7 2 mins 3 yrs

There’s been another one today in my old neighbourhood. A man in his 20s has been stabbed to death in Leyton, East London.You have to be out of your mind to live in London now.

The campaign to link the Tories, “austerity” and rampant immigrant knife violence is pretty transparent. Jeremy Corbyn today said in Parliament today that it’s “driven by austerity”. The man is shameless. This is what politicians have imported and inflicted on everyone else (my emphasis):

Did Wayne, who is black British, think you have to be more aggressive today than in the past to earn your stripes? “In the last 10 years, since the Somalis and the Congolese came to London, they taught us a whole new level of violence,” he said.

“These people had seen family members mutilated so when they said, ‘I’m gonna smash you up,’ us guys would be shouting, ‘Yo blud, wot you mean?’ and they would just pull out a blade and juk [stab] you in the chest. It upped the speed and level of violence for us British-born guys. We had to arm up to protect ourselves. It created an upward spiral.”

If you think that has anything to do with a slight decline in police numbers you’re out of your mind. If you think that police numbers have anything to do with it, you’re out of your mind. And if you think that sending coppers into schools to educate da yoof about knife crime is a solution, you really are out of your mind. I’ve told you, London is going the way of Jo’burg. It’s filling up primitives who think a machete is a way of life.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

7 thoughts on “INNIT BLUD?

  1. “Yet there are two things worth noting. First, the link isn’t huge – an “elasticity” of about -0.3, which is to say you get a 3% reduction in crime for every 10% increase in policing. That’s not insignificant, but police numbers in England and Wales have only gone down by about 15% since 2010, so it’s no use if you want to explain a 33% rise in knife crime since 2011.

    Second, the review of the literature found that increasing your police force had different effects on different crimes. Property crime went down most – which makes sense, as some of those crimes are presumably carried out by people who are weighing the potential risks and benefits, and that calculation will be affected by seeing more police around.

    But, the review said, violent crime was much less affected – which again makes sense. “Much violent crime … is conducted in the heat of the moment in pubs or on the street, or behind closed doors in the home”, it notes, so one would not “expect consideration or even awareness of potential police attention to come into play”.

    So police numbers probably are important, but May still has a point if she’s saying that it’s not the dominant factor in the increase in knife crime. You could even argue that reducing police numbers was the right thing to do, given that crime was falling.”


  2. Even if there had been no decline in numbers, your police numbers would be -low- when compared with major peer nations.

  3. And let’s not forget the elephant in the room. Drugs prohibition has never worked (see Prohibition in the USA in the 1930s) and will never work. Prohibition of cannabis has merely resulted in more dangerous cannabis driving out the hippy brands of 1970s:

    “This can be seen starkly in the results of a new study, published in the journal Drug Test Analysis and carried out by scientists at King’s College London. It’s the first big study for ten years to look at what strains of cannabis are sold on the streets of England, following up research by the same authors from 2008 and 2005. It took almost a thousand cannabis samples seized by police in five constabularies – Derbyshire, Kent, London Met, Merseyside, and Sussex – and examined them for potency: specifically, how much tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), the two main active ingredients in cannabis, there was in each sample.

    Of the 995 samples the team looked at, 929 of them were skunk – a high-potency, hydroponically grown form of cannabis. Just 58 of them were resin (hash) and only six were traditional bush weed. Until 2000, according to Home Office reports, hash accounted for about 70% of all cannabis seizures; now it’s barely five per cent. Although skunk itself hasn’t got any stronger in the last ten years, it now seems to be pretty much the only available form of cannabis. It is extremely high in THC, and almost completely without any CBD at all.

    To understand why this is a problem, it’s worth understanding what THC and CBD are. If you’ve ever been to an Amsterdam coffee shop, you may have been asked: ‘Do you want to get high, or do you want to get stoned?’ At the risk of oversimplifying, THC is what gets you high, while CBD is what gets you stoned. The mental health impacts of cannabis are not absolutely clear, and I don’t want to add to a media barrage of scaremongering. But it is well documented that regular use of high-THC cannabis is strongly correlated with psychosis and diagnoses of schizophrenia. The average person’s lifetime risk of developing schizophrenia is about one per cent, but a regular high-THC-cannabis user has about a five per cent chance…

    The answer to this is not to clamp down harder on cannabis. That’s been tried. Besides, a huge crackdown would be enormously expensive for a justice system that has already had its budget stripped to the bone. Also, there doesn’t seem to be public support for punitive measures. A 2016 poll found that support for legal sale of the drug outweighs opposition.

    There are more efficient ways. Di Forti told me that the experience with tobacco shows that a public education campaign, combined with efforts such as banning smoking in some public places, can significantly reduce use. The drug reform campaign group Volteface recommends a tax on cannabis, with higher taxes for more THC-potent strains, in the same way that vodka is taxed more than wine and wine is taxed more than beer. This would be vastly cheaper – indeed, probably revenue-positive – and would be much more likely to reduce harm, and perhaps use.

    Canada is planning to introduce a system like that, with the explicit goal of protecting children. It’s not a free-for-all libertarian idea of giving stoners whatever weed they want. It’s a regulated system that takes profits out of the hands of the black market. It allows lawmakers to make cannabis safer, by making it harder for children to buy, incentivising the production and sale of less dangerous strains, and allowing for education and public health messages to be issued beyond the idiotically simple and ineffective ‘just say no’ approach. The experience of other countries, such as Portugal, which have taken cannabis out of the hands of the justice system and made it a health issue, has been broadly positive from a public health point of view, and enormously cheaper than a punitive approach. Its drug mortality rate is the lowest in western Europe. From the point of view of cannabis use, only 5.1% of young adults have used the drug in the last year, according to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, compared to 11.3% in the UK. And the Portuguese figure is dropping year-on-year. There certainly isn’t a suggestion that legalisation in 2001 has led to a boom in drug use there.”


  4. And let’s not forget the elephant in the room.


    Its been an abject utter failure.

Comments are closed.