In article . com,
" wrote:

Why don't you emigrate to Singapore - I'm sure you'll feel a whole lot
better there.

E.

Yes, and safe from not only the thugs who make all of our lives a
misery, but also the bleeding-heart liberal apologists too. Does the
cap fit?

Yes, I rather thought that living in one of the most authoritarian
states in the world, one with a high death penalty rate and heavily
censored media, would appeal to some here. Mind you, given a bit more
time we could be joining them thanks to Blair and co.

E.

In message , John Rowland
writes

I have never, ever, seen any graffiti on any part of any transport
system that was in any way aesthetically pleasing.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

It's terrorism. Its purpose is to let us know that we have entered a place
where the forces of disorder are winning, and law and order can't protect
us. The authorities couldn't protect the train from being vandalised, and
they can't protect us from being robbed, raped or murdered. Its aim is to
make us afraid. Graffiti doesn't have the potential or even the aim of
making the lives of the downtrodden materially better, and so is not a
defensible political act.

applause
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

eastender wrote:

In article . com,
" wrote:

Why don't you emigrate to Singapore - I'm sure you'll feel a whole lot
better there.

E.

Yes, and safe from not only the thugs who make all of our lives a
misery, but also the bleeding-heart liberal apologists too. Does the
cap fit?

Yes, I rather thought that living in one of the most authoritarian
states in the world, one with a high death penalty rate and heavily
censored media, would appeal to some here. Mind you, given a bit more
time we could be joining them thanks to Blair and co.

E.

I realise that it's not everyone's cup of tea, but given that I am a
very self-disciplined person, not given to rocking the boat
politically, and with little interest in "party politics", but rather
more interested in getting to and from work safely, and not flinching
every time I hear a thug walking past my car for fear that he will
vandalise it, or assault me (or worse) should I have the temerity to
remonstrate with him or his many cohorts which make leaving my home
after nightfall a rare and dangerous experiece (and I live in one of
the better streets in Fulham!), and having no philosophical objections
to the death (or other draconian) penalties for those so deserving, and
a thorough disgust for the prurient rubbish printed in the vast
majority of our newspapers and television media, Singapopre certainly
appeals.

In fact, Singapore simply reflects our own culture at the time of its
independence, and I am frankly, a little tired of the seemingly racist
view that their society is any less valid than 21st Century Britain.

Marc.

In article .com,
"John B" wrote:


I'm genuinely amused and amazed that people here have equated graffiti to terrorism... it's a scribble on a train.

I think it was a wind up - the alternative is too worrying...

E.

wrote:
Why don't you emigrate to Singapore - I'm sure you'll feel a whole lot
better there.
Yes, and safe from not only the thugs who make all of our lives a
misery, but also the bleeding-heart liberal apologists too. Does the
cap fit?

Yes, I rather thought that living in one of the most authoritarian
states in the world, one with a high death penalty rate and heavily
censored media, would appeal to some here. Mind you, given a bit more
time we could be joining them thanks to Blair and co.

I realise that it's not everyone's cup of tea, but given that I am a
very self-disciplined person, not given to rocking the boat
politically, and with little interest in "party politics", but rather
more interested in getting to and from work safely, and not flinching
every time I hear a thug walking past my car for fear that he will
vandalise it, or assault me (or worse) should I have the temerity to
remonstrate with him or his many cohorts which make leaving my home
after nightfall a rare and dangerous experiece (and I live in one of
the better streets in Fulham!), and having no philosophical objections
to the death (or other draconian) penalties for those so deserving, and
a thorough disgust for the prurient rubbish printed in the vast
majority of our newspapers and television media, Singapopre certainly
appeals.

In fact, Singapore simply reflects our own culture at the time of its
independence, and I am frankly, a little tired of the seemingly racist
view that their society is any less valid than 21st Century Britain.

And you haven't emigrated there because...?

Incidentally, I'm neither particularly well-built nor particularly
hardcore, but despite living somewhere appreciably worse than "one of
the better streets in Fulham" I've rarely if ever found leaving my
house after nightfall dangerous or even scary. Am I incredibly lucky,
incredibly blasé, or is everybody else just paranoid...?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:

wrote:
Why don't you emigrate to Singapore - I'm sure you'll feel a whole lot
better there.
Yes, and safe from not only the thugs who make all of our lives a
misery, but also the bleeding-heart liberal apologists too. Does the
cap fit?

Yes, I rather thought that living in one of the most authoritarian
states in the world, one with a high death penalty rate and heavily
censored media, would appeal to some here. Mind you, given a bit more
time we could be joining them thanks to Blair and co.

I realise that it's not everyone's cup of tea, but given that I am a
very self-disciplined person, not given to rocking the boat
politically, and with little interest in "party politics", but rather
more interested in getting to and from work safely, and not flinching
every time I hear a thug walking past my car for fear that he will
vandalise it, or assault me (or worse) should I have the temerity to
remonstrate with him or his many cohorts which make leaving my home
after nightfall a rare and dangerous experiece (and I live in one of
the better streets in Fulham!), and having no philosophical objections
to the death (or other draconian) penalties for those so deserving, and
a thorough disgust for the prurient rubbish printed in the vast
majority of our newspapers and television media, Singapopre certainly
appeals.

In fact, Singapore simply reflects our own culture at the time of its
independence, and I am frankly, a little tired of the seemingly racist
view that their society is any less valid than 21st Century Britain.

And you haven't emigrated there because...?

Incidentally, I'm neither particularly well-built nor particularly
hardcore, but despite living somewhere appreciably worse than "one of
the better streets in Fulham" I've rarely if ever found leaving my
house after nightfall dangerous or even scary. Am I incredibly lucky,
incredibly blasé, or is everybody else just paranoid...?


I think a lot of people are pretty paranoid. Bad things do indeed go on
out on the streets, I'm not trying to deny that, but I really hate the
whole living in fear thing that some people seemingly embrace.

John Rowland wrote:

asdf wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:25:14 -0600, Tristán White wrote:

Some graffiti is breathtakingly beautiful, some is gloriously witty
(think: Banksy). Some of it can really brighten up a boring journey,
or make a disused train a work of art.

I have never, ever, seen any graffiti on any part of any transport
system that was in any way aesthetically pleasing.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

It's terrorism. Its purpose is to let us know that we have entered a place
where the forces of disorder are winning, and law and order can't protect
us. The authorities couldn't protect the train from being vandalised, and
they can't protect us from being robbed, raped or murdered. Its aim is to
make us afraid. Graffiti doesn't have the potential or even the aim of
making the lives of the downtrodden materially better, and so is not a
defensible political act.

I disagree with that analysis. I don't think those who do graffiti have
that in mind - I think that reflects your mindset rather than theirs.

Note that I do go along with the notion that graffiti can lead an area
to have a somewhat malevolent atmosphere to it, at least to an extent.
Of course how perception and how much is reality interweave in such a
case is an interesting question - some would just say that perception
is reality.

I *really* disagree with your use of the word terrorism, it just sounds
like you're jumping on the bandwagon, using the term for shock value.
Poor show.

In article . com,
" wrote:


which make leaving my homeafter nightfall a rare and dangerous experiece (and I live in one of
the better streets in Fulham!),

Are you really scared? Has anything ever happened to you?

In fact, Singapore simply reflects our own culture at the time of its
independence, and I am frankly, a little tired of the seemingly racist
view that their society is any less valid than 21st Century Britain.

This is nonsense. At no time in the 20th century have we had a largely
one party state or state controlled media, except for necessary war
precautions. You do realise that Singapore tries to control Internet
access - still want to live there?

E.

John B wrote:
Perhaps I was overly harsh on the original poster - however, if you're
not aiming to be racist, it's probably worth avoiding words that began
as racially abusive terms when describing someone of the ethnic group
that the term was originally used to describe.

Perhaps, but the meaning of words changes over time (e.g. 'gay') so you
have to take things in context. For a start, how would anyone have
known if they were Irish travellers?

Of course I grade crimes.

We all know that if they had been caught, they wouldn't have been given
a death sentence or pushed under the train. Do we need signs to tell
criminals that being near live tracks and trains is dangerous (rather
like theme parks that have so many warnings now for safety/indemnity
reasons, it's a wonder that ANY visitors can use any of the rides)?

But not a very bad one. I'm genuinely amused and amazed that people
here have equated graffiti to terrorism... it's a scribble on a train.
If you're terrified and intimidated by a scribble on a train, you might
as well kill yourself now, because life is going to get appreciably
harder than that...

Well, although I didn't say that I can see the link - assuming we look
at the real definition of terrorism (and not the assumption that a
terrorist is someone with a bomb). People do feel scared and
intimidated by graffiti. It's the whole purpose of gangs with
territorial areas and markings too. We feel intimidated because someone
else is claiming an area as their own - and you can and do feel
threatened. If people didn't, there would be no motivation to do it.

Should people kill themselves because they feel afraid? I am sure some
do - especially those living in areas where they suffer a lot worse
than just spray paint on walls.

If I was being repeatedly provoked or attacked, either
physically or by people trying to enter my property, I am sure that
sooner or later I'd be considering taking action of my own.

How delightful for you.

Charming response.

The adreneline is pumping and you don't have time
to think - you can only react.

Fine. So it's self defence, you're acquitted, and all is fine legally.
It's only if you try and kill him *while he's running away* that
there's a problem.

Did you read what I said? It happens in a matter of seconds. So the guy
turns and runs as you're about to attack. Can you stop? Will you stop?

I have no idea what I'd do in that situation and I bet you can't
either. What if you come home and find the burglar already inside and
your wife has been murdered? The guy is now trying to run. Do you still
let him go because he's running away? I bet you'd go after them - even
if they had a knife or gun. Instinct takes over. By your logic, you'd
be considered a cold-blooded killer if you got him before he got you.
Maybe you would lie and say it was self defence.

I know this? Well, because these things DO still happen.

Less than they did five years ago. And the main point of visible
policing is to make the public, who seem to share your irrational fear
of crime, believe that there are policemen out there.

I'm not an idiot. Sure Mrs Jones at number 63, who's 91 years old,
thinks it is great to see PCSOs walking about or driving in their
marked Vauxhall Corsa, yet with virtually no power to do anything as
the local chavs give them the finger. She is convinced the police are
out there to protect her. While the CSO is around, she probably IS
safer than normal. Whoop-de-do. Crime doesn't fall. A few penalty
tickets are issued to the trouble makers, but like a high percentage of
fines, they aren't paid.

Many people are being conned into believing we have more police.
Meanwhile the police have virtually no respect for CSOs and hate
working with them (still, they are useful for doing the mundane jobs,
like 'guarding the bees'). At least special constables are now more
highly regarded! My friend is a DCI and speaks of the memos going
around telling officers to try and treat CSOs properly, while
unofficially they're told to keep a straight face when watching the
CSOs trying to do something, so as not to undermine them. CSOs have to
ask for advice on just about everything, and the police get tired of
it.

Visible policing only looks good too. An officer on foot isn't always
that useful when the need to react to something a distance away occurs.
In many cases, you may as well just use CCTV.

According to opinion polls, this is working. It wouldn't be my use of time and money
in an ideal world, but anything that calms the hangers-and-floggers
without actual hanging and flogging is better than the alternative.

Here's a suggestion; More REAL police offers and a return to the more
intensive training we had 10-20 years ago (both for street police and
traffic police).

Opinion polls? What was the question? Do you think there should be more
uniformed officers on the street? Have you seen more officers on the
street (a lot of people can't tell the difference between a police
officer and a CSO)?

I do recommend more CSOs, for the reasons above. And presumably you
know that if someone breaches an ASBO then they stand a good chance of
going to prison?

No they don't. More than 50% of ASBOs are breached, but you have to be
caught breaking it too - and even then, you don't automatically go to
jail. Wake up and smell the coffee! Even the authorities know they're
not working, which is why they're trying to look at a way of improving
enforcement.

But sending people to prison costs *an enormous amount of money* ("an
expensive way of making bad people worse", according to some clever
Tory whose name escapes me). Either you send everyone who's ever done
anything bad to jail forever, or you delay the problem until they
escape. The former is barbaric and ruinously expensive; the latter is
merely useless.

Any criminal off the street is saving someone money. You seem to forget
that. Look at the damage done by the graffiti artists at Camden Town
station. How long could you lock the offenders up before 'running at a
loss'. What about habitual offenders that have been done 400 times and
caused millions of pounds of damage in vandalism?

The current prison system does seem to help train people to commit more
crime - and that definitely needs looking at. The probation system that
allows people to keep taking drugs and commit crime to buy them while
being 'integrated back into the community' is also a joke. Panorama
only scratched the surface when they showed how bad this was.

The problem is you can't just assume that because it will be hard for a
prisoner to adapt to normal life after a sentence that you might as
well not put them there in the first place. If you do this, scrap all
laws and the legal system and let's see how that works. Just say to a
criminal, 'You've been a naughty boy. Promise you won't do it again'.
Doesn't work for parents that bring up kids and make idle threats like
'If you don't behave, you're going straight home' either. The kid soon
learns that they aren't actually punished, so they do it more.

Where the hell do you live? I'm in a not-especially-rich bit of
northeast London; I've never seen any of that kind of thing (I have
seen big gangs of RPIs harrassing upset-looking commuters, and the LUL
inspector who PF-ed me for forgetting to renew my Travelcard last year
treated me with such utter contempt and disrespect that I was vaguely
hoping one of these mythical hoodie types would come along and knife
him, but sadly they remained mythical).

Are you having a laugh? Open your eyes mate.

You're sitting at home writing that visible policing works, CSOs are
great, ASBOs are enforced, crime is down and hoodies don't exist. Where
is this part of north east London? I've lived, worked and travelled
around Enfield, Chingford, Woodford, Leyton and Ilford - and you won't
have to wait 5 minutes before you see someone or something dodgy. The
places I'm talking about are less than 20 miles away. You must have
done well to turn a blind eye to all of this.

As for your penalty fare. What was the problem? You had no ticket and
got a penalty fare. Say "Oops", pay the £20 and go off to renew the
ticket! By all means appeal and hope they'll sympathise (if you can
produce years of season tickets, you might well be let off) but stop
whingeing. You didn't have a ticket and yet you were hoping someone
would come along and knife him. My god, is this the same person that
has written all of the above?

Fine deducted at source from their benefits, usually. Is there any
evidence for this "ASBO as badge of honour" story, or is it just a Viz
joke that's been reprinted in the less-serious papers?

It's based on interviews with people that have got ASBOs. Can you not
see how this would be the case? It doesn't take a genius to work out
that this would be the case!

In 1993, I was arrested (by dawn raid) for running a bulletin board
that had a large number of copyrighted files on there (this predated
the Internet and file sharing). I was in fact the first person here to
be prosecuted, by companies including Sega and Nintendo. As I was
young, a member of a software cracking firm (called Fairlight in case
anyone cares) it was absolutely amazing to be able to tell everyone on
the warez scene that I had been caught, was the first. I suddenly
became the centre of attention and a hero.

However, unlike others, I stopped running the BBS, pleaded guilty, paid
my £3500 fine and forfeited all the computer equipment. I have never
done anything like this since. Don't tell me, or anyone else, that this
is a VIZ-joke.

ASBOs are a good idea, in theory, don't get me wrong - but without
proper enforcement they are pointless.

We're fighting them. We're winning. I'm not afraid, even if you are.

Right. Take the time I was assaulted for trying to save someone being
attacked on a train. Off-duty drivers threw me off the train at the
same station as the two offenders (who the police have been unable to
trace, and have now stopped investigating) and I was - obviously -
attacked. This was at the station I use almost EVERY day. I now have to
keep my wits about me because I have no way of knowing when they will
see me and I won't be surrounded by other people. What happens then?

Do you really think that someone in their home would report a neighbour
doing something when they clearly know where they live? One day, it's a
firebomb through the letter box, damage to property or an attack when
you go out. This is why ordinary citizens won't help the police when
something happens to someone else.

Eventually, in isolated cases, people to stand up. It takes a lot of
courage and usually only happens once things get so bad that they have
no choice. It makes you wonder why the police exist.

Now, I will try and balance things out by saying that the police and
councils will sometimes get together and work on solving the problems
(evicting people for example) but there are insufficient resources to
do so all the time.

My "assumptions" are based on the statistics, and aren't wrong.
Regarding papers, I was assuming that people who hold counterfactual
views do so because of the lying nature of the press, rather than for
other reasons.

Not everyone goes by what they read in the paper. Sure, some papers
play on the fears we all have. Some people prefer to see things with
their own eyes and make their own judgement.

I do have my own opinions about The Sun and Daily Mail, and in my work
I often look at ALL the papers to see what has been said about a single
story. I have to say that the Daily Mail *doesn't* always get things
wrong! Sure they add their opinion, but take away the comment and look
at the facts and you should be able to draw your own conclusions.

If you read real newspapers, are aware of the facts, and still hold the
views that you hold, I'm at a loss to explain that.

What the hell do papers have do with all this? Does everything you talk
about revolve around what the media reports? You are a sad man aren't
you! Go out and look with your own eyes.

Jonathan

eastender wrote:

In article . com,
" wrote:


which make leaving my homeafter nightfall a rare and dangerous experiece (and I live in one of
the better streets in Fulham!),

Are you really scared? Has anything ever happened to you?

Yes, I am scared even to open my curtain sufficiently for the roaming
thugs to see who is watching them, lest they come back and throw a
brick or worse later on. My computer is right next to my 1st-floor
window, and if I do open the curtains to see the latest thug urinating
or having sex on the bonnet of my car, or just behaving in the
thuggish, loutish way that passes for "normal youthful high spirits in
21st Century Britain) I switch off my lights first.

Of course "something" has happened to me.

I have had my car vandalised on 4 separate occasions - ranging from
mere coin/key scratches to a horde of youths who decided it would be
fun to run down the whole lengh of the road jumping from car bonnet to
car boot and so forth. This cost me almost £1,000 to repair alone.

I have had flowers ripped from my front garden.

No fewer than 3 trees planted outside or opposite my house, having
campaigned for years to get the local authority to do it (even offering
to pay personally) have either been ripped out or snapped in half.

I had a scarf calmly taken off my neck as I was standing at the bus
stop at the head of my road by a young hooded hoodlum, while his
friends stood by and watched (a rare occasion for me to be standing at
a bus stop to go out in the evening).

Countless individuals have urinated against my front garden wall or
car.

Countless items of rubbish have been thrown into my front garden.

A railing has been ripped out from my front fence so that it can be
used as a sword against another thug.

I have had graffiti sprayed on my front fence.

Both of my neighbours have been burgled (it's never happened to me,
yet, because I have aged parents living here and the house is NEVER
empty).

Someone clearly being chased after a drug deal (or similar) had gone
wrong ran into a neighbour's house whilst she was unloading her car and
her back was turned to the front door, only for her to be confronted by
him when she went indoors: I could hear the shouts from inside my front
room and I went to help her throw him out - I don't think he quite knew
what hit him!

So, yes, I am genuinely scared (42-year-old, reasonably fit and
well-built male) and rarely set foot outside my front door after dark.
If I do, e.g. to put out the rubbish, I check from inside my house up
and down the road to see whether one of the marauding hooded bike gangs
is on the prowl, or one of the drug-users from the neighbouring
side-street's "social housing" is about to throw a disused needle in my
direction, or if one of the cannabis-smoking juvenile groups is passing
by ready to shout abuse for the mere offence of being a civilised human
being not of their ilk.



In fact, Singapore simply reflects our own culture at the time of its
independence, and I am frankly, a little tired of the seemingly racist
view that their society is any less valid than 21st Century Britain.

This is nonsense. At no time in the 20th century have we had a largely
one party state or state controlled media, except for necessary war
precautions. You do realise that Singapore tries to control Internet
access - still want to live there?


I couldn't care less about a theoretical "one party" state. We have
already surrendered 75% (with the rest soon to follow) to Brussels,
with no control over the European Commission whatsoever. What is the
big difference between Brown/Blair and Cameron anyway that gives me a
real choice of an alternative?

I don't much care for the media we have - a largely biased state-funded
B.B.C. and a myopic money-grabbing gutter press. They're as bad as each
other and I regard both with equal contempt.

As for Internet access - just what type of site does the Singapore
Government try to restrict? What I am allowed to see without being
prosecuted or threat of it is already increasing by the day in the U.K.
I have no doubt that the U.K. will follow equally draconian
politically-correct censorship rules when the technology allows (it's a
small step from saying a public performer ought not to belong to a
particular political party to saying that the same party ought not to
have access to "public" media such as the Internet).

E.

Marc.