Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

how can a shit-dump be considered cool?

Rutita1 said:
And I want to know how he can say that said people do not come from certain classes.....seen as though some 'learning difficulties' are as a result of a genetic illness or disability.....or is the suggestion that only poor people have genetic illnesses? :rolleyes:
Well.... as me and Blagsta have said, there is evidence which suggests that poor diet as a kid can lead to low IQ, or rather is linked to IQ, of course it's very difficult to make causal assumptions about these things. Also, If your parents were genetically around the lower regions of "normal" IQ you might be more likely to go below 70 which would make you LD according to certain services, and if your parents did have low IQ then they'd be more likely to perhaps have less good jobs.

But you are quite right, many LDs are thought or known to be largely due to genetic factors which emerge in that individual alone (rather than their immediate family), and those I imagine should be split equally across class.
 
Perhaps the right-honourable-gentleman would do us the service of qualifying what exactly he meant by Learning Difficulties?....just to clear the matter up like.
 
trashpony said:
They weren't stats. It was a quote.

I haven't got time now but to be honest, I've entirely lost patience with you. It's a waste of time arguing with you as you ignore anything that doesn't back up your ludicrous and frankly bizarre assertions.

What you've got to bear in mind with Balders is that he's always right, even when he's wrong he's right because in his universe he's the only person who knows anything, everyone else has an agenda, is a "LIBERAL SUPREMACIST" or some such load of old dogspunk.

If you want a real laugh you could always read his tirade against evidence and statistics, it's worth it just to get an idea of where he's coming from (yes I know it's probably lala-land! :D ).
 
tbaldwin said:
FACTS Blagsta FACTS


I do find find it a bit rich when "man of the people" baldwin, the bloke most likely to use the claim "most people want.." in his posts without any FACTS to back him up, has the cheek to chide anyone else on the subject.

You need to shut your arse and give your mouth a chance, old son.
 
Agent Sparrow said:
As I said in my last post, as far as I'm aware there is a debate that highly educated parents are more likely to have kids diagnosed with autism. I'm not going to support that because that is still debated, and of course it might just be that these middle class kids are more likely to receive diagnosis rather than being more likely to have it. But it's something of interest which needs to be considered.

IQ, yes, I've already said there is a link between IQ and diet when young. And also IQ tests IMO don't tell you anything about intelligence, just how good you are at IQ tests. But in order to be considered LD on IQ alone it has to be below 70. That's pretty low in the grand scheme of things, about 2-3% of the population I think. Admittedly LD is more biologically orientated than mental health in the way it is seen is this country, but a lot of people with IQ below 70 are IMO likely to be like that due to something quite individual to them rather than the lower classes being selectively bred as less intelligent, which is what you seem to be saying.

This really is going off on another tangent. But what you say is basically right.
The IQ thing though is also influenced by how much stimulation kids get when they are really young.
So that looks like being a contributory factor to why people with learning difficulties tend to be from less well off backgrounds.
Learning difficulties are also more likely with very young or quite old mums.
 
Rutita1 said:
Perhaps the right-honourable-gentleman would do us the service of qualifying what exactly he meant by Learning Difficulties?....just to clear the matter up like.

What i mean is someone who has problems with cognitive tasks and/or a IQ substantially lower than average.
How would you define it?
 
ViolentPanda said:
What you've got to bear in mind with Balders is that he's always right, even when he's wrong he's right because in his universe he's the only person who knows anything, everyone else has an agenda, is a "LIBERAL SUPREMACIST" or some such load of old dogspunk.

If you want a real laugh you could always read his tirade against evidence and statistics, it's worth it just to get an idea of where he's coming from (yes I know it's probably lala-land! :D ).

Look at post 16 from UMA. See what someone who knows a bit more about stats and how there used had to say.
Just goes to show not everyone on U75 is a shallow as you....
 
Blagsta said:
Although tbf, learning difficulties/disability are not the same thing as autism.


tbf. yes,yes,yes... thats more like it blagsta i knew you would display your tolerant empathatic side......
 
tbaldwin said:
Look at post 16 from UMA. See what someone who knows a bit more about stats and how there used had to say.
Just goes to show not everyone on U75 is a shallow as you....

Sticks and stones Balders, sticks and stones. :p

Just because someone else makes a post that quotes Mark Twain's old saw and anecdotally supports your opinion doesn't mean (in anyone elses' mind but yours, obviously) that their opinion can be extrapolated into a meaningful comment on statistics per se.

Post 16 is irrelevant, and if you believe otherwise then it's you who is "shallow".
 
ViolentPanda said:
Sticks and stones Balders, sticks and stones. :p

Just because someone else makes a post that quotes Mark Twain's old saw and anecdotally supports your opinion doesn't mean (in anyone elses' mind but yours, obviously) that their opinion can be extrapolated into a meaningful comment on statistics per se.

Post 16 is irrelevant, and if you believe otherwise then it's you who is "shallow".

So they work with stats all the time.. People like you look them up on the internet to back up silly arguements but you know more than them because you do, because your VP. ...........
 
tbaldwin said:
So they work with stats all the time.. People like you look them up on the internet to back up silly arguements
Ah, the same tbaldwin who whined about people making assumptions about what he knows and does...

...makes assumptions about what someone else knows and does.

Blagsta's wrong. You're not a twat, youre a joke.
but you know more than them because you do, because your VP. ...........

I haven't claimed to know more about them than someone else, joke-boy. I merely pointed out that all UMA's post does is quote Mark Twain and make an anecdotal claim.
Don't put words in my mouth there's a good boy.
 
Agent Sparrow said:
So because you think it must must be true, it is. Oh really...

Downs Syndrome for example is caused by chromsomes, and you either have it or you don't. You can't be partly downs. Therefore there is no reason at all that that particular one class would have more downs sydrome people. Same goes for a lot of the chromosonal LDs.

Picky, I know, but it's quite possible that chromosomal disorders might have uneven distribution between classes. The older the mother, the higher the (admittedly still small) probability of the child having Down's Syndrome.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the average age of a mother varies between classes. It seems like middle class people are more likely to have kids later in life (I admit that's a guess based on a small number of observations on my part, however, rather than any stats I have to hand).
 
Reasons to love Brixton

nuttys said:
Of course I realise that I must have had bad luck.

And I didnt get mugged in Brixton. Just threatened and yelled at, people following me etc etc.

I have only been mugged ONCE in London. (islington, as you know)

Still, it must be clear to everyone that Brixton is an area with a very nervous atmosphere.

Like I wrote, I walk a lot in London during the nights (beleive me - A LOT) and I surprisingly rarely feel unsafe.

I realise that what you have heard and read about an area will effect how safe you feel there.


I realise I may be entering the fray here a little late, but...

I have been mugged about three times in Brixton, every time when I lived up near what used to be Bar Lorca, which I will grant you is probably the most neglected part of Brixton. But each time I was asking for it, walking home pissed-up and generally being the easiest target for any opportunistic lowlife. And I still live in Brixton, because it can happen anywhere. I actually feel more threatened in the West End, I hate the West End. But I won't go on about it, cos some people must love living in the West End.

I love Brixton because it's unpretentious and affordable. I have mates here, it's really convenient for getting to work on Aldwych, it has great bars and restaurants, clubs, shopping, great market, and it is a multiracial community where you can meet all kinds of interesting people. It's near one of London's best parks - look, Brixton is just a good place to live when it suits the kind of person you are. If you want "edgy" I suggest the Lower Clapton Road or Stonebridge Park or Peter Street, Soho or Foster Way flats in High Green, Sheffield where I come from. You name it, but I bet you won't get decent Eritrean or Colombian food there. Brixton's got a lot more to it, people aren't here for the label.
 
Yes, but edgy means different things to different people, how do you define it? What makes this particular area, in your opinion, edgy? Murder mile?
 
Answer

It just makes me nervous. But it wouldn't make everyone nervous. My ex-girlfriend used to live there and I always hated going up there, but she had no problems with it at all. I didn't like Clapton, it was dull but threatening.

It's all a matter of opinion. As sweeping generalisations go.
 
Wednesdayite said:
I have been mugged about three times in Brixton, But each time I was asking for it, walking home pissed-up and generally being the easiest target for any opportunistic lowlife.
I'd like to comment on this.

I'm not having a crack at you Weds', but I find that these kind of comments are frequently thrown out on the baords in relation to London and, in particular, Brixton and other such "edgy" ( ;) ) areas.

I find the idea that somebody who is walking home, perhaps slightly vunerable, but minding their own business is "asking" to be violently attacked and robbed on public streets, to be totally crazy. I also find it rather chillimg.

It smacks directly of the old: "Oh she had a miniskirt and make up on, she was really just asking to be raped."

It has come up several times over the years and there are many on these boards who seem to feel that "walking home" is the same thing as "asking for trouble", that the two things actually equate.

I find it a chilling indictment of the state of things in the society (or the area of society where these violent crimes occur), that people can be so utterly blase about such vicious and damaging crimes and even ascribe blame to the innocent party - asking for it my arse!

I want to be able to walk down the street and, PARTICULARLY if I look a little vunerable, be safe and secure in the knowledge that the chances are that I will NOT be violently attacked and that if I am, the culprits will likely be caught and sent to prison for a lengthy period. I'm pleased to say that I live in just such a society. Violent street crime is not tolerated and (perhaps hence,) there is no culture of it and the prevelance is almost zero - even in the roughest areas. Men, women and children are generally very safe to roam the streets alone after dark.



Have we reached a point yet where it's generally accepted that a woman should be able to walk the streets in a mini skirt and NOT be blamed for getting raped because of this "showing of the knees". I fucking hope we have!

And I fucking well think the same should be true of people "walking home".

I DO appreciate that the "facts on the ground" are that in some areas one is more likely to be attacked, but I cannot see the solution as being "not walking home" any more than I see "wearing long skirts" as a solution for rape.

I would see the solution as making sure the streets are safe to walk for everyone.

Violent crime such as street robbery should attract long custodial semtences. I would suggest six years for a first offence and twelve upon re-offending.

Violent crime MUST not be tolerated.

:mad:

Woof
 
Jessiedog said:
m pleased to say that I live in just such a society. Violent street crime is not tolerated and (perhaps hence,) there is no culture of it and the prevelance is almost zero - even in the roughest areas. Men, women and children are generally very safe to roam the streets alone after dark.





Woof
Well said, Jessiedog. Yes, you are lucky in that you live in a place where this sort of thing isn't tolerated. That's because the justice system is hard on this type of crime, any crime even. This country is too soft IMO, when someone commits a crime it's ALWAYS got to be someone's else's fault.....bad childhood and upbringing, lack of money, poverty, lack of education...etc etc.
There's a few people in my mum's side of the family who have had all of this but they didn't go out robbing.
 
Stobart Stopper said:
Well said, Jessiedog. Yes, you are lucky in that you live in a place where this sort of thing isn't tolerated. That's because the justice system is hard on this type of crime, any crime even. This country is too soft IMO, when someone commits a crime it's ALWAYS got to be someone's else's fault.....bad childhood and upbringing, lack of money, poverty, lack of education...etc etc.
There's a few people in my mum's side of the family who have had all of this but they didn't go out robbing.
Yeah!

Not like me. I came over all Mrs Thatcher for a moment there.

I don't know really and perhaps I'm being WAY too harsh (or just getting old - things ain't how they used to be, y'know? :rolleyes: ) because I do recognise deprivation, poverty, lack of opportunity, shoddy parenting, etc. as contributing the problem.

That said, I believe there has to be a bottom line. And the bottom line for me is to not have to worry about being violently attacked, just for walking down the street. It would be an intolerable situation. Especially if it was the more vunerable peeps likely to be targetted.

Like I say, we don't get much of that here. Most "crime" is committed by illegal immigrants from the Mainland and boils down to working illegally (prostitution mainly, but also construction, restaurant kitchens, etc.). Burglaries are the favorite method of garnering "loot", but the burglars are often woefully inept, arriving by boat from Guangdong, armed with hand drawn maps directing them to "Victoria Peak", where the rich people live. They invariably either get caught on the Peak, or get lost and then caught anyway. There's been a bit of a racket going recently with Mainlanders coming in boats and digging up rare trees (such as incense trees,) from our country parks to smuggle back for a hefty profit - the cops have stepped up patrols in the countryside and activity is diminishing.

There was a case a few years ago when someone was wrapping a glass bottle, full of water, in a placcy bag and coming up behind women on the street, bopping them on the head with it and nicking their bags - happened about 5 or 6 times over a period of a few months. Fortunately, nobody was seriously hurt, more shocked and bruised.

Then they caught a guy in the act who confessed to being the perp and plead guilty in court.

He got six years.

It hasn't happened since.

I can understand people being hungry and desparate and I can also appreciate people wanting to have more than they do, but I DON"T think allowing these peeps to make a living by attacking others makes sense.

Whereas I will certainly accept that the lack of (violent) street crime and the general lack of violence here is partially a cultural phenonena, I also believe that harsh sentences have helped play their part - it would seem that those bent on theft would prefer burglary of an empty house given the pickings can be rich and the penalties much lower (although burglaries are very, very few too).

There is very much an ethos here that nicking someone elses shit is uncool 'cos they probably really grafted hard to get whatever they have and it just isn't fair to jeapordise their and their family's situation. Although we do still get a few little old ladies conned out of a few thousand quid now and again (especially around the various "ancestor" festivals,) by swift-talking charlatans in Buddhist robes promising to "change bad luck", "heal a relatives illness" or "dispel evil ghosts". And there're those who prey on others greed by selling a batch of worthless "gold" ornaments or "expensive" electronic components, that turn out, of course, to be worthless once the sting has been played and the gang departed.

We also tend to prefer good, old-fashioned fraud and money laundering.

But violence, against peeps on the street, or in their homes, or anywhere - is fairly taboo.

Say NO to (violent) street crime!

:)

(The Triads, of course, are another matter entirely and the "threat" of violence is always implicit for small businesses who must consider their "security". But any "incidents" are remarkably rare - most see the small monthly "fee" as a cost of doing business. There's the occasional "torching" of some hawker stand in a market somewhere, but rarely. The most fun is when two major Triads have a shakedown and you get 70 or 80 "cool lookin' doods" in black jeans, tight white tee-shirts and dark sunglasses marching down Nathan Road giving each other the attitude. Or there's the aftermath of a nightime clash outside a Karaoke joint, snooker hall or Mahjong parlour where two Triads have clashed and a dozen or so yoofs with orange hair and dragon tattoos are lugged off to hospital to be wiped, stitched, bandaged and plastered before being shovelled of to the cop-shop.)

:)

Woof
 
Ok, some fair points

Jessiedog said:
I'd like to comment on this.

I'm not having a crack at you Weds', but I find that these kind of comments are frequently thrown out on the baords in relation to London and, in particular, Brixton and other such "edgy" ( ;) ) areas.

I find the idea that somebody who is walking home, perhaps slightly vunerable, but minding their own business is "asking" to be violently attacked and robbed on public streets, to be totally crazy. I also find it rather chillimg.

It smacks directly of the old: "Oh she had a miniskirt and make up on, she was really just asking to be raped."

It has come up several times over the years and there are many on these boards who seem to feel that "walking home" is the same thing as "asking for trouble", that the two things actually equate.

I find it a chilling indictment of the state of things in the society (or the area of society where these violent crimes occur), that people can be so utterly blase about such vicious and damaging crimes and even ascribe blame to the innocent party - asking for it my arse!

I want to be able to walk down the street and, PARTICULARLY if I look a little vunerable, be safe and secure in the knowledge that the chances are that I will NOT be violently attacked and that if I am, the culprits will likely be caught and sent to prison for a lengthy period. I'm pleased to say that I live in just such a society. Violent street crime is not tolerated and (perhaps hence,) there is no culture of it and the prevelance is almost zero - even in the roughest areas. Men, women and children are generally very safe to roam the streets alone after dark.



Have we reached a point yet where it's generally accepted that a woman should be able to walk the streets in a mini skirt and NOT be blamed for getting raped because of this "showing of the knees". I fucking hope we have!

And I fucking well think the same should be true of people "walking home".

I DO appreciate that the "facts on the ground" are that in some areas one is more likely to be attacked, but I cannot see the solution as being "not walking home" any more than I see "wearing long skirts" as a solution for rape.

I would see the solution as making sure the streets are safe to walk for everyone.

Violent crime such as street robbery should attract long custodial semtences. I would suggest six years for a first offence and twelve upon re-offending.

Violent crime MUST not be tolerated.

:mad:

Woof


Points taken - but I don't think some muggers emptying a pissed-up Yorkshireman's pockets by force is the same as rape. Maybe I don't see the issue as serious because it's me, and I can't equate the two, and I have a very particular disgust for the "asking for it" idea when it comes to women; violence against women is invariably abhorrent. So perhaps you have exposed a contradiction in my thinking. And thank you for that.

Your points on custodial sentences - face it, those sentences will never be passed for assault. But get writing to your MP.... Or start the fucking Revolution.. am I being too hopeful to think that a dog could do that?
 
Wednesdayite said:
Points taken - but I don't think some muggers emptying a pissed-up Yorkshireman's pockets by force is the same as rape. Maybe I don't see the issue as serious because it's me, and I can't equate the two, and I have a very particular disgust for the "asking for it" idea when it comes to women; violence against women is invariably abhorrent. So perhaps you have exposed a contradiction in my thinking. And thank you for that.
You're welcome.

I'm sure that many an eldery lady, after being violently assulted, bears the scars so deeply as to be terrified of emerging through the front door again.

:(



Your points on custodial sentences - face it, those sentences will never be passed for assault. But get writing to your MP.... Or start the fucking Revolution.. am I being too hopeful to think that a dog could do that?
I cannot understand some of the sentences passed for violent offences in the UK. Manifestly insufficient! (As they say.)

As I mentioned, where I live, six years for a first conviction is the benchmark for a guilty plea (well, the benchmark is actually 9 years, with 1/3 off for a guitly plea,) and, along with other factors, it does seem to contribute to a society where such crimes are deterred.

Dunno about writing to UK MP's, but if there's a good revolution to be started I might just be able to lend a snarl or two - and even perhaps a growl and a couple of ankle snaps.

:)

Woof
 
Q

Jessiedog said:
You're welcome.

I'm sure that many an eldery lady, after being violently assulted, bears the scars so deeply as to be terrified of emerging through the front door again.

:(




I cannot understand some of the sentences passed for violent offences in the UK. Manifestly insufficient! (As they say.)

As I mentioned, where I live, six years for a first conviction is the benchmark for a guilty plea (well, the benchmark is actually 9 years, with 1/3 off for a guitly plea,) and, along with other factors, it does seem to contribute to a society where such crimes are deterred.

Dunno about writing to UK MP's, but if there's a good revolution to be started I might just be able to lend a snarl or two - and even perhaps a growl and a couple of ankle snaps.

:)

Woof


So where do you live?
 
Yeh I'm sure so, but I'm slightly reminded of Mauritius, where my Dad's side of me family's from. There is also very little street crime there. The police administer a swift beating to any suspect. But it's a good deterrent. We love that, eh?
 
Wednesdayite said:
Yeh I'm sure so, but I'm slightly reminded of Mauritius, where my Dad's side of me family's from. There is also very little street crime there. The police administer a swift beating to any suspect. But it's a good deterrent. We love that, eh?
We're extremely lucky with the fuzz we have here. There are some bad apples, of course, but on the whole they are very professional. And the service has improved dramatically over the last few decades and, especially, the last ten years. They ain't perfect, but their the best I've come across (and I've come across a fair few in various countries and jurisdictions *ahem*).

It's the judges who are utterly vicious here (at least in their sentencing of those convicted of violent street crime).


I remember during the WTO riots in December when the cops arrested 1,000, predominately Korean, demonstrators. They were so careful, that it took about 12 hours. Five cops per demonstrator (females dealt with by female cops), each one individually lifted gently and carried away, then helped onto a bus and off to the cop-shop to be booked.

By about 11:00am there were still about 100 peeps demonstrating and waiting to be arrested. They were complaining of being cold and hungry. By about 11:30am they were provided with additional blankets to wear and the cops then served them all a breakfast of bread, crumpets and tea. Once they had finished breakfast, the cops slowly, one-by-one carried them off.

They don't call 'em "Asia's Finest" for nothing.

:cool:

Woof
 
Back
Top Bottom