On 28/08/2021 09:45, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 11:59:50 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>
>> More bigotry ...
>>
>>> Have we the
>>> statistics on who's committing most of the violent crimes in the big
>>> cities?
>>
>> ... is self-contradictory with ...
>>
>>> It's certainly plain
>>
>> In other words, you're posing a perfectly valid question, but then
>> assuming a bigoted answer to it.
>
> Perhaps you could enlighten us with some correct answers then.
>
> Who is doing all (or most) of the shootings and stabbings in our big
> cities, notably London?

Before spouting bigotry from unreliable sources like T h e S u n,
why don't you just do a suitable search yourself?

For example, to cover the first of your claims in some detail, you can
do the rest yourself, which you should have done anyway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London

"The Office for National Statistics data between June 2016 and March
2020 showed per person crime had increased by 31% in England and by a
lower margin of 18% in London since 2016.[2] These statistics only count
crime recorded by police,[3] and it’s estimated by that overall crime
continues to decrease.[4]

The increase in crime recorded in London is not uniform across different
types of offence. For example, while homicides increased over the period
by 23% in London compared to 8% across England, violence against the
person in general increased by 2% in London compared to 7% across
England.[2] Over the same period, sexual offences recorded by police in
London fell by 2% while in England they remained flat. But robbery
increased by 16% in London compared to 6% across England. Otherwise the
increase in London over 2019/20 was largely driven by an increase in
theft offences, including burglary. Theft[5] is stealing from a person
without the use or threat of force, robbery is stealing by using force
or the threat of force on someone, and burglary is entering a property
illegally in order to steal. Theft offences account for 50% of the
Metropolitan Police’s recorded crimes and increased by 4% last year.
Across England they fell 5%.

Over the longer period the trend is similar. Since 2016, the number of
police recorded theft offences (without force or threat) per person has
increased by 23% in London, compared to a rise of 7% in England more
widely, accounting for much of the recorded increase in crime in the
capital.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services
(HMICFRS) independently assess the effectiveness and efficiency of
police forces. In 2018 they reported the Met recorded just 89.5%[6] of
reported crime. Increases in recorded crime since are likely to be
partly credited to improvements in the recording of reported crime
across London, rather than simply an increase in crime experienced by
residents and visitors.

A report that London crime had risen five times faster than the rest of
the country since Sadiq Khan became Mayor in 2016 was debunked[7] by the
independent fact checker Full Fact.[8] The misinformation is credited to
D a n W o o t o n in the S u n on 1 October 2020,[7] who may
have misinterpreted an article in the E v e n i n g S t a n d a r d
on 17 July 2020[9] claiming the "over-arching figure for the total
number of offences recorded by Metropolitan Police in the last financial
year rose by five per cent in 2018".

[...]

Homicide

Between 1990 and 2003 the number of homicides—i.e. murder, manslaughter,
etc.—in London averaged 120 per year, with a low of 109 in 1996, and a
high of 204 in 2003. The number then fell in each and every year between
2004 and 2014 to a new low of 83. They then rose sharply to 118 in 2015
and 110 in 2016.[n 1] In 2017 there was a further rise to 131, although
this included the combined 14 victims of the Westminster Bridge (5),
London Bridge (8), and Finsbury Park (1) terrorist attacks, but even
with these major events was still lower than any year between 1990 and
2009.[24] As of 31 December 2018, there have been 132 homicides reported
in London in 2018.[25] The year 2019 was reportedly London's bloodiest
year since more than a decade, which recorded a 11-year high of 143
people being killed.[26][27] As of 31 December 2019, the number of
homicides reported reached 149, the highest in a decade.[28]

Of the 126 cases looked into by the Met:[29]

31 of them were categorised as domestic violence offences, included
12 resulting from stabbing
44 of the homicides took place in a dwelling and 71 of them on the
street
Of the 126 victims, 14 were teenagers and 40 were aged between 20
and 24
31 of the homicides were assessed as “gang-related”
In 14 cases the killer used a firearm, and in 71, a knife"

There then follows a table that shows that homicides in London have
fluctuated over the years, but are not currently unusually high compared
with recent historical standards. Other tables in the article show
that, per head of population, London is actually a fairly safe city by
international standards.

> Who has been running the organised gangs raping children for the past
> few decades in several of our provincial cities?

A completely unrelated issue, so your linking this with violent crime in
London is another example of bigotry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

> Who has been carrying out all of the terrorist attacks with bombs and
> vehicles? (The same agency appears to be responsible for all of these,
> but feel free to correct me if that's wrong).

Again, largely unrelated to the above two, so your linking them is again
an example of bigotry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain

Note that some of the terrorist offences have been by bigoted Brits
specifically targetting Muslims rather than the other way around, but I
didn't count numbers, because more people have died at the hands of the
IRA than of, say, Muslim extremists.

> There are a lot of horrible things happening routinely today that I
> don't recall seeing the like of at all when I was growing up in
> the 1960s and 1970s.

Ah! Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be! The statistics in the
last article above prove this to be bollocks.

> Something profound has changed since then.

Yes, you've become indoctrinated through relying on crap news sources!

> I don't
> think intelligent speculation based on observable facts counts as
> bigotry,

But ignorant speculation based on fake news is bigotry, pure and simple.

> and in any case, such is the reticence of our mainstream
> media that it's about all we can do.

Ah, the old 'main stream media' claim again. MSM don't cover these
issues, except when there's something real to cover, because by and
large these so-called issues are just fake news and propaganda.

> If you have some superior wisdom
> that can explain the real reason why civilised life in this country is
> gradually turning to shit, please explain it so that bigots like me
> (if that's what you think we are) can understand the truth.

See above. Read some sensible sources, and stop believing what you read
in the tabloids and on Shitter.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 19:48:13 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

> This is separate from Green Belt which is protected by law and
> only specific uses are permitted,

That's fine in theory, but in practice it's bollocks.
All the councils do is declare it not in Green belt any more
or say there is an overriding need. Then they build houses
on it. That's what's happened on the other side of the road...

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 20:42:44 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

>> This is
>> separate from Green Belt which is protected by law and only specific
>> uses are permitted, and from SSSIs, AONBs etc which need approval from
>> Natural England if there are plans to build on them.
>
> Not in this village. The Conservatives were swept into office with a
> "Protect the Green Belt" slogan. They then proceeded to take large swathes
> of it out of the Green Belt. They were swept from office at the last
> elction , but their plan was forced through in the few days before the
> election. As a result this village of about 1200 dwellings is having to fit
> in a further 350+ all on perfectly acceptable farm land/

Absolutely Charles. Apart from the "swept from office", the same has
happened to our village. There are now 4 separate edge developments,
all on farmland and/or green belt.
According to the guys doing the ground works, it's happening
everywhere on a massive scale.

In article <slrnsikdeg.2o0c.abuse@news.pr.network>,
Paul Ratcliffe <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 19:48:13 +0100, Indy Jess John
> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

> > This is separate from Green Belt which is protected by law and
> > only specific uses are permitted,

> That's fine in theory, but in practice it's bollocks.
> All the councils do is declare it not in Green belt any more
> or say there is an overriding need. Then they build houses
> on it. That's what's happened on the other side of the road...

are you in the same council area as I am, or, more likely, are lots of
councils doing this?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 12:22:42 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>> Who has been running the organised gangs raping children for the past
>> few decades in several of our provincial cities?
>
>A completely unrelated issue, so your linking this with violent crime in
>London is another example of bigotry:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
>
>> Who has been carrying out all of the terrorist attacks with bombs and
>> vehicles? (The same agency appears to be responsible for all of these,
>> but feel free to correct me if that's wrong).
>
>Again, largely unrelated to the above two, so your linking them is again
>an example of bigotry:

I'm not linking them. I'm listing them. They may or may not be linked,
but they're both examples of the deterioration of British civilisation
as I've understood it for most of my life until recent years.
Questioning the reasons for them is not bigotry, it's curiosity.

Rod.

On 28/08/2021 16:10, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 12:22:42 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>> Who has been running the organised gangs raping children for the past
>>> few decades in several of our provincial cities?
>>
>> A completely unrelated issue, so your linking this with violent crime in
>> London is another example of bigotry:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
>>
>>> Who has been carrying out all of the terrorist attacks with bombs and
>>> vehicles? (The same agency appears to be responsible for all of these,
>>> but feel free to correct me if that's wrong).
>>
>> Again, largely unrelated to the above two, so your linking them is again
>> an example of bigotry:
>
> I'm not linking them. I'm listing them.

.... together; in other words, revealing that they're linked in your mind
= bigotry - of course is not a coincidence that all three are the sort
of issue right-wing media like to spread fake news about, and it's not a
coincidence either that consciously or unconsciously you used the same
technique of 'link by association" as fake news sources commonly do.

> They may or may not be linked,
> but they're both examples of the deterioration of British civilisation
> as I've understood it for most of my life until recent years.
> Questioning the reasons for them is not bigotry, it's curiosity.

IMO, you're linking them by listing them together reveals your own
bigotry, as explained above.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 18:19:21 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 28/08/2021 16:10, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 12:22:42 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Who has been running the organised gangs raping children for the past
>>>> few decades in several of our provincial cities?
>>>
>>> A completely unrelated issue, so your linking this with violent crime in
>>> London is another example of bigotry:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
>>>
>>>> Who has been carrying out all of the terrorist attacks with bombs and
>>>> vehicles? (The same agency appears to be responsible for all of these,
>>>> but feel free to correct me if that's wrong).
>>>
>>> Again, largely unrelated to the above two, so your linking them is again
>>> an example of bigotry:
>>
>> I'm not linking them. I'm listing them.
>
>... together; in other words, revealing that they're linked in your mind
>= bigotry - of course is not a coincidence that all three are the sort
>of issue right-wing media like to spread fake news about, and it's not a
>coincidence either that consciously or unconsciously you used the same
>technique of 'link by association" as fake news sources commonly do.
>
>> They may or may not be linked,
>> but they're both examples of the deterioration of British civilisation
>> as I've understood it for most of my life until recent years.
>> Questioning the reasons for them is not bigotry, it's curiosity.
>
>IMO, you're linking them by listing them together reveals your own
>bigotry, as explained above.

They're only "linked" by being spoken of in the same paragraph, and
I've specifically said that they may or may not be linked in reality.
The only thing they have in common may turn out to be simply that they
both happen to be things we need to know more about. Other than that
I've said nothing more about them than to suggest that I think we need
to know the details because they could be relevant.

Bigotry is the obstinate adherence to a belief, which is not the same
as suggesting a possible line of enquiry because you don't yet have
enough of the facts to know what to believe.

Rod.

On 29/08/2021 07:28, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 18:19:21 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>
>> IMO, you're linking them by listing them together reveals your own
>> bigotry, as explained above.
>
> They're only "linked" by being spoken of in the same paragraph, and
> I've specifically said that they may or may not be linked in reality.
> The only thing they have in common may turn out to be simply that they
> both happen to be things we need to know more about. Other than that
> I've said nothing more about them than to suggest that I think we need
> to know the details because they could be relevant.

Obviously neither of can prove our own view or disprove that of the
other, but I stand by what I wrote above.

> Bigotry is the obstinate adherence to a belief, which is not the same
> as suggesting a possible line of enquiry because you don't yet have
> enough of the facts to know what to believe.

I think that's trying to post-rationalise what you wrote, but we'll have
to leave it there.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 29/08/2021 12:31, Java Jive wrote:
> On 29/08/2021 07:28, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 18:19:21 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>>
>>> IMO, you're linking them by listing them together reveals your own
>>> bigotry, as explained above.
>>
>> They're only "linked" by being spoken of in the same paragraph, and
>> I've specifically said that they may or may not be linked in reality.
>> The only thing they have in common may turn out to be simply that they
>> both happen to be things we need to know more about. Other than that
>> I've said nothing more about them than to suggest that I think we need
>> to know the details because they could be relevant.
>
> Obviously neither of can prove our own view or disprove that of the
> other, but I stand by what I wrote above.

Actually, I've just realised that I *CAN* prove what I'm claiming.
Above you wrote ...

On 27/08/2021 07:43, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> It's certainly plain to see the effects of importing people from a
> land where it's evidently acceptable to be murderously defensive of
> seventh century religious ideas. Their culture doesn't mix well with
> democracy and free speech, or women having the full status of human
> beings. Never before has it felt necessary to defend our own
> fundamental moral principles in our own land, while being hampered by
> the unintended consequences of some of our own laws.

.... and ...

On 28/08/2021 09:45, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> (The same agency appears to be responsible for all of these,
> but feel free to correct me if that's wrong).

.... whereas now you are contradicting yourself and trying to distance
yourself from your previous remarks above by ...

>> Bigotry is the obstinate adherence to a belief, which is not the same
>> as suggesting a possible line of enquiry because you don't yet have
>> enough of the facts to know what to believe.
>
> I think that's trying to post-rationalise what you wrote, but we'll have
> to leave it there.

.... so this is indeed post-rationalisation of something that you wrote
earlier.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Sun, 29 Aug 2021 12:44:03 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 29/08/2021 12:31, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 29/08/2021 07:28, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 18:19:21 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>>>
>>>> IMO, you're linking them by listing them together reveals your own
>>>> bigotry, as explained above.
>>>
>>> They're only "linked" by being spoken of in the same paragraph, and
>>> I've specifically said that they may or may not be linked in reality.
>>> The only thing they have in common may turn out to be simply that they
>>> both happen to be things we need to know more about. Other than that
>>> I've said nothing more about them than to suggest that I think we need
>>> to know the details because they could be relevant.
>>
>> Obviously neither of can prove our own view or disprove that of the
>> other, but I stand by what I wrote above.
>
>Actually, I've just realised that I *CAN* prove what I'm claiming.
>Above you wrote ...
>
>On 27/08/2021 07:43, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> >
> > It's certainly plain to see the effects of importing people from a
> > land where it's evidently acceptable to be murderously defensive of
> > seventh century religious ideas. Their culture doesn't mix well with
> > democracy and free speech, or women having the full status of human
> > beings. Never before has it felt necessary to defend our own
> > fundamental moral principles in our own land, while being hampered by
> > the unintended consequences of some of our own laws.
>
>... and ...
>
>On 28/08/2021 09:45, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> >
> > (The same agency appears to be responsible for all of these,
> > but feel free to correct me if that's wrong).
>
>... whereas now you are contradicting yourself and trying to distance
>yourself from your previous remarks above by ...
>
>>> Bigotry is the obstinate adherence to a belief, which is not the same
>>> as suggesting a possible line of enquiry because you don't yet have
>>> enough of the facts to know what to believe.
>>
>> I think that's trying to post-rationalise what you wrote, but we'll have
>> to leave it there.
>
>... so this is indeed post-rationalisation of something that you wrote
>earlier.

Since we are no longer arguing about the point, but arguing about
aguing, this seems a good place to leave it.

Rod.

In article <c9kkiglcjot228fjvle8d5ovuon07o6lg0@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >Again, largely unrelated to the above two, so your linking them is
> >again an example of bigotry:

> I'm not linking them. I'm listing them. They may or may not be linked,
> but they're both examples of the deterioration of British civilisation
> as I've understood it for most of my life until recent years.
> Questioning the reasons for them is not bigotry, it's curiosity.

Hard to tell with some categories of crimes. e.g. The way Churches have
hidden up abuse by priests - up to the levels of Bishops, etc! - behind
a wall of silence and looking the other way for many decades. In some
situations becoming standard operating policy, as in Ireland for example.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <29a5c0d8-9dea-2130-520f-7aaacdfc0ac8@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> >
> > So its simply a gross example of 'market failiure' then?. That's
> > fine....

> Your prejudice is showing. You clearly didn't bother to find out what
> the report did say. It included recommended changes to planning to
> raise the proportion of affordable housing, and raise the rate of build
> out.

Many reports have come to equivalent recommendations. But then what gets
implimented by Government is all too often different. Or a report
languishes...

A problem also rides on the term 'affordable'. These days that tends to
mean "a bit cheaper than the market rate'. Not 'affordable' in terms like
what someone in a job that pays minimum wage could afford.

Note also recent schemes like the Government paying a part of the buying
price to "help buyers" - which of course simply caused the price to rise,
and the money went to the *sellers*, not to help the buyers. It increased
the price of the homes.

These sorts of problems were entirely predictable, and predicted. But suit
politicians tied-at-the-wallet to large property concerns, etc.

What has vanished is the scale of 'social' housing which we had some
decades ago which reduced homelessness amongst the poorest or most
unwell in our society.

> > cf PE Ad Naus.
> >

> I suggest you should not rely on PE to tell the truth, the whole truth
> and nothing but the truth. As I've said before, when I knew stuff it
> dealt with it sometimes PE had good investigative journalism. And
> sometimes PE published lies and misrepresented facts.
I suggest you avoid assuming something I didn't say - or do. :-)

To clear up your erronious assumption about my stance: Yes, PE do make
mistakes. They do publish retractions and corrections. They also publish
letters from people challenging what PE has said, etc... in many issues.
Readers can then form a view. TBH They are rather better in all these
respects than the bulk of the UK press, inc TV/Radio.

And speaking of 'reports' What happened to 'Leveson 2', eh? :->

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 15:32:35 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

>> > This is separate from Green Belt which is protected by law and
>> > only specific uses are permitted,
>
>> That's fine in theory, but in practice it's bollocks.
>> All the councils do is declare it not in Green belt any more
>> or say there is an overriding need. Then they build houses
>> on it. That's what's happened on the other side of the road...
>
> are you in the same council area as I am,

I certainly can't afford to live in "leafy Surrey" on what a certain
organisation pays.

> or, more likely, are lots of councils doing this?

I suspect this is the case.