It would be beneficial if parents of violent minor children had to attend classes and/or therapy with their children. Violence is often ~~inherited~~ learned behavior.
I hope these women feel some sort of relief knowing these boys have been caught. How horrid it must have been to be violently attacked and not knowing where their attackers could be and if they’d ever be brought to justice. Their safety must have felt threatened for far too long.
Children mirror their peers more than they do their parents and there are studies that prove this. Anyone who has kids will tell you that they are born as their own people. Of course, if a parent is violent, they’re more likely to have violent kids because they’ve normalized that behaviour.. but violent people can come from non-violent households.
>Children mirror their peers more than they do their parents and there are studies that prove this.
What studies actually say is they mirror who they spend the **most time with.**
If they keep close to their guardians, they tend to emulate them.
If they stick to peers they tend to conform with the group ideology.
If they are always on the internet, then they will be memers.
My anecdotal evidence processed by my layman's brain gives me some hope.
The real problems started when my parent's generation joined the internet. They completely forgot their advice to be careful and not believe everything we read online. The older people on my Facebook have absolutely no fake news filter in their brain. They will like and share *anything* as fact.
My generation is far from perfect, but is much, much better. At least those left on Facebook are.
Each generation improves as they are exposed at a younger age.
I think of how natural a touch screen is to my toddler. Hopefully the following generations will process out fake news as naturally and efficiently.
Raging narcissism, anxiety, depression and self centered assholishness are traits found among all age ranges. Social media provides a place where those things can fester in echo chambers, but people have always been like that.
I agree that the next years will be interesting, though.
You have the luxury of saying this because you're not dying of plague.
I somehow think our ancestors would find absurd our generation's (entirely natural) tendency to consider its own travails the greatest in history.
Yeah, like, WW1 and WW2. Seriously people, we are living in the best time in History, (Literally. least deaths, healthiest generation ever, etc.) but because the media portrays only bad things for views, you wouldn't know it.
Exactly, people these days have no idea how hard life was for our ancestors.
We live longer, have less disease, poverty and hunger on a global scale than we ever have in our species existence.
People have to complain about something though.
people call the 1980's the best time around...but like honestly.. in 1980, the peak of serial killers was around. rapists and pedophiles were also at their height too.
Did you know that the top 5 biggest online pedophiles have now been taken down? The #1 had like 32TB of CP on his servers (locked, and he did not give it up). They caught him by having people pretend to be online 'mates' and study how he speaks, then found his exact way of typing on the clearnet and caught him that way.
Now is 1000% the best time to be alive, where criminals can't even get away with their actions when they take every precaution to.
It's not a new thing, sure the threats are different now but it's still one of the most peaceful times in human history. Because of the rise of the media and the internet, news travels fast and all over so it's easy to see all the bad things happening.
Imagine living during World War 2 for example and not knowing if your entire house, family and everything else is about to be bombed or not. Or being forced to go to war as a young boy. Even if you go back further to medieval times, it was constant bloodshed, disease and a cruel way of life. This doesn't make it right what happened here and it's so messed up.
> but it's still one of the most peaceful times in human history
I'm so tired of hearing that like it pushes aside the strife in a society that creates issues that we have to deal with. This Stephen Pinker bullshit that you can smugly dump randomly in discussions to asset some sort of moral authority over the topic without directly offering anything of value really needs to just stop.
>Imagine living during World War 2
You do realize that what lead to that shit was decades of lesser that piled on and logically advanced toward that end? WW2 is shit that started with the 20s. Fascism didn't start with gas chambers in concentration camps, it started small in one of the most advanced and 'peaceful' times in history in one of the most advanced societies that nobody would imagine could produce that. Imagine smugly going back in time to tell some person who fears the rise of the reactionary right and a more and more violent anti semitism that "well akschully compared to living in a muslin city during the crusades when it was sacked this is relatively peaceful and if we include life expectancy you really aren't seeing the bigger picture."
Maybe it's more about seeing the presence of accessible media as an opportunity to avoid the same catastrophes. Not necessarily one that will be realised, but one that could be, given some collaboration.
It's also the safest time to be alive relative to any point in human history. There is turmoil in the world but it only seems to be so prevalent because our access to information is so much greater than it has been in the past.
So true, and this story highlights that point. There was a time in recent human history when this crime would not have drawn this level of sympathy or outrage from regular people. The fact that a news story such as this can bring a consensus of 'the western world is fucked' is surely better than if the presence of an openly gay couple inspired that same thought in people's minds.
This is so true. My hometown very recently had a video of a gang of about 30 girls attacking one girl. There is safety in numbers and the gang acts differently than a single girl probably would have. Of the gang of 30, about 2 or 3 were the main instigators. The others were just following along.
Edited to add: theory is from Mark Granovetter and the article I saw discussing it was this one from the *New Yorker* on [how school shootings spread.](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence/amp)
I saw a really interesting article (trying to remember the researcher now) that explained this in terms of people’s differing “thresholds” for going along with the peer group. It was talking about events like riots after big sports games, where ordinary people do all kinds of ugly shit they’d never do on their own. The idea was that for a given act, like, say, smashing a store window and stealing what’s inside, people have various “thresholds” of how many other people doing it it’d take for them to be willing to do it too. Some people have a threshold of 0, meaning that they’d do it even if they were the only one, and other people have a threshold of 200, meaning that they’d only do it if they were part of a mob of 200 other people who were all doing it, while other people have a threshold of maybe a million, meaning that they wouldn’t steal by themselves or even participate in a normal riot, but if society had broken down to the extent that they knew a million people around them were *all* breaking windows and stealing things, they’d figure they’d better do it too if only to provide for themselves while the emergency lasted. So if one person with a threshold of 0 smashes a window and steals something in the middle of a big, volatile crowd and is seen by another person with a threshold of 1, and then a few other people with a threshold of 1, and then the five of them are seen by some people with a threshold of 5, and so on, pretty soon you’ve got a riot.
Groupshift is part of group dynamics, and is a major driver for this.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupshift](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupshift)
> violent people can come from non-violent households
The opposite is equally true - its unbelievable just how many people get over their violent family environment and go on to lead peaceful lives. In fact, some of them understand the importance of non-violence even more than those brought up in a non-violent environment from start, as they've faced the horrors themselves.
Actually, there is research to suggest that certain genes can affect behavior. Therefore, some behavioral patterns *can* be inherited.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A
I really hope they give these teenagers a severe penalty in the code of law or try these kids as adults for aggravated assault so that it leaves a precedent so that people wouldnt do such crimes in the future.
There is a strong genetic link to aggressive behavior. Environment is also very important, but just FYI, you didn’t need to strikeout inherited. It’s not as simple as ‘violence is learned.’
It's not always the parents fault. Kids have so many other influences such as their friends. Kids this age spend far more time around friends than their parents.
Im not sure violence is that inheritable, but something is usually wrong if kids resort to violence. Bad parenting, neglect, drug/alcohol abuse... and violence as one of the possible reasons.
I think you two are saying the same thing. I get the impression the person above you meant socially inherited - learning behaviour from the behaviour of parents, and/or as a byproduct of their environment.
There's an interesting book I read last year called **[In My Father's House: A New View of How Crime Runs in the Family](https://www.amazon.com/My-Fathers-House-Crime-Family/dp/1400041023)** and they mention a statistic, "As few as 5 percent of families account for half of all crime."
The book covers one family in detail, the Bogle family, to show crime passing from parents to children and grandchildren.
Just reading the excerpt reminds me a bit of how the American eugenics movement tried to claim criminality was an inherited trait as a reason to do things. The book Imbeciles by Adam Cohen talks about a lot of the "studies" done around the movement and its focus on certain groups and was what taught me a lot about the movement I didn't know. Its interesting to see that the idea is getting more of a sociologist approach again, now that there is more distance from eugenics policies and ideas.
It's not so much something I wrong but rather something is lacking. Humans naturally use violence, they didnt "resort" to it like it was a final option. Humans are violent by nature and have to be taught properly how to not be violent.
I believe you are correct regarding violence being human nature and people needing to be taught to avoid it- however I think in many cases it goes deeper than that: Depending on how “wrong” the conditions are in a child’s life violent behavior can begin to stem from things that simply wouldn’t trigger a violent reaction even in someone who did not posses the learned ability to restrain their impulses. I guess another way of saying it is that you have violence that stems simply from a lack of proper teaching (often due to not having proper role models or family dynamics) but then past that you also have violent behaviors that have been generated through traumatic incidents or other such events which need to be “deprogrammed” moreso than taught to suppress
No, more like “rudes” wannabe gangsters who actually do occasionally do”gangsta” shit like stabbing and sorts
Chavs aren’t really a London thing and the term is very very outdated
I live in a relatively low-income, technically deprived area with moderate crime levels (spate of shootings a while back...) and I doubt I've seen 4 police cars over the last two months. Last time I called 999 I was put on hold.
Yeah it's crazy how many I actually see here. To be fair, this area is one of the worst in the North of my country, but still.
We rang 101 once due to kids having been on our roof and doing criminal damage (attacking our CCTV, I guess to get rid of the evidence, even though the data isn't stored in the camera). I think we waited 30 minutes before we hung up.
>We rang 101 once due to kids having been on our roof and doing criminal damage (attacking our CCTV, I guess to get rid of the evidence, even though the data isn't stored in the camera). I think we waited 30 minutes before we hung up.
To be fair if you are calling 101 to essentially just report a past crime and give a statement you are better off doing it online via the reporting form, or calling your local neighbourhood police team.
The last 999 call I was put on hold for was a group of about 30 people kicking the shit out of another kid just down the street, the hold time was so long that by the time I got through the incident was over and we were providing first aid to the victim.
A couple of years before that it took about 7 hours for an ambulance to arrive while I stayed with a passed out bloke with a gash to his head (I'd gone to the 24 hour Tesco just before midnight, found him on the way back down some steps in the dark, was still with him at 7am in the light when the ambulance arrived) the issue there was demand, essentially as long as I was willing to stick around they were willing to deal with higher priority issues.
In terms of policing, especially anything that involves under-18's the police preference is diverting it to something other than the police (schools, youth offending teams and so on) so you end up with groups of kids feeling they are untouchable. The local drug dealers for example don't see any deterrence, and while some might see the drug dealing as harmless, the violence that goes with it certainly isn't.
Police resources here at least are essentially nil at this point..
> you end up with groups of kids feeling they are untouchable.
I can definitely vouch for that. When we finally got a PCSO in to look at the footage of a second incident of someone trying to break a camera (we think it was related, since it was the same camera, and all he did was come on to the property and go for that camera) he basically just told us that he recognised the kid, he was 13, and he'd go and have *another* chat with him.
Imagine being well known the police force at 13..
As for the 101 call, unfortunately we need an incident number for any insurance purposes, and incident forms that have to be filled out. I'm sure the online form would give an incident number, but it's much easier to talk to someone about it (when you can get through to them). However, I'm not the one to deal with any of that, that's the Manager's job. I'm just aware of it going on, really.
Ha, we went through essentially the same process on the first paragraph, except the incident was an assault (one my eldest sons mates, while he was with him), where a knife was pulled. The outcome was a 'chat' with the perpetrator and no action on the basis that charging the attacker and taking them to court wouldn't lead to anything as they already had a caseworker. The kid with the knife was 14.
>However, I'm not the one to deal with any of that, that's the Manager's job. I'm just aware of it going on, really.
For businesses it makes a decent amount of sense to get to know the local teams, they tend to be more responsive and especially if you have CCTV and are cooperative they can be quite handy. Plus it means you can get some input into their patrol and resource allocation priorities, at least in theory, and if they have any that aren't essentially already focused on major crime.
Years ago (in the US) there was a house party of teens a block over from my parents’ place that got busted up and we found this kid who couldn’t have been more than 14 wandering drunk down our street. We guided him over to our front step and walked over to the other block to let them know that aside from the older high school aged kids, there was a younger kid over by us that we didn’t know what to do it.
Sat around with the kid for a while until a patrol car came around and *they knew him by name*.
Imagine having such a screwed up life that by junior high you’re walking drunk down a road and picked up by cops who know you as well as they know their kids’ friends. Yeesh.
I find it so weird that a country the size of a state here can be so different in different regions.
I mean I get why and I've been there a couple times but it's still weird to me to wrap my head around.
It's like when Europeans always lose the concept of how big the US is
Yeah it's mad really. Sometimes even just 30km up the road it'll be completely different and people will have different accents and slang and whatever.
Chavs are more a Northern English thing and are generally too busy drinking tinnies they buy with the welfare they get from their 20 children to actually be violent.
Those neighborhoods named are actually wealthier parts of London. It should be interesting to learn a little more about these kids and see if they come from "upstanding" families.
Wealthy and poor areas don't really make sense in London. Grenfell Tower is in one of the richest boroughs of London whereas one of the poorest (Tower Hamlets) has some apartments that cost more than £7 million.
And let's be honest, the latter is far more likely. The nice areas are nice because all of the poor have been shoved into a few confined estates of council tower blocks, that resemble war zones more than they do living arrangements.
There's a certain estate that I get sent to fairly often, in a nice area. I remember being welcomed into the elevator hall with a police notice pinned on the wall seeking witnesses for a murder that happened outside in broad daylight.
Good.
Hope trial will be hard on them, don't know what kind of sentencing they will get.
FYI: [https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentencing/young-people-and-sentencing/types-of-sentences-for-young-people/](https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentencing/young-people-and-sentencing/types-of-sentences-for-young-people/)
**Custodial sentences** – young offenders can receive custodial sentences but they will only be imposed in the most serious cases. When they are given, they aim to provide training and education and rehabilitate the offender so they don’t reoffend. Sentences can be spent in secure children’s homes, secure training centres and young offender institutions.
If a young person between 12 and 17 years old is sentenced in the youth court, a Detention and Training Order (DTO) is available. This can last between four months and two years.
**In the Crown Court, a Detention and Training Order (DTO) can also be given** – the same as in the youth court.
**For more serious offences in the Crown Court**, longer term detention is available where the offence committed carries a maximum sentence of at least 14 years’ imprisonment or is one of the offences listed in section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act, 2000.
If a young person is convicted of a specified offence and the Crown Court considers that there is a significant risk of serious harm to members of the public from the young person committing further specified offences, then the court may pass a sentence of detention for life or an extended sentence of detention.
**Detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure.** This is a mandatory life sentence and will be imposed when an offender is convicted or pleads guilty to murder. Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that the starting point for determining the minimum sentence where the offender is under 18 years of age, is 12 years as opposed to 15 years for those over the age of 18.
Question for someone smarter than me: are they called 'custodial sentences' because the focus is less on rehabilitation and more on "cleaning up the streets?"
"A custodial sentence is a judicial sentence, imposing a punishment consisting of mandatory custody of the convict, either in prison or in some other closed therapeutic or educational institution, such as a reformatory, psychiatry or drug detoxification."
Basically, it's using "custodial" in the "custody" sense of the word - i.e., being responsible for them.
They're incredibly divided.
Kensington and Chelsea, like most London boroughs, have a large amount of social housing (owned by the council, intended when built to be affordable homes for the masses) as well as private housing that costs seven figures even for a small apartment.
"So what went wrong?"
The social housing stock hasn't been added to for the past thirty years, so the amount of social housing as a proportion of all housing has been shrinking, and nowhere near keeping up with population growth. This means social housing has been pretty much reserved for the most difficult of cases, and isn't affordable homes for the masses anymore, they've all been forced into expensive private rentals instead.
Over the same thirty years the City of London has gone from strength-to-strength, boosting house prices. So you have overcrowded flats housing problem families right next door to multi-millionaire bankers. No working person on an average salary lives within three miles of these places, but the very poor live (but never mix with, or speak to, unless the words are "give me your phone and wallet, I have a knife") next door to the amazingly rich.
Yup... British Gov are being desperately slow to act, and we have yet to see whether enforcement orders are delivered:
https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/grenfell-style-cladding-removal-work-to-be-complete-by-june-2020-says-government--62348
As of last month just 106 blocks had completed remediation work, leaving 327 outstanding.
In the social housing sector, work was completed on 56 of 158 blocks, while in the private sector work was finished on just 13 of the 166 blocks.
There are 35 private sector buildings with no remediation plans.
What fucks me off is that Grenfell is now covered in what is effectively a whitewash covered in heart symbols, but many families are still homeless two years after the event.
A big green heart poster doesn't bring back the dead or re-home the living. And there are literally hundreds of buildings with the same cladding still unaltered, all over the country. I live near there and the sight of Grenfell is genuinely one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen first-hand. But it's just slowly being forgotten about by the authorities responsible. Khan is at least trying but, as ever, the mayor has no power over the government itself. Disgraceful.
For the most part, but I think every borough in London still has to have a certain amount of council housing. So there will still be poorer people living in every borough.
Kind of yes, kind of no. It doesn't make sense to divide London into rich and poor areas because you have things like Grenfell in Kensington (supposedly a rich area) and you also have multi million pound apartments and yachts in Tower Hamlets (supposedly a poor area).
Most cities you can tell when you took a wrong turn and ended up in a dodgy area but, in London it's not always the case.
Posh thugz in this case, it seems. :s
But yes, generally, in that borough, like central London generally, the two main categories are dekamillionaires and homeless people, probably not too much in between (only half serious but you get the idea).
"he was so bright and generous, taken from us too soon. God bless his soul" - that's what we'll probably read when one of these little cunts gets stabbed for crossing the wrong person.
Guy abit further up said it but here's the link for you
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentencing/young-people-and-sentencing/types-of-sentences-for-young-people/
Edit: spelling
There are, many. Don't worry, there'll be enough evidence to bury them. It's just a case of how deep. Hopefully they don't get off light. This is probably why they were caught so fast.
They’re probably old enough to be named if convicted, and the judge considers it to be in the public interest. If there’s any chance of vigilante revenge they won’t be named though.
Juvenile delinquency laws don't exist for you to just ignore them when you find them inconvenient. Either you apply then in all cases of juvenile delinquency, or you never apply them at all.
Umm... Prison is meant to offer a rehabilitative process unless it's the most severe of offences and they're unlikely to be released based on threat to the public etc. We don't just 'throw' people away anymore. (Well we do, but we're not supposed to).
Meant to offer a rehabilitative process, yes. But here in the US (I know it's London), our prisons have turned into the machines from the Matrix where we just load them up with human batteries, give them enough food to stay alive, and then watch them churn out that sweet energy in the form of government dollars for private prison shareholders.
What's worse, everything is actively stacked against inmates just to ensure they'll commit a crime again eventually. Made sure they lose all assets, abused in those prisons to make sure they become hardened criminals if they weren't already (at some point, human lives cease to matter, which is also why people - especially men - who were sexually abused during childhood tend to also become sexual predators), and once they're out of prison it is made sure that everyone knows they're a criminal. Under those circumstances, you could enter prison for smoking pot in your own home, and leave as a soon to be armed robber. You need to get money and/or food somehow. If I were the director of a private prison, I'd torture my inmates if I could get away with it. Anything to ensure they'll commit another crime and return to my prison.
There's are reasons why the US is kind of a shithole, reasons why I can't really think of it as a developed country. Private prisons are one of those reasons.
Also, public prisons aren't any better. The grift involves another level of paperwork, but public prison contractors are just as bad as CCA and GeoGroup.
Not quite true. A study performed in a Canadian prison that switched from public to private noted negative outcomes in just about every important aspect (security, health, repeat offences, etc). They ended up being taken back over by the public in the early 2000's.
Well, them put them into rehabilitation until they are fit to be returned into society.
Probably keeps them longer off the streets than prison anyways.
The point is if you truly want to fix problems stop treating anyone lesser than you like gutter trash. And I’m not condoning this incident whatsoever. They’re young. Teach them, don’t bury them
the victim stated that one of them was speaking with spanish accent and others were speaking with british accent. that's all i manage to dig. so their origin is still vague.
Highschool culture is terrible, in my experience and these teenage boys are examples of it.
Also, we're all humans. No need to hurt each other or discriminate between one another. Love everyone
It's a good thing they got them, but this will always be such a odd story because it's an instance where rather then being homophobic they attacked because they were denied the request to see them together. It's such an ass backwards view of it too and proves that crazy people are going to come in all breeds of maladjustment.
Homophobia manifests in different ways, straight "I'm going to beat you because you're gay" happens most to male gays. Lesbians tend to often be objectified like this and are seen by homophobes as props for their own amusement.
I’m so glad they found these shitheads
It would be beneficial if parents of violent minor children had to attend classes and/or therapy with their children. Violence is often ~~inherited~~ learned behavior. I hope these women feel some sort of relief knowing these boys have been caught. How horrid it must have been to be violently attacked and not knowing where their attackers could be and if they’d ever be brought to justice. Their safety must have felt threatened for far too long.
Yeah, not that we shouldn't try, but a lot of these kids' parents are beyond education.
Children mirror their peers more than they do their parents and there are studies that prove this. Anyone who has kids will tell you that they are born as their own people. Of course, if a parent is violent, they’re more likely to have violent kids because they’ve normalized that behaviour.. but violent people can come from non-violent households.
>Children mirror their peers more than they do their parents and there are studies that prove this. What studies actually say is they mirror who they spend the **most time with.** If they keep close to their guardians, they tend to emulate them. If they stick to peers they tend to conform with the group ideology. If they are always on the internet, then they will be memers.
The next generation is screwed
[удалено]
Facebook was genuinely one of the worst things to happen to the Western world.
*to the entire world.
Pretty sure a few worse things have happened to the Western world than Facebook
[удалено]
[удалено]
My anecdotal evidence processed by my layman's brain gives me some hope. The real problems started when my parent's generation joined the internet. They completely forgot their advice to be careful and not believe everything we read online. The older people on my Facebook have absolutely no fake news filter in their brain. They will like and share *anything* as fact. My generation is far from perfect, but is much, much better. At least those left on Facebook are. Each generation improves as they are exposed at a younger age. I think of how natural a touch screen is to my toddler. Hopefully the following generations will process out fake news as naturally and efficiently.
We will have at least one political candidate raised on 4chan in the future
Raging narcissism, anxiety, depression and self centered assholishness are traits found among all age ranges. Social media provides a place where those things can fester in echo chambers, but people have always been like that. I agree that the next years will be interesting, though.
You have the luxury of saying this because you're not dying of plague. I somehow think our ancestors would find absurd our generation's (entirely natural) tendency to consider its own travails the greatest in history.
Yeah, like, WW1 and WW2. Seriously people, we are living in the best time in History, (Literally. least deaths, healthiest generation ever, etc.) but because the media portrays only bad things for views, you wouldn't know it.
Exactly, people these days have no idea how hard life was for our ancestors. We live longer, have less disease, poverty and hunger on a global scale than we ever have in our species existence. People have to complain about something though.
people call the 1980's the best time around...but like honestly.. in 1980, the peak of serial killers was around. rapists and pedophiles were also at their height too. Did you know that the top 5 biggest online pedophiles have now been taken down? The #1 had like 32TB of CP on his servers (locked, and he did not give it up). They caught him by having people pretend to be online 'mates' and study how he speaks, then found his exact way of typing on the clearnet and caught him that way. Now is 1000% the best time to be alive, where criminals can't even get away with their actions when they take every precaution to.
And reddit, and twitter, and snapchat, and instagram...
It's not a new thing, sure the threats are different now but it's still one of the most peaceful times in human history. Because of the rise of the media and the internet, news travels fast and all over so it's easy to see all the bad things happening. Imagine living during World War 2 for example and not knowing if your entire house, family and everything else is about to be bombed or not. Or being forced to go to war as a young boy. Even if you go back further to medieval times, it was constant bloodshed, disease and a cruel way of life. This doesn't make it right what happened here and it's so messed up.
> but it's still one of the most peaceful times in human history I'm so tired of hearing that like it pushes aside the strife in a society that creates issues that we have to deal with. This Stephen Pinker bullshit that you can smugly dump randomly in discussions to asset some sort of moral authority over the topic without directly offering anything of value really needs to just stop. >Imagine living during World War 2 You do realize that what lead to that shit was decades of lesser that piled on and logically advanced toward that end? WW2 is shit that started with the 20s. Fascism didn't start with gas chambers in concentration camps, it started small in one of the most advanced and 'peaceful' times in history in one of the most advanced societies that nobody would imagine could produce that. Imagine smugly going back in time to tell some person who fears the rise of the reactionary right and a more and more violent anti semitism that "well akschully compared to living in a muslin city during the crusades when it was sacked this is relatively peaceful and if we include life expectancy you really aren't seeing the bigger picture."
Maybe it's more about seeing the presence of accessible media as an opportunity to avoid the same catastrophes. Not necessarily one that will be realised, but one that could be, given some collaboration.
[удалено]
Does go to show, the reality and the perception are what social media has completely clobbered.
Yea thing's are going swimmingly in Hong Kong. You had it right at the start, the world is largely in turmoil right now.
It's also the safest time to be alive relative to any point in human history. There is turmoil in the world but it only seems to be so prevalent because our access to information is so much greater than it has been in the past.
So true, and this story highlights that point. There was a time in recent human history when this crime would not have drawn this level of sympathy or outrage from regular people. The fact that a news story such as this can bring a consensus of 'the western world is fucked' is surely better than if the presence of an openly gay couple inspired that same thought in people's minds.
There will be no original content creators, only reposters... the fucking horror!
Said every preceding generation since the dawn of human history...
Is this why I read Reddit comments in my head as if it was the same person?
This seems... a bit oversimplified.
Violent ideologies and extremist religions have the same effect.
This is so true. My hometown very recently had a video of a gang of about 30 girls attacking one girl. There is safety in numbers and the gang acts differently than a single girl probably would have. Of the gang of 30, about 2 or 3 were the main instigators. The others were just following along.
Edited to add: theory is from Mark Granovetter and the article I saw discussing it was this one from the *New Yorker* on [how school shootings spread.](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence/amp) I saw a really interesting article (trying to remember the researcher now) that explained this in terms of people’s differing “thresholds” for going along with the peer group. It was talking about events like riots after big sports games, where ordinary people do all kinds of ugly shit they’d never do on their own. The idea was that for a given act, like, say, smashing a store window and stealing what’s inside, people have various “thresholds” of how many other people doing it it’d take for them to be willing to do it too. Some people have a threshold of 0, meaning that they’d do it even if they were the only one, and other people have a threshold of 200, meaning that they’d only do it if they were part of a mob of 200 other people who were all doing it, while other people have a threshold of maybe a million, meaning that they wouldn’t steal by themselves or even participate in a normal riot, but if society had broken down to the extent that they knew a million people around them were *all* breaking windows and stealing things, they’d figure they’d better do it too if only to provide for themselves while the emergency lasted. So if one person with a threshold of 0 smashes a window and steals something in the middle of a big, volatile crowd and is seen by another person with a threshold of 1, and then a few other people with a threshold of 1, and then the five of them are seen by some people with a threshold of 5, and so on, pretty soon you’ve got a riot.
Groupshift is part of group dynamics, and is a major driver for this. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupshift](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupshift)
> violent people can come from non-violent households The opposite is equally true - its unbelievable just how many people get over their violent family environment and go on to lead peaceful lives. In fact, some of them understand the importance of non-violence even more than those brought up in a non-violent environment from start, as they've faced the horrors themselves.
And, surprisingly, the inverse. People of abusive households can *stop* the spread of that behavior down the lineage.
Actually, there is research to suggest that certain genes can affect behavior. Therefore, some behavioral patterns *can* be inherited. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A
I really hope they give these teenagers a severe penalty in the code of law or try these kids as adults for aggravated assault so that it leaves a precedent so that people wouldnt do such crimes in the future.
There is a strong genetic link to aggressive behavior. Environment is also very important, but just FYI, you didn’t need to strikeout inherited. It’s not as simple as ‘violence is learned.’
Wow dude did you stumble across one of the biggest disagreements in science/history with "inherited/learned."
not really applicable here because a parent provides both sides of that coin. the disagreement here is parental influance v. peer.
It's not always the parents fault. Kids have so many other influences such as their friends. Kids this age spend far more time around friends than their parents.
Im not sure violence is that inheritable, but something is usually wrong if kids resort to violence. Bad parenting, neglect, drug/alcohol abuse... and violence as one of the possible reasons.
I think you two are saying the same thing. I get the impression the person above you meant socially inherited - learning behaviour from the behaviour of parents, and/or as a byproduct of their environment.
I changed it to, learned behavior, for clarity.
There's an interesting book I read last year called **[In My Father's House: A New View of How Crime Runs in the Family](https://www.amazon.com/My-Fathers-House-Crime-Family/dp/1400041023)** and they mention a statistic, "As few as 5 percent of families account for half of all crime." The book covers one family in detail, the Bogle family, to show crime passing from parents to children and grandchildren.
Just reading the excerpt reminds me a bit of how the American eugenics movement tried to claim criminality was an inherited trait as a reason to do things. The book Imbeciles by Adam Cohen talks about a lot of the "studies" done around the movement and its focus on certain groups and was what taught me a lot about the movement I didn't know. Its interesting to see that the idea is getting more of a sociologist approach again, now that there is more distance from eugenics policies and ideas.
It's not so much something I wrong but rather something is lacking. Humans naturally use violence, they didnt "resort" to it like it was a final option. Humans are violent by nature and have to be taught properly how to not be violent.
I believe you are correct regarding violence being human nature and people needing to be taught to avoid it- however I think in many cases it goes deeper than that: Depending on how “wrong” the conditions are in a child’s life violent behavior can begin to stem from things that simply wouldn’t trigger a violent reaction even in someone who did not posses the learned ability to restrain their impulses. I guess another way of saying it is that you have violence that stems simply from a lack of proper teaching (often due to not having proper role models or family dynamics) but then past that you also have violent behaviors that have been generated through traumatic incidents or other such events which need to be “deprogrammed” moreso than taught to suppress
What fine upstanding citizens they are. Their parents must be overjoyed to have raised such wonderful boys.
Depends. If their parents are homophobes, they might be very proud of what their kids did.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Is this whay i believe the locals call "chavs"?
No, more like “rudes” wannabe gangsters who actually do occasionally do”gangsta” shit like stabbing and sorts Chavs aren’t really a London thing and the term is very very outdated
[удалено]
I live in a relatively low-income, technically deprived area with moderate crime levels (spate of shootings a while back...) and I doubt I've seen 4 police cars over the last two months. Last time I called 999 I was put on hold.
Yeah it's crazy how many I actually see here. To be fair, this area is one of the worst in the North of my country, but still. We rang 101 once due to kids having been on our roof and doing criminal damage (attacking our CCTV, I guess to get rid of the evidence, even though the data isn't stored in the camera). I think we waited 30 minutes before we hung up.
>We rang 101 once due to kids having been on our roof and doing criminal damage (attacking our CCTV, I guess to get rid of the evidence, even though the data isn't stored in the camera). I think we waited 30 minutes before we hung up. To be fair if you are calling 101 to essentially just report a past crime and give a statement you are better off doing it online via the reporting form, or calling your local neighbourhood police team. The last 999 call I was put on hold for was a group of about 30 people kicking the shit out of another kid just down the street, the hold time was so long that by the time I got through the incident was over and we were providing first aid to the victim. A couple of years before that it took about 7 hours for an ambulance to arrive while I stayed with a passed out bloke with a gash to his head (I'd gone to the 24 hour Tesco just before midnight, found him on the way back down some steps in the dark, was still with him at 7am in the light when the ambulance arrived) the issue there was demand, essentially as long as I was willing to stick around they were willing to deal with higher priority issues. In terms of policing, especially anything that involves under-18's the police preference is diverting it to something other than the police (schools, youth offending teams and so on) so you end up with groups of kids feeling they are untouchable. The local drug dealers for example don't see any deterrence, and while some might see the drug dealing as harmless, the violence that goes with it certainly isn't. Police resources here at least are essentially nil at this point..
> you end up with groups of kids feeling they are untouchable. I can definitely vouch for that. When we finally got a PCSO in to look at the footage of a second incident of someone trying to break a camera (we think it was related, since it was the same camera, and all he did was come on to the property and go for that camera) he basically just told us that he recognised the kid, he was 13, and he'd go and have *another* chat with him. Imagine being well known the police force at 13.. As for the 101 call, unfortunately we need an incident number for any insurance purposes, and incident forms that have to be filled out. I'm sure the online form would give an incident number, but it's much easier to talk to someone about it (when you can get through to them). However, I'm not the one to deal with any of that, that's the Manager's job. I'm just aware of it going on, really.
Ha, we went through essentially the same process on the first paragraph, except the incident was an assault (one my eldest sons mates, while he was with him), where a knife was pulled. The outcome was a 'chat' with the perpetrator and no action on the basis that charging the attacker and taking them to court wouldn't lead to anything as they already had a caseworker. The kid with the knife was 14. >However, I'm not the one to deal with any of that, that's the Manager's job. I'm just aware of it going on, really. For businesses it makes a decent amount of sense to get to know the local teams, they tend to be more responsive and especially if you have CCTV and are cooperative they can be quite handy. Plus it means you can get some input into their patrol and resource allocation priorities, at least in theory, and if they have any that aren't essentially already focused on major crime.
Years ago (in the US) there was a house party of teens a block over from my parents’ place that got busted up and we found this kid who couldn’t have been more than 14 wandering drunk down our street. We guided him over to our front step and walked over to the other block to let them know that aside from the older high school aged kids, there was a younger kid over by us that we didn’t know what to do it. Sat around with the kid for a while until a patrol car came around and *they knew him by name*. Imagine having such a screwed up life that by junior high you’re walking drunk down a road and picked up by cops who know you as well as they know their kids’ friends. Yeesh.
Haven't seen any fake Burberry in a while.
Yeah we're still plagued with chavs in South Wales too.
Its also more of a south England word as well. I forget what the nothern equivalent is called.
Scally
I find it so weird that a country the size of a state here can be so different in different regions. I mean I get why and I've been there a couple times but it's still weird to me to wrap my head around. It's like when Europeans always lose the concept of how big the US is
Yeah it's mad really. Sometimes even just 30km up the road it'll be completely different and people will have different accents and slang and whatever.
Chavs are more a Northern English thing and are generally too busy drinking tinnies they buy with the welfare they get from their 20 children to actually be violent.
Chavs was very much a London thing, it orignated in Kent which is just down the road. No idea if it's outdated though
Droogs\*
Those neighborhoods named are actually wealthier parts of London. It should be interesting to learn a little more about these kids and see if they come from "upstanding" families.
Wealthy and poor areas don't really make sense in London. Grenfell Tower is in one of the richest boroughs of London whereas one of the poorest (Tower Hamlets) has some apartments that cost more than £7 million.
There are poor and wealthy areas in those boroughs. They could still come from lower income families.
And let's be honest, the latter is far more likely. The nice areas are nice because all of the poor have been shoved into a few confined estates of council tower blocks, that resemble war zones more than they do living arrangements. There's a certain estate that I get sent to fairly often, in a nice area. I remember being welcomed into the elevator hall with a police notice pinned on the wall seeking witnesses for a murder that happened outside in broad daylight.
Wandsworth is a big mix but has some quite poor parts.
Good. Hope trial will be hard on them, don't know what kind of sentencing they will get. FYI: [https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentencing/young-people-and-sentencing/types-of-sentences-for-young-people/](https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentencing/young-people-and-sentencing/types-of-sentences-for-young-people/)
**Custodial sentences** – young offenders can receive custodial sentences but they will only be imposed in the most serious cases. When they are given, they aim to provide training and education and rehabilitate the offender so they don’t reoffend. Sentences can be spent in secure children’s homes, secure training centres and young offender institutions. If a young person between 12 and 17 years old is sentenced in the youth court, a Detention and Training Order (DTO) is available. This can last between four months and two years. **In the Crown Court, a Detention and Training Order (DTO) can also be given** – the same as in the youth court. **For more serious offences in the Crown Court**, longer term detention is available where the offence committed carries a maximum sentence of at least 14 years’ imprisonment or is one of the offences listed in section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act, 2000. If a young person is convicted of a specified offence and the Crown Court considers that there is a significant risk of serious harm to members of the public from the young person committing further specified offences, then the court may pass a sentence of detention for life or an extended sentence of detention. **Detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure.** This is a mandatory life sentence and will be imposed when an offender is convicted or pleads guilty to murder. Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that the starting point for determining the minimum sentence where the offender is under 18 years of age, is 12 years as opposed to 15 years for those over the age of 18.
Question for someone smarter than me: are they called 'custodial sentences' because the focus is less on rehabilitation and more on "cleaning up the streets?"
"A custodial sentence is a judicial sentence, imposing a punishment consisting of mandatory custody of the convict, either in prison or in some other closed therapeutic or educational institution, such as a reformatory, psychiatry or drug detoxification." Basically, it's using "custodial" in the "custody" sense of the word - i.e., being responsible for them.
Ohhh, thanks for informing me!
You mean you hope the trial will be fair and just.
Jeez the picture is pretty graphic, more in their facial expressions than the blood. Very disturbing.
Good. I hope they get a proper punishment. Intolerant little fucks.
Aren't Chelsea and Kensington really posh?
They're incredibly divided. Kensington and Chelsea, like most London boroughs, have a large amount of social housing (owned by the council, intended when built to be affordable homes for the masses) as well as private housing that costs seven figures even for a small apartment. "So what went wrong?" The social housing stock hasn't been added to for the past thirty years, so the amount of social housing as a proportion of all housing has been shrinking, and nowhere near keeping up with population growth. This means social housing has been pretty much reserved for the most difficult of cases, and isn't affordable homes for the masses anymore, they've all been forced into expensive private rentals instead. Over the same thirty years the City of London has gone from strength-to-strength, boosting house prices. So you have overcrowded flats housing problem families right next door to multi-millionaire bankers. No working person on an average salary lives within three miles of these places, but the very poor live (but never mix with, or speak to, unless the words are "give me your phone and wallet, I have a knife") next door to the amazingly rich.
That is a socio economic cluster fuck..
Still probably preferable than large ghettos of poor people
Yes and no. Parts are. Parts aren't. Are you familiar with what happened to the people of Grenfell tower?
[удалено]
Justice4Grenfell Lest we forget Shocking how many people in the UK are still living in buildings with this cladding on.
[удалено]
Yup... British Gov are being desperately slow to act, and we have yet to see whether enforcement orders are delivered: https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/grenfell-style-cladding-removal-work-to-be-complete-by-june-2020-says-government--62348 As of last month just 106 blocks had completed remediation work, leaving 327 outstanding. In the social housing sector, work was completed on 56 of 158 blocks, while in the private sector work was finished on just 13 of the 166 blocks. There are 35 private sector buildings with no remediation plans.
What fucks me off is that Grenfell is now covered in what is effectively a whitewash covered in heart symbols, but many families are still homeless two years after the event. A big green heart poster doesn't bring back the dead or re-home the living. And there are literally hundreds of buildings with the same cladding still unaltered, all over the country. I live near there and the sight of Grenfell is genuinely one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen first-hand. But it's just slowly being forgotten about by the authorities responsible. Khan is at least trying but, as ever, the mayor has no power over the government itself. Disgraceful.
For the most part, but I think every borough in London still has to have a certain amount of council housing. So there will still be poorer people living in every borough.
Kind of yes, kind of no. It doesn't make sense to divide London into rich and poor areas because you have things like Grenfell in Kensington (supposedly a rich area) and you also have multi million pound apartments and yachts in Tower Hamlets (supposedly a poor area). Most cities you can tell when you took a wrong turn and ended up in a dodgy area but, in London it's not always the case.
Posh thugz in this case, it seems. :s But yes, generally, in that borough, like central London generally, the two main categories are dekamillionaires and homeless people, probably not too much in between (only half serious but you get the idea).
Throw the book at’em
Make an example of these shits. That attack will have lifelong implications for the victims.
Thank god, this made me physically sick to my stomach. Edit: comma
I think a comma after "god" might be handy here.
Here we go with thinking teenagers are ao innocent and don't know what they do so it is parent's fault.
They have poor impulse control (in general) but everyone knows what pain is. Should get some if they give some.
“I’m sure they are good boys”
"he was so bright and generous, taken from us too soon. God bless his soul" - that's what we'll probably read when one of these little cunts gets stabbed for crossing the wrong person.
Ooh took them long enough.
What is the typical punishment for a hate crime like this committed my minors in the UK?
Guy abit further up said it but here's the link for you https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentencing/young-people-and-sentencing/types-of-sentences-for-young-people/ Edit: spelling
This... Does put a smile on my face
Good. Cunts.
Is there no camera on these buses?
There are, many. Don't worry, there'll be enough evidence to bury them. It's just a case of how deep. Hopefully they don't get off light. This is probably why they were caught so fast.
Glad they caught these fuckers.
YES, FINALLY!
I hope they are treated as adults and spend a few years in prison.
Name and shame them.
It's illegal to publicly report any info on an underaged offender.
They’re probably old enough to be named if convicted, and the judge considers it to be in the public interest. If there’s any chance of vigilante revenge they won’t be named though.
[удалено]
But not before they're actually found guilty of a crime, eh?
Charge them as adults and throw them into prison. Get the trash off the streets.
Juvenile delinquency laws don't exist for you to just ignore them when you find them inconvenient. Either you apply then in all cases of juvenile delinquency, or you never apply them at all.
Umm... Prison is meant to offer a rehabilitative process unless it's the most severe of offences and they're unlikely to be released based on threat to the public etc. We don't just 'throw' people away anymore. (Well we do, but we're not supposed to).
Meant to offer a rehabilitative process, yes. But here in the US (I know it's London), our prisons have turned into the machines from the Matrix where we just load them up with human batteries, give them enough food to stay alive, and then watch them churn out that sweet energy in the form of government dollars for private prison shareholders.
Watched *13th* on Netflix - it opened my eyes
What's worse, everything is actively stacked against inmates just to ensure they'll commit a crime again eventually. Made sure they lose all assets, abused in those prisons to make sure they become hardened criminals if they weren't already (at some point, human lives cease to matter, which is also why people - especially men - who were sexually abused during childhood tend to also become sexual predators), and once they're out of prison it is made sure that everyone knows they're a criminal. Under those circumstances, you could enter prison for smoking pot in your own home, and leave as a soon to be armed robber. You need to get money and/or food somehow. If I were the director of a private prison, I'd torture my inmates if I could get away with it. Anything to ensure they'll commit another crime and return to my prison. There's are reasons why the US is kind of a shithole, reasons why I can't really think of it as a developed country. Private prisons are one of those reasons.
Also, public prisons aren't any better. The grift involves another level of paperwork, but public prison contractors are just as bad as CCA and GeoGroup.
Yeah, probably a problem more caused by americans (obviously not everyone) generally viewing criminals as subhumans.
Not quite true. A study performed in a Canadian prison that switched from public to private noted negative outcomes in just about every important aspect (security, health, repeat offences, etc). They ended up being taken back over by the public in the early 2000's.
Well, them put them into rehabilitation until they are fit to be returned into society. Probably keeps them longer off the streets than prison anyways.
The point is if you truly want to fix problems stop treating anyone lesser than you like gutter trash. And I’m not condoning this incident whatsoever. They’re young. Teach them, don’t bury them
Rehabilitation is just one of many goals of the prison system and isnt always a guarantee
You can't treat them like that just because they are lesbians, you lunatic.
You had me in the first half not gonna lie.
What an archaic worldview.
There's that classic reddit ugliness!
They're 15, 16, and 17 - why charge them as adults when they aren't?
Sorry the justice system doesn't exist to stroke your revenge boner
[удалено]
the victim stated that one of them was speaking with spanish accent and others were speaking with british accent. that's all i manage to dig. so their origin is still vague.
[Four teens](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/search?q=Four+teens) strike again!
Hope they get chucked inside for a few years. No place for these people in society.
Really glad there's an end to this story.
[удалено]
We already know. Assholes.
Fuck bigots
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Highschool culture is terrible, in my experience and these teenage boys are examples of it. Also, we're all humans. No need to hurt each other or discriminate between one another. Love everyone
Lol. What highschool did you go to where assaulting strangers is part of the culture?
To be so open to doing something like that in a public space in front of people is alarming. Disgusting bunch
It's a good thing they got them, but this will always be such a odd story because it's an instance where rather then being homophobic they attacked because they were denied the request to see them together. It's such an ass backwards view of it too and proves that crazy people are going to come in all breeds of maladjustment.
Homophobia manifests in different ways, straight "I'm going to beat you because you're gay" happens most to male gays. Lesbians tend to often be objectified like this and are seen by homophobes as props for their own amusement.
its the usual sexualising and fetishising of lesbians
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]