Home town

[Vince Green]

1 minute ago, henry d said:

Because it was starting then, the good old swinging 60`s, the permissive society, anything goes man! Psychadelia instead of a pint of mild, hash and love instead of wine and cheese. Jimi and Janis shooting up and making it popular to be "experienced" led to the rise of Khun Sa (sp?) the Burmese warlord supplying opiods worldwide because the genie was out of the bottle and we could do what we pleased.

No they just see things differently, its just baddies coming here.

There is no evidence that Jimi Hendrix ever took hard drugs, Janis Joplin certainly did and died from an overdose but in America. Hendrix's intoxicant of choice was red wine which he drank in copious quantities. He also took speed to stay awake for days at a time (uppers) and so had to take sleeping tablets (downers) when he needed to sleep. He died from an overdose of sleeping tablets and a lot of red wine which he inhaled as vomit in a flat just off Notting Hill, not a fashionable area in those days..

His autopsy revealed no needle marks or scarring from needles. The evidence of hard drug taking in the swinging sixties in London is scant, not the hard drug fuelled era it is portrayed as today. The seventies, especially the latter half was certainly different, very different but the musicians that succumbed mostly were introduced to hard drugs when they went to USA West Coast

[Raja Clavata]

54 minutes ago, Hamster said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/200000-children-married-us-15-years-child-marriage-child-brides-new-jersey-chris-christie-a7830266.html

Almost every category of crime attributed to them lot over there who have inferior values can be found to exist right here in the civilised West. It's just a matter of whether one allows one to penetrate ones subconsciousness more than the other.  

People have to be incredibly naive to think our drugs problem is a Pakistani/Afghan or Yardy problem, it might press certain buttons but that's about it. 

An excellent post.

[old'un]

20 minutes ago, henry d said:

So would the general increase of the population even if we never allowed another person into the country from 1/1/1960, people are people and are good and bad in equal measure.

If that’s the case why do we see in the news an high % of criminals who are not native?

Nothing, it has to do with our own society here which had a hidden criminal element, and I`m sure that isn`t the only one, and of course no one will admit to being a bit of a crim on here will they, and those who know they are won`t tell neither.

Don’t care what you say, imported criminals have increased the crime rate in this country

 

[islandgun]

My reason for posting this series of articles was because i found them thought provoking,  they explain why a group of people do what they do. they dont pull punches or seek to make comparisons with other people or times.  The problem wont go away and theres no point in  blaming others.. in my view, the best way to deal with the problem is to decriminalise and make drugs available to those who want them...oh and collect the taxes

[Vince Green]

32 minutes ago, islandgun said:

 in my view, the best way to deal with the problem is to decriminalise and make drugs available to those who want them...oh and collect the taxes

The problem with legalising drugs is that the dealers won't just give up their criminality and get a job stacking shelves in Tesco instead. That's what the authorities fear, a pandora's box.

The present situation may be far from ideal but they don't want to replace it with something much worse. Putting thousands of violent drug dealers out of business overnight with our police force in the state its in would be carnage. Otherwise they would have done it years ago.

One of the most interesting aspects of that article was the commonly held belief that what they were doing wasn't really so wrong as long as they were selling the stuff to "their own". Very similar views emerged from the grooming trials,  I think that double standard could be actually the key to a lot.

Edited June 20, 2019 by Vince Green

[Rewulf]

I find it quite strange how the journalist keeps asking 'How this has happened to my home town' and is 'shocked' at the level of violence.

Its because people like Yaqub decide that a life of crime is preferable to honest work, and are prepared to handle the risks therein.
What is laughable is how friends and family come out of the woodwork to say how good a person he was, when everyone knows he was a tier 1 drug dealer, with a history of violence and using firearms.
But he was a good boy, says his father, Ill bet he was, how exactly did you afford to buy those 100+ properties Mr Yaqub Snr ?

3 hours ago, henry d said:

Please do expand on that as I am not sure what you mean.

You know exactly what it means, you just want him to spell it out, so you can have it further confirmed we are all a bunch of racists, and shut the thread down.

 

1 hour ago, NoBodyImportant said:

When 3rd world people leave 3rd world countries they take 3rd world values with them.  

Never truer words said.

[Gordon R]

Quote

People have to be incredibly naive to think our drugs problem is a Pakistani/Afghan or Yardy problem, it might press certain buttons but that's about it. 

Hamster - agreed. The end users cover all ethnic origins, as do the suppliers. Some are more prolific and seem to flaunt their wealth. 

The original case was prominent because the piece of scum got shot. His parents must have been deaf, dumb and blind. It wasn't exactly a secret.

[islandgun]

17 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

The problem with legalising drugs is that the dealers won't just give up their criminality and get a job stacking shelves in Tesco instead. That's what the authorities fear, a pandora's box.

The present situation may be far from ideal but they don't want to replace it with something much worse. Otherwise they would have done it years ago.

One of the most interesting aspects of that article was the commonly held belief that what they were doing wasn't really so wrong as long as they were selling the stuff to "their own". Very similar views emerged from the grooming trials,  I think that double standard could be actually the key to a lot.

Too true, I can only imagine that other types of crime such as bank robbery take a bit more in the way of nads than peddling drugs to addicts.. I really cant see any way out of this, but at least articles like these are being open about the problem and without that,  theres no hope of curing it

[Lloyd90]

2 hours ago, Hamster said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/200000-children-married-us-15-years-child-marriage-child-brides-new-jersey-chris-christie-a7830266.html

Almost every category of crime attributed to them lot over there who have inferior values can be found to exist right here in the civilised West. It's just a matter of whether one allows one to penetrate ones subconsciousness more than the other.  

People have to be incredibly naive to think our drugs problem is a Pakistani/Afghan or Yardy problem, it might press certain buttons but that's about it. 

 

I’m not sure two teenagers getting married through a loophole is comparable to a whole culture of much older men marrying young girls. 

 

The fact that it’s considered a loop-hole in the USA and a normal practice in the Middle East clearly define the difference surely. 

 

Clutching at straws there. 

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, islandgun said:

in my view, the best way to deal with the problem is to decriminalise and make drugs available to those who want them...oh and collect the taxes

Have you seen the film Layer cake? There is a scene with exactly what your saying, class A drugs on the shelf at the chemists.

I don't think it will ever happen mainly because the government that did it would be slaughtered for giving in to drugs, while addicts wouldn't care where they get their fix.

It would make sense to take drugs off the dealers, but I cant see it happening.

[Vince Green]

21 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

 

I’m not sure two teenagers getting married through a loophole is comparable to a whole culture of much older men marrying young girls. 

 

The fact that it’s considered a loop-hole in the USA and a normal practice in the Middle East clearly define the difference surely. 

 

Clutching at straws there. 

Marriage in the early teens used to be common in the US, many states have a lower minimum age than here. Also marrying cousins was much more common than here, primarily to keep the land / farm assets within the family circle.

 

[Lloyd90]

11 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Marriage in the early teens used to be common in the US, many states have a lower minimum age than here. Also marrying cousins was much more common than here, primarily to keep the land / farm assets within the family circle.

 

 

Yes but it that two teenagers marrying each other? 

Its not a teenager marrying a 50+ year old man is it? 

[henry d]

11 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Have you seen the film Layer cake? There is a scene with exactly what your saying, class A drugs on the shelf at the chemists.

I don't think it will ever happen mainly because the government that did it would be slaughtered for giving in to drugs, while addicts wouldn't care where they get their fix.

It would make sense to take drugs off the dealers, but I cant see it happening.

Political suicide. US states are allowing recreational and/or medical use of marijuana and it is probably being seen as a social experiment by congress to see what happens and how it evolves, but at over $10B of sales last year it is a money spinner thats for sure

[NoBodyImportant]

11 minutes ago, henry d said:

Political suicide. US states are allowing recreational and/or medical use of marijuana and it is probably being seen as a social experiment by congress to see what happens and how it evolves, but at over $10B of sales last year it is a money spinner thats for sure

The biggest problem with marijuana is you can’t test to see if someone is driving under the influence.  The whole war on drugs is considered racist now.  

[Mice!]

17 minutes ago, NoBodyImportant said:

The biggest problem with marijuana is you can’t test to see if someone is driving under the influence.  The whole war on drugs is considered racist now.  

The police over here do alcohol and drug tests now when they stop motorists if they feel the need, thought cannabis was one of the checks?

[SpringDon]

2 hours ago, Vince Green said:

The problem with legalising drugs is that the dealers won't just give up their criminality and get a job stacking shelves in Tesco instead. That's what the authorities fear, a pandora's box.

The present situation may be far from ideal but they don't want to replace it with something much worse. Putting thousands of violent drug dealers out of business overnight with our police force in the state its in would be carnage. Otherwise they would have done it years ago.

One of the most interesting aspects of that article was the commonly held belief that what they were doing wasn't really so wrong as long as they were selling the stuff to "their own". Very similar views emerged from the grooming trials,  I think that double standard could be actually the key to a lot.

Don’t really agree. If all they were worried about was ex-dealers turning to other crime then there’s resources freed up from drugs squads to deal with it.

They are more worried about the perception of being seen to be soft on drugs so they rather continue the same actions that haven’t solved anything for forty years. Whilst demand exists, supply will find a way. 

[NoBodyImportant]

31 minutes ago, Mice! said:

The police over here do alcohol and drug tests now when they stop motorists if they feel the need, thought cannabis was one of the checks?

Pot stays in you system for weeks.  Well past the high you get.  So you can be sober and test positive. 

[Hamster]

2 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

 

I’m not sure two teenagers getting married through a loophole is comparable to a whole culture of much older men marrying young girls. 

 

The fact that it’s considered a loop-hole in the USA and a normal practice in the Middle East clearly define the difference surely. 

 

Clutching at straws there. 

Defo not considered the norm in the middle east, I was born there and have never even heard of 12 year olds being forced into marriage, it does go on in some less developed places though admittedly.

More than 200,000 children married in the US in the last 15 years is hardly clutching at straws or did you not even bother reading the link ? Whether it's a loophole or otherwise the fact is it happens in the US as well.

3 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

An excellent post.

Thank you.

Edited June 20, 2019 by Hamster

[Vince Green]

17 minutes ago, SpringDon said:

Don’t really agree. If all they were worried about was ex-dealers turning to other crime then there’s resources freed up from drugs squads to deal with it.

They are more worried about the perception of being seen to be soft on drugs so they rather continue the same actions that haven’t solved anything for forty years. Whilst demand exists, supply will find a way. 

There are a lot more drug dealers than there are police officers in the UK and their earnings from importing and selling drugs is far greater than the entire police budget many times over. Diverting a few resources isn't going to come close.

[islandgun]

3 hours ago, Vince Green said:

The problem with legalising drugs is that the dealers won't just give up their criminality and get a job stacking shelves in Tesco instead. That's what the authorities fear, a pandora's box.

The present situation may be far from ideal but they don't want to replace it with something much worse. Putting thousands of violent drug dealers out of business overnight with our police force in the state its in would be carnage. Otherwise they would have done it years ago.

One of the most interesting aspects of that article was the commonly held belief that what they were doing wasn't really so wrong as long as they were selling the stuff to "their own". Very similar views emerged from the grooming trials,  I think that double standard could be actually the key to a lot.

I understood it as saying NOT selling to their own.... because the users not being Muslim mattered less

[Hamster]

4 hours ago, old'un said:

If that’s the case why was there less of the type of crimes we see today 50 years ago?

My experiences and eyes don’t lie.

The world is changing, people are moving around, the nature and types of crimes themselves are evolving. I am not denying that there is a "problem" with certain groups of people who happen to be more dominant and over represented in some crimes, I'm just saying so what, why single out Pakistani's being drug dealers but not mention (or have entire threads) about European (I'm not going to break it down into exact ethnicities even though it's perfectly doable  ) men who have groomed and raped young boys within the clergy !? Why not have threads about German men travelling to exotic places for underage boy/girl sex, you do know this is a whole industry that's been going on for 40 odd years ? 

Now, is the notion of singling out ethnicities to point fingers at racist ? No not at all, SO LONG AS YOU DO SO ON AN EQUAL BASIS, would these same people who suddenly notice the Pakistan/drug link also be quite so eager to point out statistical facts that are less favourable to their own ethnic roots ? Did you know for instance that the vast majority of serial killers are white ? The US has some absolutely insane sets of stats to do with annual mass/school shootings, FYI there are almost NONE where I come from.  

Unfortunately the nature of crime is that it attracts those who are most marginalised and least able to succeed using the ordinary routes, in many ways the cards are stacked against them. Crime is first and foremost committed by criminals, their culture or people are not responsible. The thing is even if Pakistani's are overrepresented in drug crime in that town it doesn't prove anything because in some other town another group might take the "title" locals very much in the running too by definition. OR are we saying it's only reprehensible and worthy of discussion when it's done by "them" ? 

Now just to throw a curve ball here, if they were to conduct a massive poll and provide statistical ratio's of ethnic groups versus percentage of population versus crime which happened to show that all things being equal, indigenous people were more predisposed to XYZ types of crime against say Yemenis 💬  what would be your reaction ? Would you lambast yourselves and criticise your inferior culture for it ? Nah of course you wouldn't where's the fun in that. 

[Rewulf]

11 minutes ago, islandgun said:

I understood it as saying NOT selling to their own.... because the users not being Muslim mattered less

Exactly , drugs are absolutely forbidden in Islam.
Perfectly ok to sell to infidels though, a form of jihad.

[eddoakley]

Just now, islandgun said:

I understood it as saying NOT selling to their own.... because the users not being Muslim mattered less

That's the way I read it too. If they (users) were not muslim they didn't matter as the religion says that you should have no respect for any non muslim.

Everyone seems too scared to suggest that any race or religion has different values which are different to those that used to be the majority in this country. I'm not suggesting for  one second that anyone who isn't a christian is bad or that everyone who is is good, there are plenty of both in all religions. But I would find it difficult to be convinced that a large part of religious many of the problems in this country today are down to the fact that good old ''christian values'' for want of a better phrase are not as strongly upheld as they were.

Has the world just changed and people have become less concerned about fellow man? Is it more noticeable in the UK? Does the average Joe just do as he likes without concern for the consequences more than before? Is any part of that down to the increase in other religions and values undoubtedly increased by immigration? Does anyone have a solution?

 

With regards to the child marriage and the numbers in the States as above its considered a loophole as apposed to the norm (or at least perfectly acceptable) in other places/religions.

Also marriage does not necessarily mean a sexual relationship (ask a few of my mates!!)  I'm not naive enough to think that there are some very wrong things going on but I don't think that article has much relevance to this post as there are many other factors to that one.

 

Edd 

[islandgun]

2 hours ago, Hamster said:

The world is changing, people are moving around, the nature and types of crimes themselves are evolving. I am not denying that there is a "problem" with certain groups of people who happen to be more dominant and over represented in some crimes, I'm just saying so what, why single out Pakistani's being drug dealers but not mention (or have entire threads) about European (I'm not going to break it down into exact ethnicities even though it's perfectly doable  ) men who have groomed and raped young boys within the clergy !? Why not have threads about German men travelling to exotic places for underage boy/girl sex, you do know this is a whole industry that's been going on for 40 odd years ? 

Now, is the notion of singling out ethnicities to point fingers at racist ? No not at all, SO LONG AS YOU DO SO ON AN EQUAL BASIS, would these same people who suddenly notice the Pakistan/drug link also be quite so eager to point out statistical facts that are less favourable to their own ethnic roots ? Did you know for instance that the vast majority of serial killers are white ? The US has some absolutely insane sets of stats to do with annual mass/school shootings, FYI there are almost NONE where I come from.  

Unfortunately the nature of crime is that it attracts those who are most marginalised and least able to succeed using the ordinary routes, in many ways the cards are stacked against them. Crime is first and foremost committed by criminals, their culture or people are not responsible. The thing is even if Pakistani's are overrepresented in drug crime in that town it doesn't prove anything because in some other town another group might take the "title" locals very much in the running too by definition. OR are we saying it's only reprehensible and worthy of discussion when it's done by "them" ? 

Now just to throw a curve ball here, if they were to conduct a massive poll and provide statistical ratio's of ethnic groups versus percentage of population versus crime which happened to show that all things being equal, indigenous people were more predisposed to XYZ types of crime against say Yemenis 💬  what would be your reaction ? Would you lambast yourselves and criticise your inferior culture for it ? Nah of course you wouldn't where's the fun in that. 

The articles are in the news today.written by a Pakistani man.. tomorrow it might be the terrors of child abuse in a Catholic childrens home, or rednecks beating up ******* in America. or bent police in Surrey..all will be judged by the facts presented..then condemned,, it isnt my intention to single out any race or religion, just look at the facts as they emerge, these articles brought to light several aspects that i wasnt aware of and i find it interesting

[henry d]

2 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

The biggest problem with marijuana is you can’t test to see if someone is driving under the influence.  The whole war on drugs is considered racist now.  

It is done here with a mouth/tongue swab not a urine/blood test so it can tell if you have taken weed or coke.