Why are these gang not being deal with by parent and authority?
Topic: Sexual violence in UK gangs 'similar to war zones' according to BBC (Read 3632 times)
June 22, 2014, 09:24:28 AM
3,500 gang members in london? that's probably equivalent to a small city in the U.S.
Don't let the vocabulary fool you, not all "gangs" in the U.S. are close to that violent and dangerous. Some "gangs" in the U.S. are almost social clubs that must put on a fascade of individuality and roughness.
That being said, I am not condoning gang activity.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/insane-clown-posse-sue-fbi-over-juggalos-gang-classification-20140108
June 21, 2014, 08:02:14 AM
EDIT: You see, the pictures make it look like "whitey is running for the hills", but when you look closer, the bottom population range in the "White British" map is 8.7%-50%. This is a lot closer to the TOP population range of the other maps, and a wider range. So although, there has been an influx of immigrants to London, these graphics don't prove how much/little when compared to each other.
For example, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets is only 31% White-British. Some of the wards there are less than 10% White British. These wards were not uninhabited earlier. A few decades ago, they were 95% White British and the rest White Irish. So where did all of them went?
June 21, 2014, 03:02:49 AM
3,500 gang members in london? that's probably equivalent to a small city in the U.S.
Don't let the vocabulary fool you, not all "gangs" in the U.S. are close to that violent and dangerous. Some "gangs" in the U.S. are almost social clubs that must put on a fascade of individuality and roughness.
That being said, I am not condoning gang activity.
June 20, 2014, 05:44:35 AM
This is what happens when scum from abroad is imported and placed into ghettos.
In London you have the same tribes playing out the exact same tribal warfare that they emigrated to get away from.
In London you have the same tribes playing out the exact same tribal warfare that they emigrated to get away from.
London is quite diverse now. Bangladeshis have long overtaken the Irish as the second largest ethnic group.
BTW... check the last map. 
You shouldn't compare any of those maps with each other - look at how wildly the percentage ranges differ in each key, and they use the same shades of colour for totally different percentage groups in each map...
You're probably right about the Bangladeshi population, but these maps are totally misleading.
EDIT: You see, the pictures make it look like "whitey is running for the hills", but when you look closer, the bottom population range in the "White British" map is 8.7%-50%. This is a lot closer to the TOP population range of the other maps, and a wider range. So although, there has been an influx of immigrants to London, these graphics don't prove how much/little when compared to each other.
Also I was wondering, do these graphics show 1st generation immigrants only, or simply ethnicities? I mean, many of the Indian/Pakistani population would be 3rd or 4th generation by now?
June 19, 2014, 06:42:38 PM
People waiting for objectivity and accuracy from media are going to wait long.... I'm not saying that the sexual violence in UK gangs is not horrible, in fact it is the opposite and it should be condemned but the comparing to war zones is a joke really
Aye it's a bit sensationalist but the UK does have a problem with sexual violence / rape etc.
June 19, 2014, 11:45:35 AM
People waiting for objectivity and accuracy from media are going to wait long.... I'm not saying that the sexual violence in UK gangs is not horrible, in fact it is the opposite and it should be condemned but the comparing to war zones is a joke really
June 19, 2014, 11:39:38 AM
Well that's just what I stated, they're doing it for the whole country, much like how a poll uses the "87% of Americans believe" line and then you dig into their mathematics and they've only done about 1000 people to represent the whole country. You can't use this kind of maths as a way of measuring the thought process of other human beings or the crime rates of an entire country, it's all completely fake. In case you couldn't tell, this is actually one of my pet hates about politics in general and it really ticks me off 
mainly because I've had to go and re-learn mathematics while there are morons out there who are being paid to make it all up.
mainly because I've had to go and re-learn mathematics while there are morons out there who are being paid to make it all up.Sorry but you're contradicting yourself on this one.
The polls use the view of 1000 persons.
Those statistics use the point of all the persons in the united states.
It's not out of 1000 poeple 457 will vote for Clinton so we can assume 45.7% of Americans will vote for Clinton.
It's more like, out of 300 millions 14k are dead while we are certain that the rest 300 mils are still alive.
The only poll that could match those statistics will be one in which ALL the people would have to answer while connected to a lie detector.
And you have to agree that this poll would be fair and representative.
June 19, 2014, 11:30:48 AM
Well that's just what I stated, they're doing it for the whole country, much like how a poll uses the "87% of Americans believe" line and then you dig into their mathematics and they've only done about 1000 people to represent the whole country. You can't use this kind of maths as a way of measuring the thought process of other human beings or the crime rates of an entire country, it's all completely fake. In case you couldn't tell, this is actually one of my pet hates about politics in general and it really ticks me off mainly because I've had to go and re-learn mathematics while there are morons out there who are being paid to make it all up.
mainly because I've had to go and re-learn mathematics while there are morons out there who are being paid to make it all up. June 19, 2014, 11:27:16 AM
And there's the extra problem Niothor, like with political polls these will have been carefully sourced to the political ideology of the person putting out the statistics, when your have per 100,000 people, which areas are these in? Which states? One thing I've had to do is re-learn mathematics later in life and ever since I did that this kind of thing has become more and more obvious to me and it's pretty amazing how easily people fall for it.
The rates are not done for a state or calculated like a poll
In 2011 UK reported 653 crimes all over the country.
The United states reported 14,173.
total number of crimes / population > crime rate in a country.
June 19, 2014, 11:20:32 AM
And there's the extra problem Niothor, like with political polls these will have been carefully sourced to the political ideology of the person putting out the statistics, when your have per 100,000 people, which areas are these in? Which states? One thing I've had to do is re-learn mathematics later in life and ever since I did that this kind of thing has become more and more obvious to me and it's pretty amazing how easily people fall for it.
June 19, 2014, 11:15:35 AM
You can't compare the U.S to the U.K for one thing the populations are too different so of course crime rates are going to be lower because there are less people to commit them, even if you gave everybody in the UK a gun the result would still be less than the U.S purely because of land mass and the population numbers.
That's why we have rates....per 100 000 people and not counting the entire crime numbers.
So the average crime rate in UK is 10 times less that the one in the US.
June 19, 2014, 11:07:32 AM
^^ lol looks like whitey is running to the hills
Not all the Whiteys, but the English-speaking ones.
Inner London is getting flooded with all those EU immigrants (Poles, Lithuanians, Romanians, Latvians.etc). Also, there are lots of Russians and Ukrainians. June 19, 2014, 11:05:12 AM
This is what happens when scum from abroad is imported and placed into ghettos.
In London you have the same tribes playing out the exact same tribal warfare that they emigrated to get away from.
London is disgusting now.
In London you have the same tribes playing out the exact same tribal warfare that they emigrated to get away from.
London is disgusting now.
Where the fuck have you been? London was always a shit hole lol! Do I need to dig through history and provide you examples of extreme pollution like smog and the London fires to prove it to you?
June 19, 2014, 10:55:40 AM
^^ lol looks like whitey is running to the hills
June 19, 2014, 10:37:58 AM
This is what happens when scum from abroad is imported and placed into ghettos.
In London you have the same tribes playing out the exact same tribal warfare that they emigrated to get away from.
In London you have the same tribes playing out the exact same tribal warfare that they emigrated to get away from.
London is quite diverse now. Bangladeshis have long overtaken the Irish as the second largest ethnic group.
BTW... check the last map. June 19, 2014, 10:29:48 AM
This is what happens when scum from abroad is imported and placed into ghettos.
In London you have the same tribes playing out the exact same tribal warfare that they emigrated to get away from.
London is disgusting now.
In London you have the same tribes playing out the exact same tribal warfare that they emigrated to get away from.
London is disgusting now.
June 19, 2014, 05:19:40 AM
You can't compare the U.S to the U.K for one thing the populations are too different so of course crime rates are going to be lower because there are less people to commit them, even if you gave everybody in the UK a gun the result would still be less than the U.S purely because of land mass and the population numbers.
June 19, 2014, 03:01:47 AM
No weapons is good, at specially not in criminals hands. I will never understand how US can allow selling their own kids weapons, which they use only for showing off and killing innocent. I think that without them there would be less crime.
Then explain why the crime rate in London (UK) is higher than that in Portland (United States). What really happening is that the gang members have access to fire-arms and use them to attack normal people, while the latter group are denied access to the same fire-arms, which they would have used to defend themselves.
aren't you comparing apples to oranges here? why are you comparing london to portland specifically? again, you're sounding like a GOP guy. people in the U.S. end up killing other people with guns way way more than they do in the UK.. not overall numbers, but per 100,000 people.
wikipedia shows:
U.S. = 3.6 deaths per 100,000 people
U.K. = .25 per 100,000 people
of all the developed nations, the U.S. is far and away the highest deaths per 100,000 people.
June 18, 2014, 10:40:54 PM
No weapons is good, at specially not in criminals hands. I will never understand how US can allow selling their own kids weapons, which they use only for showing off and killing innocent. I think that without them there would be less crime.
Then explain why the crime rate in London (UK) is higher than that in Portland (United States). What really happening is that the gang members have access to fire-arms and use them to attack normal people, while the latter group are denied access to the same fire-arms, which they would have used to defend themselves.
Jump to: