January 26, 2006

WHICH, SADLY, LEAVES THEM HALF INHUMAN:

Muggings and violent attacks up by more than 10% (Richard Ford, 1/27/06, Times of London)

MUGGINGS and violent attacks on people soared by more than 10 per cent in the third quarter of last year as the police struggled to contain street crime, according to figures published yesterday.

Street robbery is rising at its fastest since Tony Blair demanded action three years ago by the Home Office and police to tackle the issue.

The increase in violent crime came as rising numbers of people expressed concern at the extent of antisocial behaviour, including public drunkenness and drug dealing in their neighbourhoods. Homicides of people under 16 rose by a quarter in the year to the end of September 2005.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 26, 2006 11:14 PM
Comments

Their Venus de Milo complex has earned them this great honor.

Posted by: obc at January 27, 2006 12:15 AM

Disarmed.

Posted by: ghostcat at January 27, 2006 12:17 AM

Well, if Giuliani doesn't run for president, he can always replace Ken Livingstone and tidy things up across the pond.

Posted by: John at January 27, 2006 10:02 AM

Could it be the English are addicted to violence and recognition of that was the underlying purpose of Empire, containment? Or was it recognised as the driving force of Empire.

Posted by: Genecis at January 27, 2006 10:42 AM

No. The fools imagined that law and order would survive secularization.

Posted by: Lou Gots at January 27, 2006 11:02 AM

socialism destroys any nation that adopts it. like any addictive substance, the people know they are being destroyed by it but are powerless to stop it. the ones that can, leave. britain is a gloomy and fatalistic place, for anyone below the top 1% -- and event those at the top aren't having much fun.

Posted by: toe at January 27, 2006 12:00 PM

Sounds like John Lindsay's New York City. Municipal Third-Wayism.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at January 27, 2006 1:26 PM

Did anyone read the full article? Most of the increase is due to the theft of cellphones and portable electronic devices. Car theft is down, as is sexual assault.

I know you guys want to drive a stake into the heart of any secular nation out of spite, but you might want to get your facts straight before you proceed with the eulogy.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at January 27, 2006 5:05 PM

increase

Posted by: oj at January 27, 2006 5:09 PM

There was a massive increase in violent crime here in the 80s & early 90s, I don't remember that as an overly secular period in the US.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at January 27, 2006 5:29 PM

It was a period of widespread acceptance of drugs. Once the neo-Puritan reaction of the 80s set in crime began dropping like a stone to the point where it's now as low as it's been measured here.

Posted by: oj at January 27, 2006 5:51 PM

the murder rate in britain is shooting up. std rates are shooting up. binge drinking rates are shooting up. illegitimate births are increasing. also, the statistics are a function of the state, and we know that socialist governments are so honest about things like that. the police in the u.k. are a disgrace (unless you are from NOLA). england is in a bad way right now.

Posted by: toe at January 27, 2006 6:08 PM

toe:

Prince Charles blames Britain's cultural woes on the influence of American cultural values.

Posted by: Dave W at January 27, 2006 11:19 PM

OJ,
Wrong! It was due to demographics, the "little baby boom" young males coming of age at the same time that crack cocaine made its appearance. How is it that the availablility and the widespread acceptability of pornography has skyrocketed during this time of neo-puritanism?

Posted by: Robert Duquette at January 28, 2006 11:51 AM

Robert:

It's decreased in public and increased in private--an ideal solution.


The crime boomlet was a simple function of kids who were raised during the late sixties/seventies, America's only secular period.

Posted by: oj at January 28, 2006 12:30 PM

The period from 1750 to 1800 was pretty secular by American standards.

In what way was pornography public then and private now? And why would that make a difference? It is more widely viewed and accepted now than it was then. Vice corrupts in private as well as public, even moreso in private. Your just making excuses.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at January 29, 2006 1:10 PM

Secular by American standasrds is religious, with the exception of the late 60s/70s.

Posted by: oj at January 29, 2006 3:45 PM
« THE NEXT GENERATION: | Main | DYING LIKE SAINTS (via Robert Schwartz): »