ChatterBank0 min ago
Yet another London stabbing
21 Answers
http://
This time it is a 14 year old girl who has been arrested on suspicion of murdering a 15-year-old boy.
Could anyone come up with a debatable argument why these youngsters are either being stabbed or doing the stabbing?
Yes we have been here before I know, but I am still convinced that such young serious crime is much common today, than it ever was a few years ago.
This time it is a 14 year old girl who has been arrested on suspicion of murdering a 15-year-old boy.
Could anyone come up with a debatable argument why these youngsters are either being stabbed or doing the stabbing?
Yes we have been here before I know, but I am still convinced that such young serious crime is much common today, than it ever was a few years ago.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It is pointless giving you any statistics because you never believe them. I will just say knife legislation is based on the prevention of Crime Act 1953 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
The fact that legislation needed to be introduced 60 years ago suggests it was a problem then.
Fluffygrandpa need not worry.
The fact that legislation needed to be introduced 60 years ago suggests it was a problem then.
Fluffygrandpa need not worry.
-- answer removed --
pdq, you have a strange idea of genetics! So there's a knife carrying gene is there, and it's possessed by Africans, the evidence (not cited) being that they use knives to kill game (and, of course, enemies)? Bit short of knives in the Zulu Wars, were they? Might just be that knives are cheaper, and more readily available, than guns in Africa, even if that proposition is correct. They're cheaper and more readily available here too, but don't let that get in the way of a judgment based on the racial make- up of people.
Not sure aog will reject, not believe, statistics. If Wikipedia is correct, the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, was passed in response to a great rise in violent crime. The evidence that's given is, in particular, that in 1951 there were 4,445 cases of malicious wounding. There were also 800 armed robberies/ assault with intent to rob. Now, without looking, it may just be that we get more of each now per million of population.
Mind, the main effect of that act was to make anything which could be used as a weapon, with the requisite intent, or anything that was, or was made or adapted as a weapon, forbidden in any public place.
Not sure aog will reject, not believe, statistics. If Wikipedia is correct, the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, was passed in response to a great rise in violent crime. The evidence that's given is, in particular, that in 1951 there were 4,445 cases of malicious wounding. There were also 800 armed robberies/ assault with intent to rob. Now, without looking, it may just be that we get more of each now per million of population.
Mind, the main effect of that act was to make anything which could be used as a weapon, with the requisite intent, or anything that was, or was made or adapted as a weapon, forbidden in any public place.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
http://
The relatively low number of homicides, attempted murders, rapes and sexual assaults that involve the use of a knife or sharp instrument means that care should be taken when comparing these figures over time (Table 3.07).
• Provisional data show that there were 214 knife or sharp instrument homicides in 2010/11, compared with 201 the previous year.
• There were 217 knife or sharp instrument attempted murders in 2010/11 compared with 240 in 2009/10.
• The number of threats to kill involving the use of a knife or sharp instrument was 1,395 in 2010/11 compared with 1,469 in 2009/10.
Information on offences recorded by the police can be supplemented by that obtained from
the BCS, although the small number of incidents involving a knife reported means that trends should be interpreted with caution. The 2010/11 BCS estimates that knives were used in six per cent of violent incidents (Table 3.04). This figure has consistently remained within the range of five to eight per cent of incidents since 1996.
So, according to government statistics, not much change there. I suspect the change is in the newspapers' wish to sell more newspapers with overplaying the importance. Yes, it is awful that young people are stabbing each other, but we can't blame anything in particular. Knives are easy to get hold of or even make. Youngsters are growing up with less self-control in my opinion.
The relatively low number of homicides, attempted murders, rapes and sexual assaults that involve the use of a knife or sharp instrument means that care should be taken when comparing these figures over time (Table 3.07).
• Provisional data show that there were 214 knife or sharp instrument homicides in 2010/11, compared with 201 the previous year.
• There were 217 knife or sharp instrument attempted murders in 2010/11 compared with 240 in 2009/10.
• The number of threats to kill involving the use of a knife or sharp instrument was 1,395 in 2010/11 compared with 1,469 in 2009/10.
Information on offences recorded by the police can be supplemented by that obtained from
the BCS, although the small number of incidents involving a knife reported means that trends should be interpreted with caution. The 2010/11 BCS estimates that knives were used in six per cent of violent incidents (Table 3.04). This figure has consistently remained within the range of five to eight per cent of incidents since 1996.
So, according to government statistics, not much change there. I suspect the change is in the newspapers' wish to sell more newspapers with overplaying the importance. Yes, it is awful that young people are stabbing each other, but we can't blame anything in particular. Knives are easy to get hold of or even make. Youngsters are growing up with less self-control in my opinion.
FredPuli43
These links and the piece taken from a book on London crime in the 50s make for interesting reading.
http://
http://
http://
A section from a book 'Paying the price of knife crime 50 years on' by Wensley Clarksonon.
/// But unlike today, London's criminals back in the 1950s rarely used knives in fatal attacks. “There was an unwritten rule back then that you marked your opponent but you didn't want him to die,” explained old time London gangster Gordon McShane. “We was even told to slice up the arm rather than across it just in case we nipped an artery and our opponent then might end up bleeding to death.” ///
These links and the piece taken from a book on London crime in the 50s make for interesting reading.
http://
http://
http://
A section from a book 'Paying the price of knife crime 50 years on' by Wensley Clarksonon.
/// But unlike today, London's criminals back in the 1950s rarely used knives in fatal attacks. “There was an unwritten rule back then that you marked your opponent but you didn't want him to die,” explained old time London gangster Gordon McShane. “We was even told to slice up the arm rather than across it just in case we nipped an artery and our opponent then might end up bleeding to death.” ///
-- answer removed --
56 million people in England and Wales. 214 knife and sharp instrument homicides. Not much chance of being stabbed to death. Less chance of being shot, admittedly; about 40 people a year die from unlawful shooting.
Our killers are so old-fashioned; looks like the old 'blunt instrument' must still be popular. There are about 600 reported homicides (murder, manslaughter, child destruction) a year here.
Our killers are so old-fashioned; looks like the old 'blunt instrument' must still be popular. There are about 600 reported homicides (murder, manslaughter, child destruction) a year here.
> we only have your word and opinion on that
Well, no, plenty of other people could read the thread as well. It looks as though the posts were there for a couple of hours or so before being removed. During that time they were there for all to read, including me. Sorry you missed it, but I promise you - you didn't miss much.
Well, no, plenty of other people could read the thread as well. It looks as though the posts were there for a couple of hours or so before being removed. During that time they were there for all to read, including me. Sorry you missed it, but I promise you - you didn't miss much.
