UK has higher violent crime rate than USA?

[Kbaker]

^ An unintended consequence of an economic ghetto. If you run the numbers on what those men can make doing legit jobs full time and then having to take care of themselves and a family, you will see that it is impossible. You make about $10-20K a year doing the jobs normally available to them. Conversely, for selling a bag of crack, you can get a whole week's wages in 45 minutes.

See the response immediately below yours regarding poverty and crime rates in W. VA.

So, what you're saying is, the "inner city culture" is one of drug-dealing?

I'd concur with that. Is it an unintended consequence of "an economic ghetto"? There we'd disagree. The "economic ghetto" and its drug-culture are an unintended consequence of The Great Society™ in combination with the War on Drugs™. The violence isn't due to the economic ghetto - they come as a team. I invite you to read this: "It's most important that all potential victims be as dangerous as they can."

 

[mortablunt]

^ You're blaming LBJ's Great Society? You do realize that it brought our poverty levels to the lowest they have ever been at. The crime rates didn't begin to skyrocket until inflation, cost of living increases, and a n increase in the Gini Coefficient occured beginning in the 70's.

I understand how the War on Drugs would cause this, because it would drive the one profitable trade underground and introduce it to a desperate, armed, and callous sect of criminals.

 

[fiddleharp]

Not to worry!
Once Sharia Law takes hold in the UK, your street thugs will be properly dealt with.
Diversity is our strength!

 

[Kbaker]

^ You're blaming LBJ's Great Society? You do realize that it brought our poverty levels to the lowest they have ever been at. The crime rates didn't begin to skyrocket until inflation, cost of living increases, and a n increase in the Gini Coefficient occured beginning in the 70's.

Yes, I am. It also destroyed black families by encouraging single-motherhood. Check the statistics on single-parent households before and after implementation of The Great Society. Young men are violent. It's genetics, and has nothing to do with race. As the man said (in the link), "Very nearly all the violence that plagues, rather than protects, society is the work of young males between the ages of fourteen and thirty. A substantial amount of the violence that protects rather than plagues society is performed by other members of the same group. The reasons for this predisposition are generally rooted in biology, which is to say that they are not going anywhere, in spite of the current fashion that suggests doping half the young with Ritalin.

"The question is how to move these young men from the first group (violent and predatory) into the second (violent, but protective). This is to ask: what is the difference between a street gang and the Marine Corps, or a thug and a policeman? In every case, we see that the good youths are guided and disciplined by old men. This is half the answer to the problem."

We're seeing similar results in the UK now - where young men who have had no guidance by older men tend to go "Lord of the Flies." So yes, I blame LBJ's Great Society. It's another example of something with great intentions that has had ruinous unintended consequences.

I understand how the War on Drugs would cause this, because it would drive the one profitable trade underground and introduce it to a desperate, armed, and callous sect of criminals.

And that was another of the unintended consequences. Prohibition did precisely the same thing. We never seem to learn.

 

[Cosmoline]

I have no trouble believing this based on reports from people who live there. Casual violent crime from assault to mugging is very common. Even police are victims sometimes. Much of it is alcohol related, and it's something of a pass-time for the lads to get blotto and pick fights. Shiv attacks are also not that unusual. Shootings are rare, and fatalities are low. But violence and knocking of heads is much more common than it is here. I've heard accounts of people being set upon by groups of young men in broad daylight. That doesn't happen very often here, even with drunks. They get shot down if they do that.

If you have a minute or two have a read of those links, particularly the Rivers Of Blood speech, I think it gives you a bloody good insight into the situation over here.

Are you saying drunken white lads don't go around knocking heads for fun of a Saturday night? Because that's not what I've heard. I think it's a huge mistake to blame racial issues when the problem is an elite cabal of worthless Oxbridge leaders who have turned the whole nation into inebriated welfare cases. I've seen plenty of photos of WHITE looters, and apparently some of the few actually arrested come from middle income families. In a true race riot, like the US has had in LA and elsewhere, ANYONE who is not the color of the rioters is at the least run out, and more likely beaten to death or shot. Latino, Asian, white, etc. A race riot does not have mixed skin colors. There's one color on the ground and another on the rooftops with mini-14s, a different color keeping its own territory guarded and yet another fleeing for its life to the burbs. What I've seen from the UK does not look like a race riot.

And I can't say I have a lot of sympathy. The photos of white guys being forced to strip for black gangs are disturbing, but I have to wonder how low you'd have to sink to be willing to submit to that sort of thing. Has the nation become one huge prison? After a point, if you aren't willing to fight and kill your assailants then you're accepting your own status as a victim.

Maybe if a few dozen of the lads--of all colors--were burned down by their would-be victims this sort of nonsense would stop. Nobody orders me to drop trouser, even in Spenard ;-) Some folk over there, young men mostly, need killing very badly. But I don't think that nation has the stomach for it anymore.

 

[throdgrain]

Are you saying drunken white lads don't go around knocking heads for fun of a Saturday night? Because that's not what I've heard. I think it's a huge mistake to blame racial issues when the problem is an elite cabal of worthless Oxbridge leaders who have turned the whole nation into inebriated welfare cases. I've seen plenty of photos of WHITE looters, and apparently some of the few actually arrested come from middle income families.

Yes they do, and yes they were white people rioting too. Read David Starkeys comments in my other link - I beleive they provide a dencent theory into this.

 

[Cosmoline]

I've read the Starkey comments about whites "becoming blacks," but find it to be profoundly absurd. It's a way of trying to simplify a nationwide collapse by arguing that it's the fault of a minority culture that has never held power or passed laws. You cannot become black.

It would make a lot more sense to blame the Oxbridge elites who actually hold power and have done for a dozen generations. Maybe it's time to get rid of them? Just a thought. They were the ones who disarmed the law abiding, after all. And left you to the tender mercies of looters and lads.

 

[mortablunt]

Here's a release from David Cameron. He's their current Prime Minister, which is like a more powerful version of the President.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...human-rights-laws-backs-national-service.html

He's blowing a lot of smoke. What he should be saying is: "We in the House of Commons and the Police officers are a bunch of morally bankrupt wankers and ought to be tried criminally. Also, we have messed up our own country severely through birdbrained policies."

 

[throdgrain]

A more powerful version of your President? Really?

Oh well. Cosmoline, I take on board what you say, but every country has it's political elite, your country does too it's exactly the same, only you get George Bush or whoever getting told what to say by his advisors.

(Then getting it wrong )

/edit

Sorry , I got to come back to this

You think a prime minister is more powerful than a President Where do you get that from?

 

[Odd Job]

From the article:

In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.

There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain's 921 in 2007.

I can tell you right now that the article is very misleading (with the exception of the quote above) and should be taken with a pinch of salt. There is absolutley no comparison between South Africa and the UK, to even try to compare them is ridiculous.

I should know, I spent most of my life in South Africa and I now live in London.
In terms of violent crimes of substance, South Africa is way higher than the UK.
I would rank it SA->USA->UK at a guess.

However...that is the current situation. As I recently said in an email to an MP after the riots here in London, the UK has a big problem. It is a nanny state where there is stigma attached to people defending themselves.
Nonetheless I think people are slowly waking up to the fact that there won't always be a policeman to come running when they call.
In a way I am glad these riots happened, you will see an entirely different response from shopkeepers and home owners next time this happens.

 

[throdgrain]

However...that is the current situation. As I recently said in an email to an MP after the riots here in London, the UK has a big problem. It is a nanny state where there is stigma attached to people defending themselves.
Nonetheless I think people are slowly waking up to the fact that there won't always be a policeman to come running when they call.
In a way I am glad these riots happened, you will see an entirely different response from shopkeepers and home owners next time this happens.

Agree with you 100% mate. I dont know how far the change will go though, and probably not far enough.

 

[Harley Quinn]

This link mentions recruiting from outside source to help

http://gothamist.com/2011/08/14/bill_bratton_hired_as_unpaid_consul.php

Cameron originally wanted to hire Bratton to lead Scotland Yard, which also handles security for the entire country, but that was dismissed by the British Home Secretary, who stated that a British Citizen should lead the agency. "If it had been open, I certainly would have looked with great interest at possibly applying," Bratton told ABC News.

This is a view shared on this thread, it seems...

However, many have pointed to an extremely stagnant job market for Britain's youth as well as a widespread disillusionment with the government, and the squeezing of the middle and lower classes as more pertinent causes for the riots than merely "gang violence." One columnist and political activist has even said, "I don’t call it rioting. I call it an insurrection of the masses of the people."

Regards

 

[Bernie Lomax]

I'd concur with that. Is it an unintended consequence of "an economic ghetto"? There we'd disagree. The "economic ghetto" and its drug-culture are an unintended consequence of The Great Society™

There are plenty of people in WV sucking up LBJs free gubmint cheese--in fact the very first food stamp recipients in this country were a West Virginia couple--so that's not it either.

Maybe this will help explain things:

http://tinyurl.com/3zv59ha

 

[Harley Quinn]

http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_18694513

This is a biggie when handling these outbreaks

However, the tech savvy social networking "flash mobs" recently seen in London, Hollywood and Chicago have created a new threat to public safety. These individuals have manipulated technology for use in unprecedented criminal activity. Our political and law enforcement leaders need to look deeper into the economic, social and political motivation of these protesters; otherwise, it is likely other cities are going to become victims.

It is well known that both the LAPD and Metropolitan Police Department in London are constantly re-evaluating their training needs and dedicated technological resources. The interactive social technology has created new challenges to all free societies. The violent outbreaks are not limited to "gangs" but citizens who would otherwise voluntarily act in compliance with the law. The most recent attacks in London by urban terrorists created enormous challenges to public safety. Society needs to closely monitor such incidents and take immediate action to evaluate potential training and resource needs for combating the problem.

 

[Neverwinter]

Not to worry!
Once Sharia Law takes hold in the UK, your street thugs will be properly dealt with.
Diversity is our strength!

You're waiting for a bus that doesn't exist.
From Islamic sharia to Jewish beth din to corporate arbitration, those types of remedies are wholly incapable of dispensing open and fair justice for criminal behavior.

There are plenty of people in WV sucking up LBJs free gubmint cheese--in fact the very first food stamp recipients in this country were a West Virginia couple--so that's not it either.

I would imagine that large factor may be the buy-in that people have to society. If you've invested in something, your willingness to endanger that investment steeply drops. For some people, that's the belief that they are simply temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

 

[Alex23]

I lived there for a while. You are far more likely to be robbed on the street or burglarised when at home in the UK for reasons that should be very obvious. I'm thinking of Dallas compared with London.

It is a combination of a society that no longer believes in law and order and a judicial system that fails to protect the innocent as a matter of course.

You know who the scariest people are in London? Not the gangsters - they are business men and kill each other in their pursuit of cash. It is the kids. They have no fear at all - they are quite willing to rape / stab / shoot people secure in the knowledge that if caught they will serve token jail sentences that will only add to their 'rep'.

I used to walk around my neighborhood at night and see these big yellow signs everywhere. A typical once would say "ABDUCTION - 12:00 PM. Two men in a german saloon abducted a woman at gunpoint here on Tuesday 21 September. Can you help? Call 0800-xxxxxxx. Ahem - an 'abduction' at 12 noon?

And that is a good neighborhood btw.

 

[Mr.Davis]

The typical counter-arguments to the UK's higher violent crime rates are:

1) Reporting is different in the two countries (there are some differences, but not enough to seriously skew the findings)
2) The UK's murder rate is much lower than the US rate (true, but at least partially missing the point by ignoring other serious violent crime like home invasions and sex assaults)
3) The UK's gun crime rate is much lower than the US rate (again, true, but again missing the point. Being raped at knifepoint or by threat of severe beating is just as bad as being raped at gunpoint)

The UK is in many ways the big-nanny-government ideal played out in reality. Busybody rules have cameras on most street corners, knives and guns are heavily regulated, and there's a huge underclass of poorly educated unemployed people whose culture places no value on self-sufficiency.

The right to self-defense is virtually non-existent in Great Britain. Even those who legally own guns are prohibited from using them in self defense. Shoot a rapist with a legally-owned hunting shotgun and you'll go to prison along with the assailant. Keep a cricket bat under your bed with the intent of using it to fight off a stalker and be prepared to face charges.

It's a nightmare for those who champion such policies in the US, so expect strong push back when pointing out the UK's flaws.

 

[Spartan Gladiator]

I have read this thread a few times over and while I was sickened by some of the ball less stances and excuses, I was still glad to read by most that not all is lost, the bottom line for me is having the ability to protect me and mine from harm’s way is of the upmost importance. This can NOT be left up to the government or its policies. Man is still an animal and always will be so if and when the SHTF, I for one wouldn’t want to live anywhere where self defense is viewed as a crime and I have to resort to buying a bat from Amazon to protect me or mine. Not to surprised at the stats though.

 

[mortablunt]

I know I am probably going to receive a lot of derision for this post, but I enjoy watching the UK version of Law and Order. I find that it brings a lot about their society, crime, and legal system into a perspective that is easier to understand. For example, in many episodes, witnesses are terrified for their lives to give testimony against people. A very common complaint is that they will receive retribution and that the police cannot possibly protect them. On a similar note, I see that witness protection, or armed guarding is never brought up; see the episode "Help" for what I'm talking about. Lastly, the people do not contemplate defending themselves. The only options they are seeing is that they remain silent and endure, or speak up and get killed. They do not think of doing things like going on vacation, getting defensive weaponry, moving, or entering witness protection (if they have it).

In the side of the law people, there is an emphasis on putting people away, but no real talk about deterring or halting the criminality. It is as if they have come up with a defeatist attitude about criminals.

Just some observations from television produced there.

 

[Sam Cade]

Just some observations from television produced there.

Hmmm.... based on my observations of British television the proper response to assault was... well...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w

 

[throdgrain]

I know I am probably going to receive a lot of derision for this post, but I enjoy watching the UK version of Law and Order. I find that it brings a lot about their society, crime, and legal system into a perspective that is easier to understand. For example, in many episodes, witnesses are terrified for their lives to give testimony against people. A very common complaint is that they will receive retribution and that the police cannot possibly protect them. On a similar note, I see that witness protection, or armed guarding is never brought up; see the episode "Help" for what I'm talking about. Lastly, the people do not contemplate defending themselves. The only options they are seeing is that they remain silent and endure, or speak up and get killed. They do not think of doing things like going on vacation, getting defensive weaponry, moving, or entering witness protection (if they have it).

In the side of the law people, there is an emphasis on putting people away, but no real talk about deterring or halting the criminality. It is as if they have come up with a defeatist attitude about criminals.

Just some observations from television produced there.

No derision from me mate, I think you have a valid point! In fairness those estates depicted in that show really arn't the norm, whatever you might be told, however they do exist, and people really sometimes are in that situation. As Alex23 has said, its the kids that cause the problems more than anyone else. They have been brought up with the "you cant touch me it's assault" theory of life, and they use it agressively in all dealings with authority. To hell with being a teacher in one of those schools

Kids in these gangs murder each other regularly, this is the majority of murders in our country. They do it with a knife, or a handgun (of course, they are illegal so goodness knows where they got it ) and then they cycle to freedom on a BMX bike. It is bizzare, and completely the consequence of the European Human Rights act.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

2) The UK's murder rate is much lower than the US rate....
3) The UK's gun crime rate is much lower than the US rate....

And what is overlooked is that the UK's murder rate and gun crime rate were much lower before the 1920, 1968, 1996 firearms laws. After 80-90 years of increasing gun control, the murder rate and gun crime rate are worse in UK than they were in UK back when there was less gun control. More gun control, more crime. British gun laws before the 1920 Firearms Act were laxer than most US state gun laws today, and UK had less crime then, and less use of guns in crime, than UK today with piled-on layers gun control.

UK's murder rate and gun crime rate may still be lower than the US rates, but it is in spite of gun control, not because of it. Violent crime against the person overall is higher in UK than in the US according to claims by the UN (hardly a tool of the NRA). And US murder and violent crime are trending down despite or because of relaxing restrictions on guns and promotion of self defense as a right.

 

[mortablunt]

You guys might want to look at this

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

It has some historical crime trends information on Britain. Carl N. Brown is right about the rates shooting up (horrible pun- crucify me) after each gun control law.

 

[PreMod70]

I agree 100%, the present problem is violent behavior just as it has always been and today the Ms. Annies are raising numbers of the worst criminals this nation has ever seen. The Nazi's or their behavior can change this problem overnight but yet we struggle with statistics and racial pandering; at some point the Nazi's will win control if our country survives long enough to see it evolve and that is a shame.

 

[wacki]

Will post a link later tonight but the British Home Office (englands FBI ) released stats showing gun shot wound numbers increasing 400% the first 10 years after they banned guns. It makes a mockery of the antigun argument.