any existing discrimination. Yet even ‘anti-racist’ groups tended to be political beyond the realms they had at first set out to address. Those groups that aspired to tackle actual discrimination in time sought increasing influence, access and funding. And they were aware that they could only get this if the problem was not solved. In time this had the effect of making discrimination appear worse – and needing to be fought harder – at the very points at which things were getting better. Complaints against society presented an opportunity to grow. Satisfaction became a dying business.
At the same time the only culture that couldn’t be celebrated was the culture that had allowed all these other cultures to be celebrated in the first place. In order to become multicultural, countries found that they had to do themselves down, particularly focusing on their negatives. Thus the states that had been so open and liberal that they had allowed and encouraged large-scale migration were portrayed as countries which were uniquely racist. And while any and all other cultures in the world could be celebrated within Europe, to celebrate even the good things about Europe within Europe became suspect. The multicultural era was one of European self-abnegation where the host society appeared to stand back from itself and hoped that it would not be noticed other than as some form of benign convener. It was for this reason, among others, that the celebrated American political philosopher, Samuel Huntington, wrote in his last book, ‘Multiculturalism is in its essence anti-European civilisation. It is basically an anti-Western ideology’.8
In every European country the period in which nothing could be said about this broke down at different speeds over a similar period. In the United Kingdom the work of ‘Race Relations’ quangos helped hold a lid on it until the summer of 2001. At that point, partly as a result of riots in the north of England involving young Muslim men, and partly because of events in New York and Washington, the existence of parallel communities began to be discussed more widely and the concept of ‘multiculturalism’ began to come in for criticism. In Holland the dams broke a little earlier. In France they stayed tight until the banlieue riots of 2005. Germany and Sweden took a while longer. But in the 2000s dissidents from the multicultural consensus began to break out everywhere.
Some of those who broke that consensus were politicians of the left. Their apostasy had a particular impact, because while politicians and commentators of the right were almost expected to have a problem with multiculturalism and could always be suspected of harbouring nativist tendencies, those from the left were generally seen to have less easily assailable motives and could even be believed. Nevertheless, the breakages that were most liberating (not least because they gave cover for other people to speak) came from European citizens from ethnic backgrounds. In Britain the slow apostasy from the race-relations industry of one of its former leaders, Trevor Phillips, opened up territory that others had not dared to walk in. His realisation that the race-relations industry was part of the problem, and that partly as a result of talking up difference the country was ‘sleepwalking to segregation’, was an insight others soon began to share across the continent. Among other dissidents from multiculturalism to emerge during the same decade, some entered politics whereas others remained outside as opinion formers. But the emergence during the 2000s of, among others, Ahmed Aboutaleb and Ayaan Hirsi Ali in Holland, Nyamko Sabuni in Sweden, Naser Khader in Denmark and Magdi Allam in Italy, had a palpably liberating effect. All spoke from within their communities to countries that needed people of such backgrounds to break the ice. They managed to do so with varying degrees of success.
In every country the early criticisms alighted around the same issues. The most extreme and unacceptable practices of some communities became the first way in to split open the prevailing orthodoxies. In each country the issues of ‘honour’ killings and female genital mutilation received massive attention. This was partly because many people were genuinely shocked that such things were going on and had feared saying so if they had known about it before. Partly it was due to the fact that these issues were the ‘softest’ or easiest concerns to express about the multicultural era. If not entirely unopposed, these issues were at least capable of uniting opinion from the widest possible political spectrum: from a left-wing feminist to a right-wing nationalist. Almost everybody could agree that murdering young women was wrong. And most people could unite in expressing their horror at the thought of a young girl’s genitals being mutilated in twenty-first-century Europe.
Over the course of the 2000s the criticisms of such extreme examples of multiculturalism in European society grew. Everywhere the questions Europeans were pondering coalesced around the limits of tolerance. Should liberal societies tolerate the intolerant? Or was there a moment when even the most tolerant society should say ‘enough’? Had our societies been too liberal and in the process allowed illiberalism or anti-liberalism to thrive? Around this time, as Rumy Hasan pointed out, the era of multiculturalism quietly transformed into the era of ‘multifaithism’. Ethnic identity, which had previously been the focus of the multiculturalism debate, began to recede and faith identity, which to many people seemed to have come from nowhere, instead became the crucial issue. What had been a question of blacks, Caribbeans or North Africans now became a question of Muslims and Islam.
As with each of the previous periods of post-war change, the process of seeing through this period did not occur overnight. It had taken European governments decades to recognise that the Gastarbeiter era had not gone as planned. In the same way it took time for European governments to realise that if migrants were staying in their adopted country then they needed laws to protect them from discrimination. The period of multiculturalism also took a couple of decades to burn itself out. But like those previous episodes, even as its death was recognised and in this case announced, it was unclear what all this meant and what might replace it.

https://soundcloud.com/moderaterebels/hong-kong-pr[…]

The rise of Trump has empowered right-wing populi[…]

EU-BREXIT

It's the only deal you can have if you want to ha[…]

^ :lol: These neonazis come to protests with ha[…]