Mob attacks officers over litter

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
Anyway you seem interested in this, so I found some videos so you can get a better idea of the crappy side of london because of these gangster wannabes, trouble makers.

Thanks for the video links. Yes, lots of wannabe gangsters. I visited London a few years ago, was probably too brief a visit (one night layover). Interesting city though.

Here is another video from London, “youths” beat up a woman. LOL..so glad to hear the onlookers “called the cops”. I am sure she was very relieved to hear that a few unarmed police might show up to take her statement after a few minutes.



Here are some lovely street riot scenes from the U.S. Please note this riot occurred in a state with VERY strict gun control, I am sure the British viewers will be relieved to see no firearms were used. Mobs simply attacked passing vehicles and beat the drivers nearly to death manually. Over 50 people died in those riots.



Here is yet another video which emphasizes why our police need to be heavily armed (and many honest citizens feel the need to be armed too).





[edit on 20-7-2008 by Sonya610]

[edit on 20-7-2008 by Sonya610]

Sorry if I disagree with other opinions. The Police have every right to ask someone to pick up litter and dispose of it properly. We want to keep our country clean after all because we all benefit from it. Finally, who does every chav or low-life call if they are in danger - yes, of course, it is '999'. The uniforms are doing a job of work where their lives can be put on the line in extremis. Don't knock them. It is the detectives who are the dangerous guys, who will coordinate and train prople in gang stalking or victimise minority groups etc...

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Sorry if I disagree with other opinions. The Police have every right to ask someone to pick up litter and dispose of it properly. We want to keep our country clean after all because we all benefit from it. Finally, who does every chav or low-life call if they are in danger - yes, of course, it is '999'. The uniforms are doing a job of work where their lives can be put on the line in extremis. Don't knock them. It is the detectives who are the dangerous guys, who will coordinate and train prople in gang stalking or victimise minority groups etc...

I agree, when you have a force that has to be apologetic for every slight tone or irritation they show when dealing with a**holes, it's not really a force any more. They were acting perfectly within the role their job demands.

We need Gene Hunt back on the force.

reply to post by Sonya610


sorry about the late reply.

Ive had a look through those statistics and at first glance they seem rather compelling, however they simply dont give statistics for who commited the crimes.

"52 percent of gun homicide victims are African-American"

Thats all well and good and i can understand it would stand to reason if a higher percentage of african americans are the victims, you would expect them to be more involved in gun violence.

But those statistics simply show how many are victims of gun related deaths, not how many are committing gun crimes

the only relevant statistic i can find is...
"94 percent of the Black murder victims were slain by black offenders."
which is date 1998, i would not consider 10 years an up to date statistic.

www.libraryindex.com...

that website is the only other source of african americans committing gun crime statistics, but shows neither source of evidence for their claims.

Im still searching as i post this.

Originally posted by T.SmithBut those statistics simply show how many are victims of gun related deaths, not how many are committing gun crimes

the only relevant statistic i can find is...
"94 percent of the Black murder victims were slain by black offenders."
which is date 1998, i would not consider 10 years an up to date statistic.

It is not easy to find government data on the racial makeup of criminals, they do not like to advertise information on race. Here are two reports:

Here is a breakdown of crime by race of victim and offender. Please keep in mind the differences in overall population.

www.ojp.usdoj.gov...

"In 2005, homicide victimization rates for blacks were 6 times higher than the rates for whites."

"In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites"


Here is another government report that goes into more detail:

www.ojp.usdoj.gov...

This graph represents the racial breakdown of homicides from 1976 to 2005. Is that better?



I will look for data that discusses just gun crimes and not just homicides. Though I seriously doubt if the racial breakdown would be much different.


[edit on 23-7-2008 by Sonya610]

[edit on 23-7-2008 by Sonya610]

So Mr. Smith, in summary you challenged my statements and said you would "eat your hat" if I could provide information that backed it up. You specifically requested that I show sources to back up my claims and I did.

It is in fact very hard to find info on the race of the "offender" as that is not pc, it is much more common to find info on the race of the victim. If these numbers are wrong prove it with legitimate statistics that refute them.

I don't think you will find any ANYWHERE.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by Sonya610]

Wow, the second I read the snippet from the article in the OP I knew it was chavs, and i've never even met one.

Reminds me of the 'lads' problem we have here in Australia. I guess they are more tamed here because of the big ass tongan and pacific islanders 'fobs'. Trust me you would not want to get into a fight with a group of tongans.

Originally posted by Finn1916
Wow, the second I read the snippet from the article in the OP I knew it was chavs, and i've never even met one.

Apparently you didn't read any of the followup posts. If "chavs" refers to white british thugs, no they were not chavs.

Originally posted by Sonya610

Originally posted by Finn1916
Wow, the second I read the snippet from the article in the OP I knew it was chavs, and i've never even met one.

Apparently you didn't read any of the followup posts. If "chavs" refers to white british thugs, no they were not chavs.

From what I understand about chav culture, race has nothing to do with it. It's shiftless lay abouts who have nothing better to do than be thug wanna bes.

Originally posted by Zanzibar
Please cut the 'nanny state' crap. It's a load of nonsense, we are not spied on 24/7

Oh how naive you are.

www.usatoday.com...

Great Britain has installed more than 1.5 million video cameras in public places in response to domestic attacks by IRA terrorists as well as increasing concerns about violent crime. According to one estimate, the average Londoner is now photographed some 300 times in the course of a typical day.

www.thenewamerican.com...

reply to post by Sonya610


According to the last set of figures you quoted, it would appear judged on the population of black other or unknown ((quoted from figures)) being around 6% of the overall population.

That comparatively a slightly higher percentage of crimes are committed by blacks other or unknown ((again wording of the figures)).

Of course there are hundreds of thousands of more crimes being commited by whites but this is obvious considering the percentage or white to blacks and unknowns.

As you said these are not gun crimes, but are in fact violent crime statistics.
As you also pointed out gun crime by race for recent years is a very hard figure to find anywhere on the net.

I guess on the face of it you are right, theres also a much higher ratio of same race violence in blacks aswell.

((any reference to "blacks" is simply quoted from the figures, i dont want any schtick about, being racist or how you classify someone as black))

reply to post by Finn1916


Your quite right "Chav" is far more wide spread than race, its basically just slang for anyone thats hanging around on the streets drinking cider, making a nuisance.

Normally identified by trackies and hoodies but can go to posh chavs i.e burberry and timberland