News0 min ago
Gun Crime In The Metropolis
https:/
Four shootings ,two fatal,since Friday in London. Looks like gun crime is playing catch up with knife crime. Not confined to one area. Anywhere and everywhere.
Four shootings ,two fatal,since Friday in London. Looks like gun crime is playing catch up with knife crime. Not confined to one area. Anywhere and everywhere.
Answers
pp --I recall in the 50s being able to go out and leave the door unlocked. No graffiti adorning the town. No vandalism. Respect for older people, policemen, teachers . Petty thefts usually carried out by people known to the police. No dropping litter on the pavements. No smoking on the lower decks of buses. No being drunk in the streets or you would be taken off to...
10:38 Mon 08th Jul 2019
It’s been a trend for a while. I can’t find recent any London gun crime stats.
Gun crime in London increases by 42% http://
Gun crime in London increases by 42% http://
Dont know if this particular one is but most are gang related, drugs etc.
Until proper sentencing is reintroduced than it willcontinue to get worse. At the minute the message appears (even if not fact) that you can get away with it.
A few very stiff sentences, with full term served, would send the message to some that crime does not pay. For those that continue, then they should get incarcerated, for whole life, if murderers.
Until proper sentencing is reintroduced than it willcontinue to get worse. At the minute the message appears (even if not fact) that you can get away with it.
A few very stiff sentences, with full term served, would send the message to some that crime does not pay. For those that continue, then they should get incarcerated, for whole life, if murderers.
As per usual, the thrust of the reactionary reactions are simply wrong.
Yes, sentencing is a problem, yes, availability of guns is a big problem, but the essential problem is the catastrophic lack of POLICE!
It started when you voted in Thatcher, with her absurd housewifery budget cuts - remember rate-capping? - and continued with her acolyte Blair, then Cameron, and so on.
Who voted for these clowns? Not me! You did, and now you complain about the inevitable result - police levels so low that even the most conservative police chiefs are talking about anarchy.
Jumping on the 'immigrants are to blame' bandwagon is stupid, and wrong.
B
Yes, sentencing is a problem, yes, availability of guns is a big problem, but the essential problem is the catastrophic lack of POLICE!
It started when you voted in Thatcher, with her absurd housewifery budget cuts - remember rate-capping? - and continued with her acolyte Blair, then Cameron, and so on.
Who voted for these clowns? Not me! You did, and now you complain about the inevitable result - police levels so low that even the most conservative police chiefs are talking about anarchy.
Jumping on the 'immigrants are to blame' bandwagon is stupid, and wrong.
B
"but the essential problem is the catastrophic lack of POLICE!"
Not is isnt. Maybe if you had written "but the essential problem is the catastrophic lack of POLICE in the right job" I might have agreed with you. Whilt they have 900 officers chasing 'twitter' crime I would argue there are plenty of police.
Also remember tech has taken over a lot of jobs. CCTV can cover vast area that a Bobbie on the beat cannot, it can also deploy a car that get there faster than a bike.
Comparing Policing of today with 25 or more years ago is laughable.
"Who voted for these clowns? Not me! "
Of course you wouldn't, no donkeys with red rosettes on for you.
Not is isnt. Maybe if you had written "but the essential problem is the catastrophic lack of POLICE in the right job" I might have agreed with you. Whilt they have 900 officers chasing 'twitter' crime I would argue there are plenty of police.
Also remember tech has taken over a lot of jobs. CCTV can cover vast area that a Bobbie on the beat cannot, it can also deploy a car that get there faster than a bike.
Comparing Policing of today with 25 or more years ago is laughable.
"Who voted for these clowns? Not me! "
Of course you wouldn't, no donkeys with red rosettes on for you.
It's a strange fact that I was a serving Met officer when Dunblane and Hungerford occurred. As tragic as these two events were I cannot recall that gun crime was so prolific prior to the knee jerk reaction of removing legally held hand guns. I acknowledge that the Dunblane and Hungerford atrocoties were committed by legally held firearms owners but this was more a failure of police to properly vet the applicants for possession.Police Scotland,as it is now called,actually allowed the Dunblane killer membership of a police club.
It appears to me that since all legally held handguns had to be surrendered for disposal the rise of gun crime by unlawful possession has increased. It seems that ineffective border security may be the cause as these handguns are often from Eastern bloc countries and Belgium.
It appears to me that since all legally held handguns had to be surrendered for disposal the rise of gun crime by unlawful possession has increased. It seems that ineffective border security may be the cause as these handguns are often from Eastern bloc countries and Belgium.
//but the essential problem is the catastrophic lack of POLICE! //
I dare say, Bainbrig.
But let me put the question to you in a different way.
Simple example, small scale. A community of a hundred people, living by simple rules (don't steal or murder). If they all accept and all live by these rules you don't need any police at all, do you? Not realistic? Sure, you'll always have one chancer even in this VE imagined society.
Now let's look at "diverse" communities like Newham (that's in the other end of the London I live in). Will diversity (which is our strength) equate to a common acceptance of a moral code? Will that diverse society have the same propensity to stick by the rules as my imagined village community of one hundred culturally homogeneous types?
I think you may recognise some difficulties here. Even within narrow bounds of ethnicity and culture how do you think a council estate with a thousand Hutus there living next door to a thousand Tutsis might get on?
In sum the number of police you need is not a constant, but is proportionate to the percentage of a given community which accepts and lives by an agreed standard, and the percentage which does not. The more lawless the community the more enforcers you need.
Posit (haven't got the faintest idea either way): the London of the fifties and sixties (this is Kray gangster time) had fewer police as a proportion of the metroploitan population and less violence. I'd be delighted if the research experts could produce figures.
I dare say, Bainbrig.
But let me put the question to you in a different way.
Simple example, small scale. A community of a hundred people, living by simple rules (don't steal or murder). If they all accept and all live by these rules you don't need any police at all, do you? Not realistic? Sure, you'll always have one chancer even in this VE imagined society.
Now let's look at "diverse" communities like Newham (that's in the other end of the London I live in). Will diversity (which is our strength) equate to a common acceptance of a moral code? Will that diverse society have the same propensity to stick by the rules as my imagined village community of one hundred culturally homogeneous types?
I think you may recognise some difficulties here. Even within narrow bounds of ethnicity and culture how do you think a council estate with a thousand Hutus there living next door to a thousand Tutsis might get on?
In sum the number of police you need is not a constant, but is proportionate to the percentage of a given community which accepts and lives by an agreed standard, and the percentage which does not. The more lawless the community the more enforcers you need.
Posit (haven't got the faintest idea either way): the London of the fifties and sixties (this is Kray gangster time) had fewer police as a proportion of the metroploitan population and less violence. I'd be delighted if the research experts could produce figures.
//I'd be delighted if the research experts could produce figures//
I'd be especially delighted if the figures confirm my suspicion that London in the Kray era was safer and less violent but with fewer police than it has today. But if you prove me wrong, well, shucks, I'll just have to deal with it, won't I?
I'd be especially delighted if the figures confirm my suspicion that London in the Kray era was safer and less violent but with fewer police than it has today. But if you prove me wrong, well, shucks, I'll just have to deal with it, won't I?
Vetuste. True (and thanks as usual for elevating this small debate above the normal noise).
Don’t have the answers, but watching ‘999, What’s your emergency?’, the miscreants seem to reflect the diverse range of ethnic origins of that Wiltshire community - a few ‘foreigners’ and plenty of true-born English.
But my central point in this debate is that to jump on immigration as the cause of [insert perceived wrong] is childish and unlikely to help progress a difficult question.
No, nor is a simple increase in police numbers going to solve the bigger problem, but it would help!
Bb
Don’t have the answers, but watching ‘999, What’s your emergency?’, the miscreants seem to reflect the diverse range of ethnic origins of that Wiltshire community - a few ‘foreigners’ and plenty of true-born English.
But my central point in this debate is that to jump on immigration as the cause of [insert perceived wrong] is childish and unlikely to help progress a difficult question.
No, nor is a simple increase in police numbers going to solve the bigger problem, but it would help!
Bb
Latest Posts
Food & Drink2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Home & Garden4 mins ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.