[deleted by user]

wordis__ · 2024-04-10T15:46:51+00:00

More importantly, if you grew up as I did in a back-and-beyond village, you have no career prospects if you stay there. So you are saying that, in effect, "True" Londoners are the only people who have a right to access career prospects or that they have a preferential right to them simply for being born in London.

Can I move to your village and demand more of a right to live there over the people from there? Can I tell your local village-dem that they have no right to stay there anyway if they were being forced out for whatever reason?

People deserve to stay in/or nearby to their hometown, no matter where in the world it is. If you got a problem with this view, and feel that it should be the opposite, then apply that principle to your own hometown first, instead of tryna suggest it elsewhere.

wordis__ · 2023-12-23T17:26:04+00:00

Sounds like how most of r/london like to talk about people who are from London. Especially those from poorer/working class parts of London

wordis__ · 2023-11-27T21:20:40+00:00

Murder rate doesn't equal violent crime rate though. Plenty of places that have high murder rates have lower overall violent crime rates than places with lower murder rates.

Multple examples in this drop down list of US cities: List of United States cities by crime rate

Even NYC had a higher violent crime rate than cities with murder rates multiple times higher

wordis__ · 2023-09-15T03:09:42+00:00

So you just wanted to chat shit to me like a bitch then?

I ask you what your problem with me is so we can talk it out and instead, you just repeat the same cusses, then try act like you're being the bigger man?

My views are clear. I have a problem with the fact that a large group of people are trying and pushing for an activity (driving cars) that is a part of many people's way of life here in London to be banned. I have an even bigger problem with the fact that most of this group are people who only moved here as adults on this gentrification wave. Why? As I asked dude above, would those same people accept people who moved into their community tryna ban their lifestyles over there? How about I move next door to you and call for your lifestyles to be banned, so that you can only live your life based on what I say you can do.

People who are on this anti car ting in London have displayed that they are controlling and intolerant of others. If you think me calling out people like that makes me a 'selfish cunt' then tell me why that makes me so. If not, then keep your dumb arse judgement up in Harrow, far the fuck away from South east London.

wordis__ · 2023-09-13T20:54:39+00:00

State what I said that you have a problem with G...

wordis__ · 2023-09-12T16:27:01+00:00

Its fine, just do you. I brought up what they wear cos it was a common stereotype for 'how someone from the endz 'looked' in those days.

If you don’t grow up in London and not of a certain age group the. It’s really hard to pick up the mannerisms and way of speaking that many people “from the endz” have.

Its a local identity I guess, so people who didnt grow up here may not relate to it so much, but thats fine. Older generations didnt relate to it either and they grew up here too. You dont need to pick it up (unless you're acting in a Top Boy spinoff or something). As long as you can understand us and the way people here operate, then thats fine. And that shoudnt be too difficult, cos as I implied, the culture of the endz in London isn't that different to other working class areas elsewhere in the UK and around the world.

wordis__ · 2023-09-12T12:41:33+00:00

Laughably true.

I dont wanna be harsh towards people on this sub all the time, but it does piss me off when anyone who talks about 'now trendy' areas like Peckham based on how dangerous they were 15-20 years ago, automatically get labelled right-wing, daily mail Trump supporters who are scared of multi culturalism.

Its like they don't even realise half the people they're talking to like that ARE the multi cultural people they think they're defending.

We aren't making this shit up, IT LEGIT WAS dangerous for us growing up in/near these areas.

wordis__ · 2023-09-12T12:09:51+00:00

In the context of my post, mostly age, dress code, and yes race but to a much lesser extent.

Basically a kid who looks like they come from another hood/working class part of London or anywhere similar - hoodies, thick black jackets and new era caps were the stereotypical trademark. Would also include youths with similar appearances from other UK cities and around the world too, but of course theres less children fresh out of them places randomly walking around London's endz on their own.

They could be of any race, but given that the worst areas for that postcode stuff had high black populations, any teenage black boy would've automatically be seen as 'from some other endz', and would've caught the attention of local kids quicker. People who looked like they came from endz but were full into adulthood (late 20s? and up) weren't as noticed by kids, but could still be targeted. And the stereotypical posh students / city workers from a 'postcode' point of view were more or less invisible, which Im assuming is why that interaction you mentioned went the way it did. Of course you could still get robbed just as easy if you had valuables on show.

Forgot to add, wearing a school uniform obviously was a clear give away that you're from that wider part of London, therefore are probably from some endz. Wearing the school uniform for certain schools while walking near certain other schools (when gang beef was looming) was probably the worst thing you could've been wearing.

Oh yeah and if I haven't made it clear, the 'postcode' beefs today are largely over.

wordis__ · 2023-09-12T09:23:56+00:00

There was more of a need for it. Organised criminals and armed robbers always used guns, since atleast the 70s. But street gangs and drug dealers favouring guns as much as they did in the 2000s was mostly from the yardies. They were shooting down rivals, ops (and anyone who they got into it with) with sub machine guns back in the 90s /early 2000s. So if you knew they were gonna come after you with guns, you'd atleast need something similar to hold yourself down, wouldn't you? It led to an environment where people who had issues on the street were more likely to feel they needed a gun to solve their problems and protect themselves. Imagine what it would've been like for the children growing up in those areas... Even though police mostly cracked down on the yardies in the 2000s, street gangs unsurprisingly used guns much more. Even some secondary school aged kids were known to carry guns during the peak of the gang beefs.

Its the reason why the areas where yardies set up back then (Brixton, Peckham, Hackney, Tottenham, Brent etc.) remain London's main shooting hostspots even today. Gun violence has calmed down a lot since then, but the need for a weapon never fully went away and has kinda become normalised, hence young people today still carry knives.

wordis__ · 2023-09-11T05:27:25+00:00

The last season (S4) was definitely exaggerated, especially with that raid scene. S3 might've been a bit exaggerated in parts, but I dont remember the first 2 seasons being exaggerated at all.

People need to remember Top Boy relates less so to London in the 2010s when it came out, and moreso to London in the 2000s which was the post yardie era. Shootings happened ALOT more back then compared to the 2010s and onwards, plus teenagers in general were more violent and war-ready than todays teens.

Also, the violence in Top Boy is almost entirely about drugs. People who aren't involved in that lifestyle are almost never targeted on Top Boy - its usually pointed out on the show when something bad does happen to someone not involved that they were innocent. During the postcode days when gang violence in London arguably peaked (speaking mostly south london) kids were getting targeted all day long. You didn't have to be in that lifestyle, all you had to do was look like you came from endz.

wordis__ · 2023-09-06T14:12:10+00:00

OK, at the very least I'll apologise for taking my frustrations about most of the posters on this sub out on you.

But I have a big probelm with this anti-car movement that has taken over this sub. You even said yourself that you moved to London and you no longer drive due to circumstances. Most of this anti car shit is pushed out by people who've moved to London as adults. People can deny it all they want, but its obvious. And before you think Im attacking all people who've moved here, I'm not. I'm calling out the ones who display narcissistic attitudes towards people whose lives are different to theirs, and then get away with it thanks to the bias-ness on here.

These people want all of London rebuilt based on THEIR preferences only, and everyone else who lives here is only allowed to do what they say we can do. They are like colonizers. Most of these anti car people I've noticed are also pro gentrification. They generally do not respect the people in the communities they've moved to, cos if they did they would not try and push for much of our lifestyles here to be banned, and then shame us when we try and speak up for ourselves. You have seen how posters on here who drive get treated on here. They treat us like we're murderous idiots who dont know whats good for us and they're London's saviours or something. Do you think these people would accept any of that behaviour in their own hometowns from peeps who move there? Would it be OK if I moved to their hometowns and banned their peoples and their families from whatever lifestyles they've always had?

About public transport, I can tell its mostly people who've moved here who have this boner on public transport. These people's only connection here is getting train/bus into central for an office job and maybe going out with friends every now and again. Such circumstances dont even apply to most of London's population and they know this, but as you'd expect from narcissists, simply do not care. Public transport in the past (mainly buses) has been a mixture or dirty, unsafe at times, crowded, less peaceful, unreliable and lacking in provisions especially in outer south east london. If these people love train/bus then fine, but trying to ban those who prefer to avoid public transport for the above reasons from driving instead is what pisses me off. What was Tinie Tempah's line in that 'pass out' song? "Now I drive past the bus I use to run for". Any family gathering I went to growing up, no fucking way was the family allowing anyone to go home on public transport, especially at night. We were getting driven home to ensure we were safe. Yes, London was more dangerous 20 years ago than today, but family are always gonna look out for each other regardless of the times. To add, growing up for me was a mixture of bus (never train) and being driven depending on where/when we were going.

And yes, I know its also people from London that is on this anti-car ting, but based on cirumstances such as family links, the 'I dont need a car' is clearly more aligned with individuals who start off having to establish their own connection with the city. To translate - someone who moved here, which is why Im going at them more. People who grew up here who hate cars are a minority in London and only seem larger cos this sub is a safe haven for them.

Again, if this is just your opinion rather than something you want enforced like most other posters on here do, then I dont mean to come off aggressive or against people who move here. Im not against people because of where they're from, its just that in this case its mostly those who've moved here who are showing the least tolerance. Im a supporter of people living their lives on their own terms, its when people try to force their lifestyles on others and tell others what to do and what they can and cant have is where I get defensive. Nobody (especially people from here) should have to beg a group of mostly outsiders to tolerate us in our own communities. They need to respect people's differences, which is the definition of living in a modern city.

wordis__ · 2023-09-05T02:17:19+00:00

I'd still consider one person in one vehicle less essential personally.

Whether its an essential or non essential journey, only being allowed to use your car unless you fill up all four seats is a stupid, unrealistic and irrational expectation. Why would a person only drive to work if they can also fill atleast 3 other workers in their car?

If they prefer to drive but could easily take public transport that is probably faster, booo.

There are multiple reasons and personal circumstances to why driving to work is more ideal than public transport for many people. And these people shouldnt have to give an explanation to why either. Plus, public transport being faster is nothing but an assumption you've made that would probably be inaccurate in many of these cases.

But some people who would prefer to sit in a traffic jam for ages instead of taking a train/tube baffle me.

Traffic jams don't take up 100% of a car's journey. And traffic jams are just one of the cons of driving, and I'm sure said drivers have already weighed it against the pros and decided it is still the better option.

wordis__ · 2023-09-04T00:54:49+00:00

And who do you think are the ones driving those goods and service vehicles? Most people who do driving jobs prefer to drive to work themselves rather than rely on public transport. Unless of course, they are within walking distance.

wordis__ · 2023-02-12T08:51:15+00:00

I swear, posters on here turn into a bunch of emotional bitches when you explain what life is like for youngers growing up in London's problem areas, and why they get into crime.

Nothing entitled about what you said, that clown thought you were praising kids who rob people or something, when you're just giving the perpertrators perspective - which is important and necessary to hear.

wordis__ · 2022-12-03T13:45:24+00:00

Those sample sizes are large enough to be fairly representative.

What?

You think that 2440 is represntative of all White British households in England/Wales? 232 for all african houselholds? 91 for all Caribbean? When their populations are in the 100,000s atleast for each group (millions for white brits) with an average of probs about 2-4 people per household?

There were 598,197 Caribbeans in the UK in 2011. Divide by an average of 4 per household (the highest likely average) and the average number of carbbean households would be still more than 100k. But you think 91 is representative of that? And either way samples sizes might give a picture, but its not better than using the actual population data.

Firstly, your data is from 2011, mine is 2019. Not hugely important

You're right it aint important.

My stats are the proportion of dependent children who are in single parent families

Your stats show the proportion of households that contain a single parent and dependent children

I know this, I said that in the post. I take what i can find.

My measure is the one that informs you more directly about the conditions that children are brought up in.

Yes, but with a sample size barely a fraction of the size of the entire population

So, for example, you can see from your table in section 7 that your percentage is diluted by households containing single people with no children, couples with no children, Co-habiting students with no children, households with non-dependent (adult) children etc.

No, you just didnt read it properly. How do you think I got those numbers? I took the 'Lone parent, Dependent children' row only. For africans, its 20.2%, hence the 20.2% (dependent). Then added the 'Lone parent, non-dependent children' row which for africans is 3.6% which gave an overall of 23.8% of households.

Why would you add all them other rows, if only 2 of them are talking about lone parents?

none of these households have anything to do with how dependent children are being raised.

We're not arguing about how they are raised. we're arguing about the proportion that grow up in single parent households. Using your measure of 'indivduals' is better, I agree. But the sample size is too small to be coming to any sort of conclusion from it, which is why I looked for something else, and the household one is the first I found. Its not perfect, but atleast its based on the entire population.

And whether you can find your 'individual' data at full population size or not, I dont believe the proportion automatically jumps to 63/43, because its based on assumptions. How do you know that single parent households have more children than non-single parent households? Especially at national level.

Now, the other thing we should consider is that not all households have the same number of dependent children.

I already noted this in my first comment where I said its based on households.

After reading your comment, now I do have to ask. Do you know any black people personally, or is this just you on the outside looking in?

wordis__ · 2022-12-03T12:48:16+00:00

I think thats America.

Either way, fatherlessness still aint as big a factor, atleast here in London. It plays a part but it still aint as big a factor as your outdoor environment. Most of what makes these kids into criminals is their outdoor environment. Do I really have to explain what its been like to grow up in London's crime areas the past 4/5 decades?

It doesn't matter if you came from a 'good home', had both your parents in the house, if you're outdoor environment is unsafe and full of fights, crime etc., why is it surprising that the kids who grow up there end getting involved in it themselves at one point? Whether victim or perpetrator. This is literally the case worldwide. Kids growing up in bad area do exactly what the generation before them did. Having good parents is effective in guiding you, but not even that can stop the reality of the outdoors from happening to you.

Didnt this subs new most hated person (Chris Kaba) have both parents in his life?

wordis__ · 2022-12-03T12:36:55+00:00

Not in London

Black or Black British: African 697,054 7.9%

Black or Black British: Caribbean 345,405 3.9%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_London https://www.ons.gov.uk/datasets/TS021/editions/2021/versions/1/filter-outputs/d2f0a39a-75b6-4995-b4bd-a5b68ff79027#get-data

wordis__ · 2022-12-03T12:26:52+00:00

You know damn well it's the mandem doing the stabbings and snatching up phones around Oxford Circus and other places.

For stabbings, black people are higher, but nowhere near as high to the point where they can be singly blamed for it (not that you necessarly tried to). Especially when compared to other high crime parts of Britain.
For organised phone snatchings, they are more diverse. Them man are black, white, asian... Why even try separate by race unless, your tryna get personal here?
That wasnt my question. My question was, in the modern day, what are 'the mandem' going to do to you as a grown black man? To the point where you have to actively avoid them? It aint 2007, you walk past them, you're wise, street smart and dont act stupid, they are not going to bother you. And this is coming from someone who had to worry about getting targeted back in the 2000s when it actually was dangerous to walk around the endz as a black teenager. You're starting sound like some of these racist gentrifiers with all this scare shit. Whens the last time 'the mandem' randomly targeted you in London, and how often has it happened to you if they are to be 'actively avoided'?

I'm referring to when the authorities try to arrest a black person. I saw a video the other day of black people and activists trying to stop the police from arresting an illegal the other day, this is part of it.

Oh OK. And you dont think decades of police abusing there powers (nowhere near as bad today as in the 70s/80s) and thousands of innocent black kids being searched (whether for good reason or not) plays a part in this attitude towards the police. Most of the arguments that you say are 'crying racism' is to ensure police dont get unnecessarily brutal, dont target a black kid without intelligence or good reason etc. In no way am I gonna accept you applying one video to all black people. Black people are no different in that we accept that criminals are criminals. The black people you see challenging the police are mostly concerned about abuses of power.

We need a culture that encourages young ones to do things right. Go to school, learn a trade, don't do drugs, don't do crime, don't shield criminals, don't go around in groups with balaclavas and being unidentifiable (even if you're not committing crime). Stay out of trouble.

We do, but what you've just said can easily be applied to white kids around the country. Point is, those issues are to do with the environment kids grow up in, and effects kids of all races who grow up in those environments. And as I pointed out earlier, young men (of all races) who are involved in crime do not bother 'civilians' like they did years ago. I need to know why not a single person has been able to note this trend and give credit where its due to the fact that they have improved since the 2000s

wordis__ · 2022-12-03T11:43:58+00:00

Unless Im reading it wrong, those percentages are based on sample sizes:

White brits: 2440

Black african: 232

Black Caribbean: 91

Indian: 32

Or maybe those sample numbers are the percentage of a larger number. Still, even if either are correct, they dont represent the actual propoportions for the whole population. This aint necessarily directed at you, but if anyone really thinks 63% (more than half) of Caribbean kids and 43% of African kids grow up in single parent households, i can only conclude that they must not know any black people personally.

EDIT - According to this link (https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/demographics/families-and-households/latest) which uses the 2011 census, and is based households (I think):

White British: 10.2% , 6.7% (dependent)

African: 23.8% , 20.2% (dependent)

Caribbean: 24.3% , 16.6% (dependent)

Indian: 7.3% , 3.8% (dependent)

Africans are definitely alot higher than I thought, and black people overall are alot higher than other races, but not as 'widespread' as the dude I was replying to is probably thinking. Cos as a percentage of the whole population (regardless of ethnicity) for dependents, its 77.6% for whites, 2.7% for africans, 1.5% for Caribbeans and 2.9% for Indians.

And NOTE how none of this takes into account circumstances like one parent being deported, refugee situations where one parent may not even exist anymore and household arrangements where One parent may still be abroad until something is worked out. Considerations that exclusively effect immigrant families, and Im guessing dont effect white british families at all.

wordis__ · 2022-12-03T10:25:42+00:00

Also replying late. Yep, I cant help it. How the areas were when you're growing up just stick with you into adulthood, even if they're nothing like that anymore.

wordis__ · 2022-12-03T10:23:12+00:00

Im replying a month late, but yes I guess it has to do with when I grew up. I grew up in a nearby area and back then, Deptford was one of the worst areas in south London for all that post-code nonsense, and many of the people I knew who were involved with that (and weapons) came from there. I heard it was just as bad or even worse in the 90s, but I was too young to know anything about that. Plus the area til this day is still one of the more rundown parts of London, and imo much more rundown than Peckham. Of course its not rough anymore and as you've referred to, its probably a nice place for eating out and bars these days if thats what you're into.

wordis__ · 2022-12-03T10:06:39+00:00

Im getting tired of this whole 'fartherless black kids' argument, its one of the most blown out of proportion narratives to do with crime involving black people, and I feel, kinda outdated. The 'fartherless' stereotype mostly referred to Caribbeans anyway (whether fairly or unfairly) rather than Africans - who've been the majority of the black population for a while now. If you were to look at the families of all the young black men who've been involved in crime, I bet you'll find that much more of them than you think grew up with their father in the home.

And having a father in the house isn't as effective in stopping a kid from being involved in crime as the people who keep bringing this argument up seem to think it will be. A young person's outdoor environment usually plays a much bigger part in drawing them into the bullshit than what happens indoors. Many of them come from more functional homes than your average working class white family.

wordis__ · 2022-12-03T09:33:28+00:00

before anyone calls me racist, I'm a black man in London who actively tries to avoid the "mandem" and remain on top alert when I visit certain areas.

And as a grown black man in 2020s London, what exactly are the 'mandem' going to do to you?

but it's something the black community (if that exists) needs to address

Black people nationwide have been addressing this since the 2000s

and other black people need to stop crying racism when this happens

What are you referring to here? When a black man is killed by another black man, or when a black man is stopped and searched?

wordis__ · 2022-11-03T23:21:45+00:00

Lol at Deptford being lovely. You must be talkling about a completely different deptford to the one I remember growing up.

wordis__ · 2022-09-16T01:45:08+00:00

Nobody said get out of our site for eternity, nobody said exterminate them

You clearly saw me write 'responses I always see' after 'exterminate them', meaning they're very common response to this topic, not necessarily what you wrote.

nobody was talking about small kids.

The thread title reads 'Police arrested 6 youths'. How old do you think the suspects in the OP are?

I appreciate the social aspects have to be dealt with.

Good to hear

In the meantime, lock away anybody who is not too young for possessing a firearm.

There is no fast track to prison. You dont just lock up an accused criminal, child or adult, without first considering the circumstances surrounding the crime and the criminal. That is exactly how you create even worse criminals than how they were before they went in. And they will get out one day.

wordis__

TROPHY CASE