Sometimes that is better, allowing for the facts. You quoted in an earlier link:Better not say anything.
I am puzzled about how you might think you know what I am aware of and what I am not.Sometimes that is better, allowing for the facts. You quoted in an earlier link:
"Despite making up only 13 per cent of London’s total population, black Londoners account for 45 per cent of London’s knife murder victims, 61 per cent of knife murder perpetrators and 53 per cent of knife crime perpetrators."
But didn't highlight that the 13% is three times the ratio of the rest of the country, or comment on cultural behaviours. The "open door" that gave us most of that 13% was chiefly to the West Indies and Jamaica in particular, so let's look at that.
Last year London's 10 millions had 116 homicides. Jamaica's 2.8 millions had 1393 homicides.
Whilst obviously not approval, that now brings understanding and appreciation of our London position. There clearly is a big problem in both locations, but it is being worked on in both, and perhaps we should at least be pleased that we are so much better than the Jamiacan source situation However, it is intractable in many ways, closely linked to crime in general and illicit drugs in particular.
Complaining about the murders doesn't help when it's the linked subjects that are almost entirely their source. The solution is in dealing with those, but success with that is elusive to say the least. Personally I believe we should decriminalise currently illicit drug use, remembering how successful that was with heroin use in the early 1960s, something I doubt you are aware of.
.
Wrong. That is one example of why I did know what you are aware of and what you are not. Back in the 1950s we had a very minor drugs problem with a very small number of heroin addicts. We dealt with it very successfully by supplying their need with heroin.bpc on prescription at ngligible cost. There was no growth in the number of addicts, it remaining at some 400 nationally dealt with successfully since there was no mechanism for growth, no market for criminality. Until one idiot MP kicked up a fuss about the provision, leading to the heroin.bpc being replaced by the wholly unsatisfactory methodone. This opened the door wide to criminal supplies which lead to a huge expansion of heroin addiction as dealers encouraged recruiting with promises of free supplies.The war on drugs has never had any success at all.
Of course I don't think that and it is very offensive of you to even suggest as much. I repeat and expand, Which is the greater evil, addiction controlled or uncontrolled?but anyone who thinks legalising drugs would get rid of criminal gangs needs to wake up.
It doesn't immediately solve the problem but it does contain and control it, giving breathing space to reduce it.Your solution to the issue will not solve the problem, though I don't object to it in principle.
As are others which are permitted, such as alcohol and tobacco and even some foodstuffs. And with full hindsight, would we have allowed the totally uncontrolled and unfettered expansion of personal motor vehicle usage from the 1920s? To the point where it has eventually become a virtual universal right of passage at incalculable multiple costs to individuals and societies worldwide, and indeed the health of our only planet?That said, most of the substances which are at present prohibited are very damaging to individuals and to society.
Which brings us back to, which is the greater evil in each case? We certainly allow them to harm themselved in many and various ways alreadyShould people be allowed to harm themselves and their families by using narcotics?
I don't take any position right now on that and am open to argument.
It was allowed by trial originally since those who wanted it had become such a large proportion of the population of that area and it was, and still is, recognised as largely successful .I made the original remark about the Nottinghill Carnival asking why it is still allowed, given the regular terrible outcomes. I also wonder if other groups would be allowed to continue to operate something of the sort if their 'festivity' brought along with it, such a level of criminality. I suspect not. I intensely dislike and loath the EDL, but lets take them as an example. Would they be allowed to parade about the streets doing their thing if people were regularly stabbed and murdered? I doubt it and neither should they be if such outcomes could be predicted.
There seems to be some misunderstanding here - maybe you were distracted.Wrong. That is one example of why I did know what you are aware of and what you are not. Back in the 1950s we had a very minor drugs problem with a very small number of heroin addicts. We dealt with it very successfully by supplying their need with heroin.bpc on prescription at ngligible cost. There was no growth in the number of addicts, it remaining at some 400 nationally dealt with successfully since there was no mechanism for growth, no market for criminality. Until one idiot MP kicked up a fuss about the provision, leading to the heroin.bpc being replaced by the wholly unsatisfactory methodone. This opened the door wide to criminal supplies which lead to a huge expansion of heroin addiction as dealers encouraged recruiting with promises of free supplies.
I dislike the idea of making illicit drugs freely available as much as anyone, but it is proven to work by excluding criminals. The only question is, which is the greater evil.
And this is why I made the remark concerning the persistence of the problems of criminal gangs."Personally I believe we should decriminalise currently illicit drug use, remembering how successful that was with heroin use in the early 1960s, something I doubt you are aware of.
and we only came onto drugs because you referred to gang activity, this is why I referred to the fact that making "
This I find bizarre - Who do you think I am - Caleb on Clarkeson's Farm?"Yours is largely a village outlook, shock and horror out of proportion to events. Ours is a large international city outlook, that what happens is part of that and that nobody suffers unnecessarily."
Like I said above ' Nothing to see here' ....... 'Better not to say anything'.Those like me who don't go to it are not at any risk at all, so the over 99.9% of unaffected carnival goers and all the rest of us all end up satisfied.
.
Since 1987 there have been eight deaths related to violence at carnival: Michael Augustine Galvin (23) on 30 August 1987,[101] Nicholas John Hanscomb (38) on 26 August 1991,[102] Greg Fitzgerald Watson (21) on 28 August 2000,[103] Abdul Munam Bhatti (28) on 28 August 2000,[104][105] Lee Christopher Surbaran (27) on 30 August 2004,[106], Takayo Nembhard (also known as rapper TKorStretch, 21) on 29 August 2022 and two deaths during NHC 2024 - a 32 year old female who was stabbed and a 41 year old male who was assaulted.[107][108]
During the 2024 Festival, 334 people were arrested and 8 people were stabbed, with 3 left with life threatening conditions.[109] Two people died following two separate attacks during the carnival. [110]
It's you who is misunderstanding and then trying to cover it with irrelevancies. I've made no mention of a war on drugs, only legalisation.The 'war on drugs' means the outlawing of dug possession and the prevention of any legal means of obtaining relief for addicts, and the prosecution of people for possession and supply.
Gross exaggeration of the effects of the carnival, as I wrote 99.9% of those attending enjoyed the event without anything upsetting them.It is not 'having a village outlook; to think it obnoxious that the capital allows an annual carnival soiled by murders, stabbings and crime with hundreds of arrests.
Exactly, eight deaths in 37 years during attendance by up to 74 million people at the very crowded and inherently risky event that all such events are worldwide. That is under 1 death per 10 millions, the same as the annual rate as the rest of England and Wales and slightly less than London's annual homicide rateInsane - I am agog.I never met a person before who thought they had direct access to the inner workings of other people's minds.
Since 1987 there have been eight deaths related to violence at carnival:
- Michael Augustine Galvin (23) on 30 August 1987
- Nicholas John Hanscomb (38) on 26 August 1991,
- Greg Fitzgerald Watson (21) on 28 August 2000,
- Abdul Munam Bhatti (28) on 28 August 2000,
- Lee Christopher Surbaran (27) on 30 August 2004,
- Takayo Nembhard on 29 August 2022,
- Cher Maximen, 32, and Mussie Imnetu, 41, August 2024.
Yeah - you're right. It's only eight deaths. Nothing at all.Exactly, eight deaths in 37 years during attendance by up to 74 million people at the very crowded and inherently risky event that all such events are worldwide. That is under 1 death per 10 millions, the same as the annual rate as the rest of England and Wales and slightly less than London's annual homicide rate
That at such a very crowded event is easily matched many times over elsewhere, showing it to be almost an expectation rather than exceptional. That expectation is why we police it so heavily. That in turn means many more arrests and many more crimes reported, simply because so many police are present as an Oxford study showed.
.
An increase in bus use! That's a massive understatement. Our bus fleet has doubled from 4500 to 9000 now and they are all much cleaner, gradually changing to pure electric. We also now have by far the lowest incidence of car ownership in the UK as people find they don't need cars any more by just using buses and bicycles."In London a franchising system was introduced, with Transport for London deciding routes, timetables and fares and operators bidding to run services for a fixed fee.
This has contributed to the capital seeing an increase in bus use, with services less hit by cuts, in contrast to other parts of the country."
Your favourite twerp Geoff obviously doesn't think: