London overtook New York in murders for the first time in modern history

[Billy no mates]

I've been to London. its just like every other high crime shithole urban hellscape: everything is expensive, the nice areas are exclusive, it parasitically feeds off its name recognition, and the food sucks.

Yeah I was in town on the weekend and the moped lads were quite brazenly sharking for targets in and around Embankment .

 

[Prime Rib]

Yeah I was in town on the weekend and the moped lads were quite brazenly sharking for targets in and around Embankment .

I've seen some vids of those scooter gangs. Brazen shit.

 

[Hard To Tell]

The UK authorities no longer record the race, religion or ethnicity of criminals (because racism) but this data is recorded for prisoners. This information will tell you all you need to know.

 

[Billy no mates]

I've seen some vids of those scooter gangs. Brazen shit.

Especially as its round what is a pretty touristy bit of the Capital , opposite the London eye and leading to Big Ben and Parliament .

 

[Madmick]

What is a separate argument? No, I don't get your point to be honest.
I showed that 70% of the suspected perpetrators of acid attacks from 2002-2016 were White Europeans (32%) and African Carribeans (38%), neither group likely to have a significant percentage of Muslims nor be part of the recent refugee crisis. What's more, despite Newham having a high percentage of Muslims (32%) in comparison to the overall UK percentage (around 5%), it also has plenty of both those ethnic/racial groups as well (which was the point of giving the complete breakdown). So that there was nothing in those statistics which supports the narrative of the increase in acid attacks being a result of the European refugee crisis or the increasing Muslim population in the UK generally.

The point is that correlation isn't causation, yes, and guys like Geese will refuse to grasp that even if they can, but neither should one make the mistake of reading correlation as mere coincidence.

After all, you have a chicken-and-the-egg conundrum when you mention socioeconomic status because while the poor may be more likely to commit a violent crime, people who commit violent crimes are also more likely to make themselves poor.

This is an area that is one third Muslim, unsurprisingly composed of ethnic groups more likely to be that, when only 4.4% of the general population is composed of that religion. So despite that it isn't a majority Muslim, or possibly even a plurality, it is an area roughly 8x as rich with that group than the country as a whole. The question of how and why this may impact more impoverished areas inclined to crime, particularly in the context of Pakistan's established acute predisposition to acid attacks, isn't a question that should be dismissed out of hand as coincidence.

Let's inspect more closely-- really dig in. Here is a convenient link summarizing the Metro report you guys are discussing:
Everything you know about acid attacks is wrong

Okay, first, you yourself appear to have misread these ethnic groups. The ethnic breakdowns the police are tracking (or at least compiled by the BBC) are not parallel to the groups tracked by the UK Census. "African Caribbean" appears to be the rubric used for those who trace their origins to either Africa or the Caribbean; otherwise, we're missing a lot of people/groups in this area. Compare to census statics for the Newham area in question that may refer to the same group:

• 1.3% White & Black Caribbean
• 1.1% White & Black African
• 1.3% Other Mixed
• 12.3% Black African
• 4.9% Black Caribbean
• 2.4% Other Black

The Census reveals that blacks of direct African descent appear to hold a ~2.5:1 advantage over those of the Africa-to-Jamaica-to-Britain variety (the principal group of British "Black Caribbeans"). Non-Caribbean Africans are much, much more likely to be Muslim, especially if they come from North Africa, which is steeply Muslim, and North Africans made up a large number of the opportunistic migrants that flooded Greece and the rest of Europe by blending in with the Syrian river of refugees.

I'm not certain of this population's precise impact on UK refugee migration post-2012, or before, but no matter how you classify Africans and Caribbeans they are over-represented by a rate of at least 2 to 1 relative to the Census, and this appears to be more predominantly African or North African in root.

All of this is even more confusing since they parsed "Arab/Egyptians" as a group, and of course Egyptians are North Africans, many who might describe themselves as "Black African" or "Other Mixed" or "Other Black" on a census, while they also separated "Asians", and of course Arabia is in Asia. Oh, look, they also separated "Oriental". How quaint. I thought that term had been faux pas for a quarter century. Also Asia.

So when the author of this article says that "Just 6% of suspects were Asians" it is patently and objectively false. That's annoying and untrue even if not ultimately misleading within the implied context.

The indications from what is known in this report seem pretty clear. The "South Asians" (Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, and maybe "Other Asian" census groups) are not the the prime group responsible even by virtue of per capita adjustments. Their rates are deeply underrepresented. I also see no reason to disbelieve the police indications that this is chiefly associated with gang behavior.

But these are not the only Muslim groups, and it doesn't discount the fact that one of these crime-plagued impoverished areas is heavily Muslim on the whole. After all, if we're going to write off things to coincidence, then here are some other strange coincidences that stand out to me:

The figures show that after a 10-year decline, they surged between 2012 and 2016 by more than 500%. Just 73 were recorded in 2012; four years later, they hit a high of 469.

...the proportion of unknown suspects has doubled in the last 10 years to 20%.

About one in five suspects remain unknown – either because they can’t be identified, or because the victim has refused to identify them.

Jaf Shah urged caution, however. “It’s quite possible that honour attacks in the UK are simply not being reported for fear of reprisal,” he said.

Police recorded 284 ‘domestic incident’ related acid attacks in the 15-year period from 2002-16 – just 11% of the violent acid attack total.

Okay, I see the decline in attacks on women, and that they have fallen from ~50% to ~20% of victims now, but wait...so roughly 1 out of 9 of these attacks has been a "domestic dispute"? Like where the victim, possibly a Muslim woman, lives with her attacker? Just food for thought.

I don't understand why so little time was spent on that. It doesn't escape me that gangs also lean heavily on intimidation.

To me, the article would seem to make clear the prime correlation, and it's quite disheartening. It reminds me of a sobering lesson we Americans came to learn with our libtard snowflake "anti-bullying" campaigns. Our academics quickly realized that these campaigns weren't reducing bullying, but increasing it because the campaign was teaching young students new techniques and ideas for how to bully.

“The [2012] Oscar-winning documentary Saving Face raised awareness of acid violence at a global level,” said Jaf Shah. “And as a result many people, at a sub-conscious level, may associate acid attacks with Asians generally and Pakistanis in particular.”

These gangs learned a horrifying new technique from the documentary. The diaspora of ISIS was a coincidence of timing, but perhaps not of culture. Why has this gripped the UK, and these Muslim-dominant areas, so acutely?

Britain bans firearms, and they also possess one of the largest "South Asian" immigrant populations across the first world, so that documentary almost certainly had a greater impact there, and in those communities where people are descended from that region/culture, or live in contact with people descended from it.

Now the gangs are running with it. But it's these unspecified gangs running with it in London, and in predominantly Muslim areas, more predominantly than impoverished areas, not the Bloods or the Crips in LA.

Perhaps you would be wise not to dismiss that as mere coincidence as you did with Aceh.

Take this opportunity to do what Geese would never do, and consider a reasonable conclusion that you might find unsavory: that Islam contributes to and exacerbates this problem from within on some cultural level. Those who refuse this consideration risk winding up the same mindless, hypocritical mess as the BBC journalist who wrote the summary article I'm citing. This is as yellow as ink gets, FFS:

Acid attacks have not only been characterised as being perpetrated by Asians. They have also been increasingly associated with hate crimes against Asians.

On 21 June, aspiring model Resham Khan and her cousin Jameel Mukhtar were sprayed with acid through their car window in Newham, East London.

The attack was labelled a hate crime on social media, and concerns were immediately raised that Newham’s Muslim community was being targeted.

...after writing this in the same article:

“There has been a fairly relentless rise in the number of alt-right sites and blogs linking acid attacks to Muslim, Asians and migrants, and this has clearly gained some traction," said Shah.

Type “Asian acid attacks” into Twitter and there are hundreds of people conflating acid attacks with London’s Asian population.

It's shit like this that drives conservatives bonkers, and for good reason. FOX News and blog sites like Breitbart apparently aren't the only journalistic sources, anymore, that aren't above assigning authority to random Twitter users if it suits their own political agenda, and mirrors their own assumptions, nor of doing this in the same breath they use to howl about that same Twittersphere when it doesn't.

What a travesty.

 

[Ruprecht]

The point is that correlation isn't causation, yes, and guys like Geese will refuse to grasp that even if they can, but neither should one make the mistake of reading correlation as mere coincidence.

Yes, that was the point, and demonstrated by the actual statistics for attacks.

After all, you have a chicken-and-the-egg conundrum when you mention socioeconomic status because while the poor may be more likely to commit a violent crime, people who commit violent crimes are also more likely to make themselves poor.

Not really chicken and egg when you consider the overwhelming lack of social mobility in the UK.

This is an area that is one third Muslim, unsurprisingly composed of ethnic groups more likely to be that, when only 4.4% of the general population is composed of that religion. So despite that it isn't a majority Muslim, or possibly even a plurality, it is an area roughly 8x as rich with that group than the country as a whole. The question of how and why this may impact more impoverished areas inclined to crime, particularly in the context of Pakistan's established acute predisposition to acid attacks, isn't a question that should be dismissed out of hand as coincidence.

No, it doesn't need to be dismissed as a coincidence, but it's more than adequately explained by the fact that gangs of all ethnicities, gang violence and lower socio-economic areas are all co-located. That's why characterising them as "Muslim areas" is pushing a narrative rather than an accurate description. It's leading with an assumption. Finding out that the correlation fails to adequately explain the phenomenon simply takes a little more reading. The "6% Asian" figure is enough to dismiss that narrative.
The possibility of tabloid sensationalism actually increasing the number of attacks is one reason given, the fact that acid attacks don't attract the same criminal penalties as guns or knives (a relatively recent change) is another and lastly the reduction in Police funding.
At a tabloid headline level it's perfectly reasonable to guess that the upswing in acid attacks would mirror the worldwide trend in acid attacks mainly being attacks on women by scorned men, and specifically in the South Asian subcontinent, but the numbers and breakdown of offenders simply don't support that, and neither do the criminal reports. The "Moped Gangs" include Muslims (judging by name and appearance anyway), but they appear broadly representative of London's poorer areas.

Let's inspect more closely-- really dig in. Here is a convenient link summarizing the Metro report you guys are discussing:
Everything you know about acid attacks is wrong
Okay, first, you yourself appear to have misread these ethnic groups. The ethnic breakdowns the police are tracking (or at least compiled by the BBC) are not parallel to the groups tracked by the UK Census. "African Caribbean" appears to be the rubric used for those who trace their origins to either Africa or the Caribbean; otherwise, we're missing a lot of people/groups in this area. Compare to census statics for the Newham area in question that may refer to the same group:

• 1.3% White & Black Caribbean
• 1.1% White & Black African
• 1.3% Other Mixed
• 12.3% Black African
• 4.9% Black Caribbean
• 2.4% Other Black

The Census reveals that blacks of direct African descent appear to hold a ~2.5:1 advantage over those of the Africa-to-Jamaica-to-Britain variety (the principal group of British "Black Caribbeans"). Non-Caribbean Africans are much, much more likely to be Muslim, especially if they come from North Africa, which is steeply Muslim, and North Africans made up a large number of the opportunistic migrants that flooded Greece and the rest of Europe by blending in with the Syrian river of refugees.

I'm not certain of this population's precise impact on UK refugee migration post-2012, or before, but no matter how you classify Africans and Caribbeans they are over-represented by a rate of at least 2 to 1 relative to the Census, and this appears to be more predominantly African or North African in root.

All of this is even more confusing since they parsed "Arab/Egyptians" as a group, and of course Egyptians are North Africans, many who might describe themselves as "Black African" or "Other Mixed" or "Other Black" on a census, while they also separated "Asians", and of course Arabia is in Asia. Oh, look, they also separated "Oriental". How quaint. I thought that term had been faux pas for a quarter century. Also Asia.

So when the author of this article says that "Just 6% of suspects were Asians" it is patently and objectively false. That's annoying and untrue even if not ultimately misleading within the implied context.

The indications from what is known in this report seem pretty clear. The "South Asians" (Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, and maybe "Other Asian" census groups) are not the the prime group responsible even by virtue of per capita adjustments. Their rates are deeply underrepresented. I also see no reason to disbelieve the police indications that this is chiefly associated with gang behavior.

But these are not the only Muslim groups, and it doesn't discount the fact that one of these crime-plagued impoverished areas is heavily Muslim on the whole. After all, if we're going to write off things to coincidence, then here are some other strange coincidences that stand out to me:

As you can see, the Brits use their own racial/ethnic labels. I don't think anyone in the UK is confused by "Asian" vs "Oriental".
Why don't you just look up the refugee numbers? There's 371 Asylum seekers in Newham, out of their population of 308,000.
Even if "African Carribean" actually means "African/Carribean" or "Black British" in their ethnicity report and also the crime reports, the African Muslims are a small minority. There was 6000 Muslims of African origin in Newham in 2008, currently there's 60,000 "Black British" residents. 80% of the the Muslims are "Asian". 6% of reported acid attack offenders are "Asian". As you say, this doesn't support the narrative of an ethnic/religious cause.

Okay, I see the decline in attacks on women, and that they have fallen from ~50% to ~20% of victims now, but wait...so roughly 1 out of 9 of these attacks has been a "domestic dispute"? Like where the victim, possibly a Muslim woman, lives with her attacker? Just food for thought.

I don't understand why so little time was spent on that. It doesn't escape me that gangs also lean heavily on intimidation.

To me, the article would seem to make clear the prime correlation, and it's quite disheartening. It reminds me of a sobering lesson we Americans came to learn with our libtard snowflake "anti-bullying" campaigns. Our academics quickly realized that these campaigns weren't reducing bullying, but increasing it because the campaign was teaching young students new techniques and ideas for how to bully.

These gangs learned a horrifying new technique from the documentary. The diaspora of ISIS was a coincidence of timing, but perhaps not of culture. Why has this gripped the UK, and these Muslim-dominant areas, so acutely?

Britain bans firearms, and they also possess one of the largest "South Asian" immigrant populations across the first world, so that documentary almost certainly had a greater impact there, and in those communities where people are descended from that region/culture, or live in contact with people descended from it.

Now the gangs are running with it. But it's these unspecified gangs running with it in London, and in predominantly Muslim areas, more predominantly than impoverished areas, not the Bloods or the Crips in LA.

Perhaps you would be wise not to dismiss that as mere coincidence as you did with Aceh.

Take this opportunity to do what Geese would never do, and consider a reasonable conclusion that you might find unsavory: that Islam contributes to and exacerbates this problem from within on some cultural level. Those who refuse this consideration risk winding up the same mindless, hypocritical mess as the BBC journalist who wrote the summary article I'm citing. This is as yellow as ink gets, FFS:

...after writing this in the same article:

Of course that's the obvious assumption, but it doesn't take much reading to see that it's clearly wrong. For a start acid attacks are most common not in Islam generally, but specifically in the Indian subcontinent (and not restricted to Muslims there). Yet proportionally "Asians" are actually underrepresented in the attack statistics at 6% (total UK population 7%). The number of Asylum Seekers is actually inversely proportional with the increase in attacks.
I''m not sure how you are judging that it's more "predominantly muslim" (for a start "predominantly" implies majority), the areas with the most attacks are the lowest socioeconomic areas in London, and the areas with the most gang activity. Newham and Tower Hamlets (although it contains wealthy areas as well, proximity of wealth and poverty typically increases violent crime). It seems like you're doing an about face on the conclusion you reached earlier based on the actual data about Asian offenders and the possibility of the role of tabloid sensationalism and UK weapons laws. What you have left is exactly the same lazy correlation of steretypical crime and a poor area with a large number of immgrants that BobGeese was promoting.

I haven't dismissed anything in Aceh as coincidence, I dismiss it as not broadly representative of Indonesia or Islam in the region, because it isn't. Something which doesn't need explaining to anyone that's been there.

 

[Madmick]

Not really chicken and egg when you consider the overwhelming lack of social mobility in the UK.

Except that your report indicates social mobility is most deeply paralyzed outside London, and yet London is where this brand of violence is clearly concentrated:
"The report uncovers a striking geographical divide with London and its surrounding areas pulling away from the rest of the country, while many other parts of the country are being left behind economically and hollowed out socially."

Now it is you presuming correlation with the key exception that your own study in this specific context does rebut your assumption, and successfully rules out causation.

No, it doesn't need to be dismissed as a coincidence, but it's more than adequately explained by the fact that gangs of all ethnicities, gang violence and lower socio-economic areas are all co-located. That's why characterising them as "Muslim areas" is pushing a narrative rather than an accurate description. It's leading with an assumption. Finding out that the correlation fails to adequately explain the phenomenon simply takes a little more reading. The "6% Asian" figure is enough to dismiss that narrative.
The possibility of tabloid sensationalism actually increasing the number of attacks is one reason given, the fact that acid attacks don't attract the same criminal penalties as guns or knives (a relatively recent change) is another and lastly the reduction in Police funding.
At a tabloid headline level it's perfectly reasonable to guess that the upswing in acid attacks would mirror the worldwide trend in acid attacks mainly being attacks on women by scorned men, and specifically in the South Asian subcontinent, but the numbers and breakdown of offenders simply don't support that, and neither do the criminal reports. The "Moped Gangs" include Muslims (judging by name and appearance anyway), but they appear broadly representative of London's poorer areas.

Referring to them as "Muslim areas" is acknowledging the undeniable fact of the ratio. I did not argue no-go zones or the imposition of Sharia Law on the wider community.

As you can see, the Brits use their own racial/ethnic labels. I don't think anyone in the UK is confused by "Asian" vs "Oriental".

Yet they are drastically different between the Metro report and the UK Census. This is explicitly asymmetrical and obfuscating, incontrovertibly.

Why don't you just look up the refugee numbers? There's 371 Asylum seekers in Newham, out of their population of 308,000.
Even if "African Carribean" actually means "African/Carribean" or "Black British" in their ethnicity report and also the crime reports, the African Muslims are a small minority. There was 6000 Muslims of African origin in Newham in 2008, currently there's 60,000 "Black British" residents. 80% of the the Muslims are "Asian". 6% of reported acid attack offenders are "Asian". As you say, this doesn't support the narrative of an ethnic/religious cause.

Because I don't see the point in a top-Google analyzing demographic spreads from 2008 when one of the precise points of contention is the potential impact of a post-2012 diaspora, especially given that the majority of Muslims present at that time were already first-generation migrant:

"According to the 2001 census a quarter of the borough’s population is Muslim. Officially there are 60,000 Muslims living in Newham, though unofficially there may be many more (LBN, 2005a). A slim majority of Newham’s Muslims are first generation migrants; 53% were born overseas compared to 47% born in the UK."

Additionally, it doesn't escape me that 60,000 Muslims makes up a mere 19.4% of that population (308K) when earlier it was established that roughly 1/3 of the area is presently Muslim. In fact, for the #2 Google result below that, I noticed this article from 2016:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...ims-exceeds-three-million-for-first-time.html
"The highest percentage of Muslims is East London’s Tower Hamlets, with 45.6 per cent while neighbouring Newham has 40.8 per cent." (in 2016)

So a better question is why would you cite the clearly anachronistic and irrelevant figures from a decade-old Oxford report, at all, when the indication of juxtaposing these reports is that the number of Muslims and their official makeup tracked in the Newham area literally more than doubled in a mere 8 years (*edit* excuse me, 11 years).

Of course that's the obvious assumption, but it doesn't take much reading to see that it's clearly wrong. For a start acid attacks are most common not in Islam generally, but specifically in the Indian subcontinent (and not restricted to Muslims there). Yet proportionally "Asians" are actually underrepresented in the attack statistics at 6% (total UK population 7%). The number of Asylum Seekers is actually inversely proportional with the increase in attacks.
I''m not sure how you are judging that it's more "predominantly muslim" (for a start "predominantly" implies majority), the areas with the most attacks are the lowest socioeconomic areas in London, and the areas with the most gang activity. Newham and Tower Hamlets (although it contains wealthy areas as well, proximity of wealth and poverty typically increases violent crime). It seems like you're doing an about face on the conclusion you reached earlier based on the actual data about Asian offenders and the possibility of the role of tabloid sensationalism and UK weapons laws. What you have left is exactly the same lazy correlation of steretypical crime and a poor area with a large number of immgrants that BobGeese was promoting.

I haven't dismissed anything in Aceh as coincidence, I dismiss it as not broadly representative of Indonesia or Islam in the region, because it isn't. Something which doesn't need explaining to anyone that's been there.

The observation derived from the figures Geese cited is that a higher proportion of the most Muslim-dense areas are correlated to this activity above a correlation to impoverished areas (those with the frozen social mobility that exist chiefly outside London, remember?). These are concentrated in the most predominantly Muslim-populated areas or boroughs of the city.

 

[Billy no mates]

Two more killed in lovely Hackney yesterday including one in my old stamping ground Upper Clapton Road (of early noughties 'murder mile' fame) , that's 50 for the year , grim stuff .

 

[Wrath of Foamy]

The consensus seems to be stay the fuck out of East London.

 

[uppercutbus]

Do the leftist MSM usually give any London mayor flack for letting things getting shitty in London?

Nothing on Sadiq Khan from the msm? If they refuse to grill him on this they won't do shit on anything else. Free ride for Sadiq's tenure.

 

[DC23]

Do the leftist MSM usually give any London mayor flack for letting things getting shitty in London?

Nothing on Sadiq Khan from the msm? If they refuse to grill him on this they won't do shit on anything else. Free ride for Sadiq's tenure.

Lmaoooooo @ the idea of the UK left wing nutjobs attacking a Muslim in power.

 

[Billy no mates]

Do the leftist MSM usually give any London mayor flack for letting things getting shitty in London?

Nothing on Sadiq Khan from the msm? If they refuse to grill him on this they won't do shit on anything else. Free ride for Sadiq's tenure.

Dunno about Sadiq but David Lammy the local MP was getting a lot of flak from resident on the local news , its not just the fatalities either A and E departments are reporting big rises in wounded coming in .

 

[Madmick]

The consensus seems to be stay the fuck out of East London.

Great flick.

 

[WTF2008]

I'm gonna go selfish.
I honestly don't care when gang members murder each other.

It's the violence/murder on random people that pisses me off.

 

[Congo66]

I've been to London. its just like every other high crime shithole urban hellscape: everything is expensive, the nice areas are exclusive, it parasitically feeds off its name recognition, and the food sucks.

I live in London and that's bollocks.

A few years ago near me Somalian drug dealers kept shooting Somalian drug dealers. I'm not a Somalian drug dealer so it didn't affect me or put me in any danger.

With the current stabbings and occasional shootings it's the same. I'm not a drug dealer so it doesn't affect me. I'm not sure that drug dealers killing each other is really such a big deal and although London may have overtaken NY for Feb and April, NY will win for the year as usual.

 

[WTF2008]

I live in London and that's bollocks.

A few years ago near me Somalian drug dealers kept shooting Somalian drug dealers. I'm not a Somalian drug dealer so it didn't affect me or put me in any danger.

With the current stabbings and occasional shootings it's the same. I'm not a drug dealer so it doesn't affect me. I'm not sure that drug dealers killing each other is really such a big deal and although London may have overtaken NY for Feb and April, NY will win for the year as usual.

Are there that many somolian gangs near you killing people?

 

[Ichibanner]

As an American, one should oppose such laws because it violates the right of people to be safe from unreasonable search. Stop-n-frisk is abusive towards innocent people, who primarily will be targeted because of how they look. If people are going to get stopped on the street because they are perceived to be violent criminals then why isn't the government searching and investigating men in suits, because some of them will be engaging in white-collar crime.

While I agree that we should be safe from unreasonable search, the tactic of stop and frisk seemed to have had desired "good" results. Yes, it's profiling, but profiling often works. I have family that are LEO. They deal with the same rejects every year. They don't "hassle" people, but they do drive up on, and make it a point to interact with known criminals. It's lead to arrests for drug dealing, possession of a firearm by felon, and possession of a stolen handgun or long gun.

I find it funny that many people oppose "stop and frisk" due to their love of individual rights yet they cheer every gun restriction that becomes law. By all means let known felons enjoy the freedom to carry a stolen handgun without the fear of being patted down. Just make sure that I can't legally carry a registered firearm to defend myself against said felon.

.

 

[WTF2008]

While I agree that we should be safe from unreasonable search, the tactic of stop and frisk seemed to have had desired "good" results. Yes, it's profiling, but profiling often works. I have family that are LEO. They deal with the same rejects every year. They don't "hassle" people, but they do drive up on, and make it a point to interact with known criminals. It's lead to arrests for drug dealing, possession of a firearm by felon, and possession of a stolen handgun or long gun.

I find it funny that many people oppose "stop and frisk" due to their love of individual rights yet they cheer every gun restriction that becomes law. By all means let known felons enjoy the freedom to carry a stolen handgun without the fear of being patted down. Just make sure that I can't legally carry a registered firearm to defend myself against said .

 

[Congo66]

Are there that many somolian gangs near you killing people?

Not any more no, a few shootings seemed to sort it all out. Some of the stabbings in February were Somalis again though but in a different part of London, Camden.

On an unrelated note police funding isn't set locally it's done nationally and the cuts to police funding since 2010 are down to the Conservative governments austerity measures and that's seen police funding fall by 25%.

So police funding falls by a shit load and murders are up, that's a shock. Lets blame the Labour London mayor for it though, especially as he's a Muslim.

 

[Billy no mates]

I live in London and that's bollocks.

A few years ago near me Somalian drug dealers kept shooting Somalian drug dealers. I'm not a Somalian drug dealer so it didn't affect me or put me in any danger.

With the current stabbings and occasional shootings it's the same. I'm not a drug dealer so it doesn't affect me. I'm not sure that drug dealers killing each other is really such a big deal and although London may have overtaken NY for Feb and April, NY will win for the year as usual.

Edmonton for the Somalis ? , it might well end up affect you though as the increasingly cavalier use of violence over trivial seeming stuff (if social media is to be believed the Walthamstow shootings were in part over an altercation at an milkshake bar) will inevitably spill over on to people who have fuck all to do with it .