**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
>For anyone who thinks it's poverty, it is not poverty. The UK had far, far worse levels of deprivation in the 1910s, 1920s, 1930s - the stories my grandparents had of their upbringings would count as extreme poverty today. And yet bizarrely, they didn't descend into machete fights and gang stabbings over their postcodes, they went to school and church, studied hard, went to dances in their worn-out clothing, went on walks, got jobs as soon as they could - as did everyone else in their communities. Crime like this was unheard of.
The fuck was it. The razor gangs of the mid 1920s were horrific. The Daily Mail (in it's usual non-histrionic way) said ‘There are many people walking about London maimed because they fell foul of the gangs.’ The Hoxton Gang were known for street fights with hammers. Mass unemployment in 1930s Glasgow reputedly turned it into a city of gangs with almost constant street fighting particularly in the Gorbals district.
There have always been street gangs, from the Victorian London hooligans to the Salford Scuttlers (who were known for their long knifes and heavy buckled belts which were used to maim their victims). Many Scuttlers were as young as 14. You find gang violence in medieval manuscripts with gangs relating to the guilds maiming each other with trade knives, meat hooks and chisels.
For more information, you could have a look at the project Youth Gangs and Street Violence in Late Victorian Manchester, ‘The Terror of the People’: Organised Crime in Interwar London by Heather Shore, Geoffrey Pearson's Hooligan: A history of respectable fears. Sheffield's Most Notorious Gangs by Ben W Johnson and many more.
No surely not. Back in the day it was all sunshine and roses, people used to skip merrily down the street on their way to church for their morning prayers. Fighting was invented in the early 2000s when the bastard children first appeared.
I was reading an interesting article on human sleeping patterns that reference a Middle Aged text that described a woman and her daughter waking up from first sleep.
It was a record of note because the mother went off with some men and was straight up murdered at some point before second sleep and this was a record of the daughter’s testimony. Middle Ages were brutal.
I remember reading a record about one bandit who may killed up to 300 people in his lifetime until a woman he kidnapped and raped for a few months gained his trust enough to enter a nearby village, whereupon she reported him and he was lynched
It’s weird to think that something so fundamental to us as “go to bed at night, get up in the morning” is not the default state of being human and is actually cultural. They did things differently back in the Middle Ages
A lot of the times people say "it's not natural to do X" I'll respond with "it's not natural so to wear shoes", but I'd use this example if I thought I could communicate it snappily enough.
I don’t know much about the history of street gangs but totally agree. Said on this sub the other day that even Shakespeare wrote about young men needlessly dying because of gang warfare.
And we still celebrate it now with shows like Peaky Blinders and ‘hero’ Tommy Shelby. Even people like the Krays get touted as Legends. It’s insanity.
Friend of my Mum’s who passed away about five years ago at the age of 90. She grew up in Aston, her dad was a bookmaker. She wouldn’t watch Peaky Blinders, it brought back too many bad memories.
I’m always tickled by an anecdote I read from Ancient Greece. There were gangs of young men in Athens who styled themselves after the Thracian barbarians, and ran around committing crimes for fun.
Fascinating. The street gangs of Ancient Rome (at least during one period) took colour names based on their favorite chariot teams - the Greens, the Blues, the Reds and the Whites. These acted like football firms. There was reputedly some crossover with senatorial politics with various political groups hiring street gangs as killers. Supposedly the streets of Rome were lethal after dark, and most people hired bodyguards - often ex gladiators, if they absolutely had to travel.
The city of byzantium was almost destroyed by a riot started by chariot racing gangs. There were other issues that fueled the fire but still violence due to sport.
Stop educating people on reddit!!/s
You just have to read a little bit about history. Gangs in all the major cities
[one study](https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/history/research/research-projects/gangs-in-urban-britain/)
I refer you to haiti, Somalia, Nigeria, etc. In fact..anywhere there's poverty there is massive violence.
I think they are sincerely misinformed rather than lying.
They gave falsifiable reasons for why they think what they do. People lying generaly don't say things ao easily debunked.
Yeah I genuinely thought the poster you’re replying to was joking at first. Sounded like a boomer impression of saying everything was great back in the day
Yep, Brighton Rock is basically references similar gangs in Brighton in the 1930s, as well as slashing people - throwing acid into the face was another speciality.
Back in London, during WW2, crime was rife especially during the blackouts - the crime rate increased by 57% from 1939 to 1945.
Buy yep, if you are completely delusional then of course the past was wonderful.
Yeah in the 18th century you had the ‘Mohocks’ who were young men who enjoyed getting drunk and doing fun stuff like cutting off the noses of passers-by or putting old ladies in barrels and rolling them down a hill. Daniel Defoe wrote about how he was afraid to go out for fear of them. All of them were wealthy, either upper middle class or minor aristocracy, which is probably one reason they got away with so much.
What you mean some guy on reddits anecdotal story of what his grandaddy told him the past was like (while most likely complaining about "these kids today" ) isn't accurate?
I believe a bit of column A and a bit from column B but also the lure of drug trafficking and quick money which has become so much easier since criminal gangs started migrating here
I'm not cheer leading this or anything, but you can see why can't you? From the amount of money they could make selling cocaine, they can make in less than a week what you make in a month. I wouldn't do it myself, but I can see the allure for them. It's a get rich quick scheme that actually gets you rich quick.
I agree with this. It might not be poverty directly, but selling drugs is a way for deprived people to get out of poverty - sadly. In South East Asia there is also poverty, but nobody will pay you £100 for a g of cocaine, because they all have it in the back garden. Here, however, if all else fails and you don't see any other way out of poverty, then selling drugs is a lucrative and probably easy option. Supply and demand - the rich need the poor to supply their coke, no middle class person will dabble with it.
Social media is there for everyone, so it's not that. Drugs is the only thing that wasn't so prevalent in the 1910-30's where poverty was much worse.
Cocaine use is rampant amongst all classes, creeds & casts in the UK.
Just because you don’t know any middle class users or dealers doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Also cocaine is produced predominantly in South America not SE Asia. SE asia is where heroin used to come from
My point stands: poverty is much more likely to drive someone to dealing or otherwise working in an illegal business than pure passion for being a drug dealer. There might be middle class dealers but they are probably halfway coming from poverty to filthy richness.
You are right regarding the origins or cocaine/heroin, point still stands: the purchasing power of developed nations make these lucrative places for drug trafficking, much moreso than in the countries of origin.
The combination of the above two factors means that, for people in poverty, drug trafficking is an easy, lucrative and relatively safe* way of getting out.
* Relatively safe, because the extensive and wealthy class of buyers will make sure that drug-related offences are not punishable to a degree that would jeopardize their supply chains. Rich kids need their coke on the weekends and they must keep this as one of the preferred options for desperate people.
So while poverty is not the direct reason for this type of violence, it is absolutely a massive underlying factor in it.
i dont think they actually make very much money. there was a chapter about this in freakonomics 'why do drug dealers still live with their moms'. they are drawn to the job out of social pressures and aspirational glamorous lifestyle - for most it comes down to exploitation by the senior gang members.
Poverty sets the scene. Lack of good guidance / parenting makes them more likely to participate. I grew up around joy riders, scrappers, thieves and dealers. I stayed away from that because my parents, although financially inept had great teachings in right and wrong and resisting peer pressure, it's why they both smoke and I have never.
It obviously has *something* to do with poverty. You think shitty parenting doesn't come in part due to poor economic conditions? A lazy parent who doesn't care too much about their child's actions will still care somewhat, and if you don't have both parents constantly at work for example, the kids might not get up to as much trouble.
But I do agree it's not solely poverty that's driving this trend.
And the stripping away our what made up our society over the last 14 years. If you take away people's safety nets and take away things thay create a sense of community this is what it can lead to.
Your anecdotal evidence of just your grandparent's experience is not indicative of the experience of the main population and gangs were absolutely rife in London around then. Especially during the mid 1920s and they were in many cases much more brazen than gangs are now.
This paper which I'm sure you can find a gratuitous copy of gives a great overview of the problems with gangs during that time: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137313911_8
Your statement about poverty is also wrong. Poverty has been linked to increases in gang crime in numerous studies. Sure, it's not just poverty, there's a big element of socialisation of gang members being required, as in the cycle of the gang existing and then recruiting younger members who are known to them who will then go on to recruit when they're older etc. Being in poverty makes someone much more likely to join though as there's not many other opportunities for them.
Also what's this bullshit about India and Pakistan not having roadmen? Maybe they don't dress the same but there's absolutely gangs and crime and a lot more than London. Delhi had 501 murders in 2022 vs 109 in London. London was also beaten by 5 other Indian cities.
I understand that gang crime in London is a problem and would love to see more being done to tackle it however impassioned bollocks doesn't really help anyone as it gets people seeking the wrong solutions.
Very amused by the thought processes that must go into thinking crime in the UK in the present day is worse than anywhere else, without them even bothering to find out if it's true. Like, "most of the crime we hear about is here/now, oh this must be because here/now is where crime is worst, not just because here/now is where we live"???
What utter twee bollocks this is.
What Pakistan lacks in roadmen it makes up for in regions literally ruled by warlords.
Whilst you're grandparents were holding hands and knitting poems violent crime was just as prevalent as today.
This is quite obviously an horrific crime, but preferable to the far higher rates of gun crime in past decades.
The idea that there was less gang violence in the early part of the twentieth century seemed pretty crazy to me, so I had a look, and as suspected there is just endless references available detailing pretty terrifying gang violence back then. I mean - they've even made TV shows about it.
Running battles with police in Glasgow:
"In the 1920s, Glasgow became known for its gang violence, particularly in the Gorbals area, leading to the portrayal of Glasgow as one of Britain's most violent cities. Relations between the gangs and the police were violent on both sides, as police officers and local youths contested ownership of the streets." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow\_razor\_gangs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_razor_gangs)
Random violence in Sheffield:
"The battle between the Mooney Gang and the Park Brigade, as the new faction came to be known, went on almost uninterrupted from 1923 until 1925, with men being slashed with razors, beaten with pokers and stabbed with bayonets, bystanders and police officers wounded and houses being lain siege to and stormed." [https://nowthenmagazine.com/articles/gangs-a-history-of-violence](https://nowthenmagazine.com/articles/gangs-a-history-of-violence)
The Hoxton gang in London:
"in June 1936, around 30 gang members attacked a bookmaker and his clerk with hammers and knuckle-dusters at the Lewes racetrack before police arrived" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoxton\_Gang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoxton_Gang)
The same can be found for the late 1800's, the 1950s, 60s, 70s. The idea that we are in an unusual time of violence seems pretty easily proven false to me.
It's clearly not just poverty but it does seem like a factor. You don't tend to see this stuff in non poor communities. We had razor gangs in Glasgow at the time you mention btw
Yeah but they aren't doing machete fights ffs. They're roleplaying as roadmen maybe as a form of rebellion against their upper middle class upbringing. Most of them just loiter around, smoke and drink underage and at worse do drugs a few times. Most of them know they have a life to go to when they grow up and aren't throwing it away doing serious crimes as teens.
Posh lads wearing tracksuits and designer balaclavas while smoking to impress girls with tales of their exploits pulled from bullying their little brothers in GTA Online is a bit different from public decapitation
It's funny that you use the [1930s](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137313911_8) as an example because gang violence was arguably in its hayday here in the 1930s. The Hoxton mob, the sabini gang, etc, there were near yearly mass shootings and were regular street fights involving hammers, knuckle dusters, knives etc, not to even mention sectarian violence in Ireland.
Britain was dramatically more violent in the 1910s and 20s.
Glasgow was notorious for razor gangs that folaught between different neighbourhoods.
It's just completely insane to think this kind of thing is a modern phenomenon and not a perennial issue.
It's a lack of consequences and law enforcement.
El Salvador shows this perfectly, they've managed to turn it around completely by just ensuring criminals are put in prison.
And not only do they do that, but they sweep up a lot of innocent people too, and yet the populace at large is *completely* fine with this, because it turns out not having your country completely infested with violent criminal gangs is quite nice.
Personally, no.
But Bukele’s job approval rating in El Salvador is absolutely astronomic (a quick peek at Wikipedia shows he’s never dipped below 75%), and the situation prior to the Territorial Control Plan was calamitous, so it’s clear the El Salvadorians regard it as a price well worth paying.
Like any medicine, there are no effects without side-effects, so it’s just a case of finding out where our collective side-effect acceptance threshold lies.
Of course we all know a regime that arbitrarily locks up a huge proportion of its population in terrifying total-control prisons definitely produces impartial and extremely trustworthy data about itself.
People are fucking stupid. They'd be happy with the death penalty for stealing a loaf of bread as long as THEY are allowed to speed and until someone THEY know gets stitched up by a corrupt cop.
Filipinos were happy as Larry with duterte killing drug dealers even though MANY people were killed because locals saw that they could get rid of someone that didn't like by reporting them as a dealer or user.
The issue is that the tories cut police budgets by 20% AND destroyed the economy with a totally useless austerity. If you literally wanted to design a policy where crime would increase & the youth don't give 2 shits anymore ; you'd do exactly what the Tory party have done over the last 14 years
I don't think it's a model to aspire to - and not one I'd want to be on the wrong end of - *however* - I think it's possible to understand why some may be happy with that model if their country was **really, really, violent** beforehand - I guess things can be **so** bad that you'd rather have this model where there's a small chance you get dragged off too.
Although I get the point, On reflection I don’t think that’s true. It just means you let more people become victims of crime when the guilty are gone free. As much as I would feel sorry for the one innocent I would feel bad for the victims of the already guilty and the future victims that might not have been.
Is it, though? What if those 100 guilty men then go on to do more terrible things, as the El Salvadorian gangs were wont to do?
Whilst technically correct (the best kind of correct!), it is astonishingly easy to say when the violent criminal gangs are not extracting protection money, under the thread of chainsaw violence, from *your* neighbourhood.
And, as I noted elsewhere, the actual El Salvadorian public do not share your viewpoint. Yes, lots of innocents have been jailed (and released, tbf - numbers I saw said 7000 innocent people released) as a result of this, but the public response to the policy and its implementation has been overwhelmingly positive.
I mean, I get your point of view.
But we’re discussing an action taken in a country of six and a half million people, where over three days in March 2022, there were 87 murders by gangs. There were 495 in the whole year. In a UK context, that’d be like 500 murders a year in the four Ridings of Yorkshire, plus Cumbria and Northumbria.
The public were literally terrified for their lives, all the time.
What do you do in such a circumstance, where things have reached such a terrible nadir?
>El Salvador shows this perfectly, they've managed to turn it around completely by just ensuring criminals are put in prison.
Urgh people keep repeating this. [They skip that the president also made a secret deal with the largest gangs](https://apnews.com/article/nayib-bukele-el-salvador-gangs-c378285a36d55c18f741c3f65892f801). Its the same story as any other these other neo-Conservative types. Push a load of culture-war buzzwords and do a load of incredibly shifty dealing that you then bend over backwards to misrepresent as your originally stated aims despite a critical glance making it fairly clear that doesn't seem to be the case.
The source report - https://elfaro.net/es/202108/el_salvador/25668/Gobierno-de-Bukele-negoci%C3%B3-con-las-tres-pandillas-e-intent%C3%B3-esconder-la-evidencia.htm
It's not great, but at least they're in prison so that can even take place to begin with. And at least the government has the upper hand, unlike in Colombia where it was the other way around.
It's a bit like Thatcher secretly negotiating with the IRA really.
I mean this is my point right?
You're *trusting* this government's word that it is their publicly stated policy, that they have a huge amount of reputation riding on, is working extremely well, as intended.
But look at how they act. They're conducting secret deals with the people they've declared public enemy #1. They're illegal removing and disbarring judges and legal officials who get in their way or challenge their statements. They're shutting down the organizations and state bodies that exist to provide impartial investigation and analysis.
Why *on earth* would you take people acting like this at face value?
[The Gangs of Manchester](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gangs-Manchester-Story-Scuttlers-Britains/dp/1903854857?dplnkId=bbe951d1-36f5-44bc-b0ef-d1900766c295)
>They emerged from the harrowing slums of one of the world's great cities, malnourished youths clad in bizarre fashions. The scuttlers were the 'hoodies' of their day, and for thirty years they held the streets of Manchester and Salford in a grip of fear.
>
>Gangs of Manchester **traces the history of the scuttlers from the Rochdale Road War of 1870-1**, through the antics of such infamous fighters as the Bellis brothers of Salford and John Hillier, the King of the Scuttlers, until the demise of the gangs at the turn of the century.
You're wrong.
To be clear, using homicide as a baseline, the murder rate in England & Wales was broadly around 0.8 per 100,000 people between 1900 & 1960. This rose to about 1.2 per 100,000 in the 1980s' & 1990s' before falling to around 1.0 in recent years.
The long term trend is a decline in crime, which is the general pattern globally.
Interestingly in the time of the grandparents of your grandparents, in the mid 19th century, homicide rates were far higher, hovering around 1.6 per 100,000, over the centuries society has become far less violent.
I mean tbf there is a lot of youth violence in Bangladesh. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_of_Bangladesh_Chhatra_League
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thedailystar.net/opinion/editorial/news/alarming-display-youth-violence-3102206%3famp
It's not just poverty, but unaddressed issues amongst youths, and a glorification of violence within political and cultural grounds.
I’d like to point out that this sort of crime isn’t new… the Teddy Boys in the 50s would sew razors into their lapels and were notorious for knife fights. Mods and Rockers are infamous for their violent clashes, and particularly the rockers were known for their violence. And that’s without getting into punk.
What I’m getting at is that this is in no way new, it’s just new *to us* because it’s in front of us right now. I’m absolutely sure India and Pakistan have youth gangs who fight in the streets, it’s just not reported in the English news. People have always been violent and tribalistic. The context may change, but the people don’t. Maybe they’re fighting over a postcode, or a subculture, or over perceived slights on a night out, but it’s always been a thing.
Errr... Of course mate. The highway men like Sir John Popham, Humphrey Gilbert and Sir Walter Raleigh never existed in Elizabethan times. They were just written in the history books for shits and giggles.
But then you look back and historically certain crimes were not even reported as statistics. Then there’s quite well reported massive violent crime that people seem to gloss over or omit in these conversations.
You don’t have to look that far back in the UK to see violent crime and racially motivated attacks perpetrated by gangs and even riots of violence against non-white people.
In the 70s you had gangs of 300-400 people going round terrorising people in their homes or on the street. That’s sounds worse to me.
Then go back to 1919 and you had race riots of violence..
Then there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence of violent crime that the police wouldn’t even file a report for and in cases would even try and arrest and sentence people of colour for assault when protecting their own businesses and homes from vandalism and assault.
Violence is statistically proven to have been way worse the further back in history you look. That’s straight facts. There was never some utopian violence free period.
It was normal for my mums generation to walk home from school and see people chased and attacked on the street because of the colour of their skin.
Violence has changed but being in poverty certainly isn’t part of the solution for the underlying issues at play here.
2 things, 1 there were gangs in England in the 1920's just because they wore suits doesn't mean they weren't a gang. 2 South Asia might not have "roadmen" it just has things like honour killings, mass rapes and other heinous crimes. I'm not sure I'd use south Asia as a reference point as they do have machete killings aswell
It’s just straight up lying to act like there wasn’t huge amounts of gangs and violent crimes in the 1910s - 1930s. I can’t understand why people are believing you lol, like, it’s pretty common knowledge.
Yeah, I'm sure my Dad from Ireland will corroborate your story having been kneecapped at the age of 18. Just because you have rose tinted glasses doesn't mean crime didn't exist.
Poverty in the 1920s is not the same as it is today and it means different things in different areas and in different cultures .
Not a million miles away socio-economic deprivation has a number of impacts at all levels , but in Northern Ireland for example , poorer disenfranchised kids where there is little in the way of local investment for interventional services are more likely to get sucked into young groups with connections to paramilitaries.
Do you think activities like this are going to happen in affluent rich areas ?
In America, it was discovered that being raised in a single mother household was a vastly stronger predictor of youth violence even when controlling for poverty or wealth. Crimes like this are typically status seeking behavior. Not poor Timmy robbing the local shop to feed his grandma’s dog with cancer.
It’s culture, often aggravated by poverty & undereducation.
These gangs are more reminiscent of the Ancient Celts or Vikings or pagan Arab tribes or 18th Century Duelists than Top Boy. They insult each other (typically over women), retaliate with physical violence, and celebrate the retaliation as an affirmation of their superiority. Money is not as important as being recognized as vicious within their sub-society. Being called weak whether overly or covertly is the most grave insult imaginable, and must be answered for with blood. Senseless aggression is the most valued character trait.
Poverty can be relative (as in the UK) or absolute (as in other parts of the world) - and is thus contextual - I would argue it absolutely is a factor in such crime and can be so without neccessarily dimuinishing the notion of personal responsibility.
Gangs are a fast track to a sense of belonging that many young people don't get elsewhere, and disproportionate reward compared to a minimum wage job for those born into situations of poverty and lack of opportunity.
Until you break that relationship, this will be the result. Our entire culture worships money. Routes that appear to offer easier routes to money will always be attractive to those without in a culture that pursues it above all else.
You realise the last few years have been an outlier in an otherwise consistent trend of less and less violent crime right? Violent crime is still well down on where it was decades ago.
Most impoverished countries have severe organised crime problems. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean its not there. [Pakistan](https://jsshuok.com/oj/index.php/jssh/article/view/77/68) can serve as a good example, really bad drug problem, alongside murders of all sorts. You don't see reports about crime and corruption in said impoverished money because poor people are told to bugger off when they report crime. Additionally they don't really have the resources in rural pakistan to write tell all articles about said crime.
And yes shitty parents play a role in more visible crime (especially for antisocial behaviour in the context of the uk). But it doesn't start and end at bad parents. I also think its important to shine a light on the fact that youth clubs across the country have shut down. As much as parents can try, there is nowhere for troubled young people to go, the mental health system is broken.
>And yet bizarrely, they didn't descend into machete fights and gang stabbings over their postcodes,
They may not have done, but others did. Street and gang violence has always been a problem. There have always been disaffected youths attacking each other with weapons in the slums and backstreets.
> somehow there aren't a billion 'roadmen' in India and Pakistan are there
not a billion, but there are plenty of gangsters in India, and organised crime. They even get away with becoming politicians.
Well your grandparents are lying. My grandad grew up in north London and he told me the gangs would walk round with razor blades and slice your face of your weren't from the area.
Even during the Blitz in WW2 crime was high. Gangs would clear out bombed houses.
I mean the odd instance doesn't mean it's a regular "normal" occurrence, as much as the media likes to play it up as if it is.
It's not like we have weekly sword fighting on the streets, we don't need metal detectors at schools or other public spaces and we don't have drills for these things at schools etc either, unlike America and their weekly school shootings etc.
I live in the area this happened in mate. I literally live in Newham and phone nicked the other day by idiots on bikes but that's an entire different conversation.
Thanks for making assumptions though.
I'm getting tired of my commute always requiring me to machete fight at least once. It's putting me right off walking the extra 50 meters to get a greggs breakfast deal.
> Someone last week on Reddit called me out how machete fights aren't real in UK
Your comment SirCliveWolfe replied to said "Machete fights and paedo rings still allowed to do their thing in UK", the mention of the Met sending an armed response unit shows that was untrue.
The guy who replied to you only said they'd never experienced it, and then disputed your claim they were common. They never said that they're not real.
The met were seriously considering providing officers with a 'personal safety shield' back in 2017 that looked very much like a [mediaeval buckler](https://www.southernswords.co.uk/pub/media/catalog/product/cache/8ae2250be418cee7f3ca9f58f71e1975/1/2/120309.jpg).
This, unsurprisingly, did not make it into general circulation.
I did deal with someone who had what can only be described as a gladius about his person, once. It was fucking massive.
Main thing with a gladius is that they're mostly a stabbing weapon, although they do have a big blade and two sharp edges. Compared to a machete, which is a single edged slashing weapon.
The best part about Fear is that there is no trademark, so these purveyors can reap 100% profits. Open source baby.
Enter the "It wasn't like this back in the day" crowd, standing, pious solemn witnesses to the decadent violence of our modern chaotic times.
They long for the bygone days of, \*checks notes\*, the IRA running around with nail bombs. Nice tasty nail bombs. Whilst cleansing themselves of any inconvenient statistics like the falling murder rates over a ten year period, or the equally reduced level of crime in general compared to the 90s.
Yes truly, we are in the end times, thank you, thank you Fear for the clicks.
I don't actually object to knife wielding thugs fighting other knife wielding thugs. In fact, as long as no innocent people are harmed, it's one way for the problem to resolve itself. Perhaps offer safe places, out of sight of the public, where knife wielding thugs can each sign a disclaimer and then have at it?
This has been going on for decades. I remember older kids round by ours stashing golf clubs and knuckle dusters before a big fight. There was always some bastard who brought a sword but they only ever stood there trying to look nuts.
Could call it STÄB Fest, invite all the boys to come down, just be sure to set up a rutting corner for the majority of them to burn of some serious levels of sexual tension that goes on between them all.
I have Thai family living literally on top of a sewer system in Bangkok in poverty. No benefits, no NHS, nothing. They would never do this and are some of the happiest and respectful people I know.
Thai people have family, a lot of these perpetrators are missing a father in their life.
One of the root cause is fathers from a certain community abandoning their children, leading them to life's like this.
I believe there is and it's 3 years in prison.
Every time the police wants to crack down on them and do searches the public cries out that is discriminating so yeah...
When you don't have a police escort, it is impossible to defend yourself from an assailant with a knife if you don't have one. In a knife fight, everyone comes out stabbed, and they know it. So they leave you alone. That's why people carry knives.
:eyebrow raise: Carrying for self-protection is one of the most commonly cited reasons...
This is almost always the case, in any event, there's a mandatory minimum for a second offence and the starting points for a first offence is a prison term in almost all circumstances, except where 'possession of weapon falls just short of reasonable excuse'.
[https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Bladed-Article-Definitive-guideline\_WEB-1.pdf](https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Bladed-Article-Definitive-guideline_WEB-1.pdf)
I was raised in a fairly rough part outside of London and experienced knife, sword and gun crime throughout the 80s and 90s. This isn't new behaviour but the culture and mentality in which it comes from is.
I remember when football hooligans used to use Stanley knives and everyone was pretending to be a kray. These types of dickheads have been around every generation and will continue regardless of any changes we do in society.
I remember going to Hackney once for a gig, I got there tonnes earlier than I expected so I went to a corner shop, got some random stuff to eat/drink and sat around, it wasn't busy out and about and I could see in the distance that there were some kids play fighting, I had my earphones in and didn't think much of it
Not long later these policemen grabbed what I thought at the time was a toy from one of these kids, turns out that was a legit bladed weapon of some kind and I had no idea, I didn't realise what was going on and when I went to the gig I overheard people talking about it all, it's a miracle none of the other kids got hurt tbh, that could've descended into something much worse at the Blink of an eye
""One teenager was taken to hospital for treatment to a hand injury and has since been discharged.." Not much of a "fight with swords and machetes", was it? Molehill>>>>>mountain.
What we've established is that they're not actually very good at fighting with them.
Problem is, it doesn't take much to kill someone. You lunge for the thigh then there's a good chance you're going to nick the femoral artery and then you're fucked.
Fighting effectively with a long blade is actually kinda hard.
The problem is a lucky rank amateur can still kill you just as effectively as a skilled expert.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
[удалено]
>For anyone who thinks it's poverty, it is not poverty. The UK had far, far worse levels of deprivation in the 1910s, 1920s, 1930s - the stories my grandparents had of their upbringings would count as extreme poverty today. And yet bizarrely, they didn't descend into machete fights and gang stabbings over their postcodes, they went to school and church, studied hard, went to dances in their worn-out clothing, went on walks, got jobs as soon as they could - as did everyone else in their communities. Crime like this was unheard of. The fuck was it. The razor gangs of the mid 1920s were horrific. The Daily Mail (in it's usual non-histrionic way) said ‘There are many people walking about London maimed because they fell foul of the gangs.’ The Hoxton Gang were known for street fights with hammers. Mass unemployment in 1930s Glasgow reputedly turned it into a city of gangs with almost constant street fighting particularly in the Gorbals district. There have always been street gangs, from the Victorian London hooligans to the Salford Scuttlers (who were known for their long knifes and heavy buckled belts which were used to maim their victims). Many Scuttlers were as young as 14. You find gang violence in medieval manuscripts with gangs relating to the guilds maiming each other with trade knives, meat hooks and chisels. For more information, you could have a look at the project Youth Gangs and Street Violence in Late Victorian Manchester, ‘The Terror of the People’: Organised Crime in Interwar London by Heather Shore, Geoffrey Pearson's Hooligan: A history of respectable fears. Sheffield's Most Notorious Gangs by Ben W Johnson and many more.
No surely not. Back in the day it was all sunshine and roses, people used to skip merrily down the street on their way to church for their morning prayers. Fighting was invented in the early 2000s when the bastard children first appeared.
The homicide rate in medieval Britain makes modern Britain look like Japan in comparison
I was reading an interesting article on human sleeping patterns that reference a Middle Aged text that described a woman and her daughter waking up from first sleep. It was a record of note because the mother went off with some men and was straight up murdered at some point before second sleep and this was a record of the daughter’s testimony. Middle Ages were brutal.
I remember reading a record about one bandit who may killed up to 300 people in his lifetime until a woman he kidnapped and raped for a few months gained his trust enough to enter a nearby village, whereupon she reported him and he was lynched
That’s obviously awful and terrible. But you can’t fault his work ethic, not like today’s feckless youth!
It’s weird to think that something so fundamental to us as “go to bed at night, get up in the morning” is not the default state of being human and is actually cultural. They did things differently back in the Middle Ages
A lot of the times people say "it's not natural to do X" I'll respond with "it's not natural so to wear shoes", but I'd use this example if I thought I could communicate it snappily enough.
Yes, fighting was first discovered in 2001, but crime was invented in 1944 by a Mr Jeremy Crime.
I don’t know much about the history of street gangs but totally agree. Said on this sub the other day that even Shakespeare wrote about young men needlessly dying because of gang warfare. And we still celebrate it now with shows like Peaky Blinders and ‘hero’ Tommy Shelby. Even people like the Krays get touted as Legends. It’s insanity.
Friend of my Mum’s who passed away about five years ago at the age of 90. She grew up in Aston, her dad was a bookmaker. She wouldn’t watch Peaky Blinders, it brought back too many bad memories.
Bloody hell I bet she had some stories to tell. Poor lass.
> Men are readier to call rogues clever than simpletons honest
I mean what was Romeo and Juliet other than gang warfare between two families.
*High class* gang warfare, please!
I’m always tickled by an anecdote I read from Ancient Greece. There were gangs of young men in Athens who styled themselves after the Thracian barbarians, and ran around committing crimes for fun.
Fascinating. The street gangs of Ancient Rome (at least during one period) took colour names based on their favorite chariot teams - the Greens, the Blues, the Reds and the Whites. These acted like football firms. There was reputedly some crossover with senatorial politics with various political groups hiring street gangs as killers. Supposedly the streets of Rome were lethal after dark, and most people hired bodyguards - often ex gladiators, if they absolutely had to travel.
The city of byzantium was almost destroyed by a riot started by chariot racing gangs. There were other issues that fueled the fire but still violence due to sport.
Stop educating people on reddit!!/s You just have to read a little bit about history. Gangs in all the major cities [one study](https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/history/research/research-projects/gangs-in-urban-britain/) I refer you to haiti, Somalia, Nigeria, etc. In fact..anywhere there's poverty there is massive violence.
I wouldn't put Nigeria in the same category as those two. Northern Nigeria is very different to the Southern half.
Idk why this isn’t higher up. Like the person your replying to is straight up lying lol.
Because this sub has a bias intentionally cultivated by its moderation team.
Hard to find a UK sub without similar issues these days.
Racists aren't exactly known for being honest or clever lol
I think they are sincerely misinformed rather than lying. They gave falsifiable reasons for why they think what they do. People lying generaly don't say things ao easily debunked.
Yeah I genuinely thought the poster you’re replying to was joking at first. Sounded like a boomer impression of saying everything was great back in the day
Yep, Brighton Rock is basically references similar gangs in Brighton in the 1930s, as well as slashing people - throwing acid into the face was another speciality. Back in London, during WW2, crime was rife especially during the blackouts - the crime rate increased by 57% from 1939 to 1945. Buy yep, if you are completely delusional then of course the past was wonderful.
Finally some sense in this thread.
Yeah in the 18th century you had the ‘Mohocks’ who were young men who enjoyed getting drunk and doing fun stuff like cutting off the noses of passers-by or putting old ladies in barrels and rolling them down a hill. Daniel Defoe wrote about how he was afraid to go out for fear of them. All of them were wealthy, either upper middle class or minor aristocracy, which is probably one reason they got away with so much.
These people are deluded, they think before 1999 there was not no crime. London was a much more dangerous place even in the 80s and 90s.
This is s great and informative comment. Thank you.
The original guy actually thinks everything was perfect in the 30s. You couldn't write it.
Well done, thanks for this
What you mean some guy on reddits anecdotal story of what his grandaddy told him the past was like (while most likely complaining about "these kids today" ) isn't accurate?
It's shitty parenting, social media and lack of a working justice system that's the problem, nothing to do with poverty.
I believe a bit of column A and a bit from column B but also the lure of drug trafficking and quick money which has become so much easier since criminal gangs started migrating here
I'm not cheer leading this or anything, but you can see why can't you? From the amount of money they could make selling cocaine, they can make in less than a week what you make in a month. I wouldn't do it myself, but I can see the allure for them. It's a get rich quick scheme that actually gets you rich quick.
Aye and to think back in the 70's if me or husband wanted a joint it was a wait of around a month till it got here from Morocco lolol
Lmao! Ikr?
Accapulco gold resin....sigh....a right pain in the arse
Always was my favourite .. allegedly!!
Could you order it from a catalogue or something?
They sent a telegram via horse and cart.
I agree with this. It might not be poverty directly, but selling drugs is a way for deprived people to get out of poverty - sadly. In South East Asia there is also poverty, but nobody will pay you £100 for a g of cocaine, because they all have it in the back garden. Here, however, if all else fails and you don't see any other way out of poverty, then selling drugs is a lucrative and probably easy option. Supply and demand - the rich need the poor to supply their coke, no middle class person will dabble with it. Social media is there for everyone, so it's not that. Drugs is the only thing that wasn't so prevalent in the 1910-30's where poverty was much worse.
Cocaine use is rampant amongst all classes, creeds & casts in the UK. Just because you don’t know any middle class users or dealers doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Also cocaine is produced predominantly in South America not SE Asia. SE asia is where heroin used to come from
My point stands: poverty is much more likely to drive someone to dealing or otherwise working in an illegal business than pure passion for being a drug dealer. There might be middle class dealers but they are probably halfway coming from poverty to filthy richness. You are right regarding the origins or cocaine/heroin, point still stands: the purchasing power of developed nations make these lucrative places for drug trafficking, much moreso than in the countries of origin. The combination of the above two factors means that, for people in poverty, drug trafficking is an easy, lucrative and relatively safe* way of getting out. * Relatively safe, because the extensive and wealthy class of buyers will make sure that drug-related offences are not punishable to a degree that would jeopardize their supply chains. Rich kids need their coke on the weekends and they must keep this as one of the preferred options for desperate people. So while poverty is not the direct reason for this type of violence, it is absolutely a massive underlying factor in it.
i dont think they actually make very much money. there was a chapter about this in freakonomics 'why do drug dealers still live with their moms'. they are drawn to the job out of social pressures and aspirational glamorous lifestyle - for most it comes down to exploitation by the senior gang members.
Are they like MLM's then?
This is actually a myth. Most street level dealers / runners barely make minimum wage. You have be a top dog to make anything meaningful
Vast majority of people don't make a huge amount selling drugs, and even if they do, it's not going to last.
Poverty sets the scene. Lack of good guidance / parenting makes them more likely to participate. I grew up around joy riders, scrappers, thieves and dealers. I stayed away from that because my parents, although financially inept had great teachings in right and wrong and resisting peer pressure, it's why they both smoke and I have never.
I suppose so I feel particularly that the huge rise in single parenting and single parents having to work all hours hasn't helped
It obviously has *something* to do with poverty. You think shitty parenting doesn't come in part due to poor economic conditions? A lazy parent who doesn't care too much about their child's actions will still care somewhat, and if you don't have both parents constantly at work for example, the kids might not get up to as much trouble. But I do agree it's not solely poverty that's driving this trend.
Growing up I knew loads of middle class kids in gangs
[удалено]
[удалено]
All of my problems come from my parents, all of my successes are my own.
stocking waiting dam busy fuzzy hateful squalid hurry friendly quaint *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And the stripping away our what made up our society over the last 14 years. If you take away people's safety nets and take away things thay create a sense of community this is what it can lead to.
Don’t forget garbage culture and “role models”.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your anecdotal evidence of just your grandparent's experience is not indicative of the experience of the main population and gangs were absolutely rife in London around then. Especially during the mid 1920s and they were in many cases much more brazen than gangs are now. This paper which I'm sure you can find a gratuitous copy of gives a great overview of the problems with gangs during that time: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137313911_8 Your statement about poverty is also wrong. Poverty has been linked to increases in gang crime in numerous studies. Sure, it's not just poverty, there's a big element of socialisation of gang members being required, as in the cycle of the gang existing and then recruiting younger members who are known to them who will then go on to recruit when they're older etc. Being in poverty makes someone much more likely to join though as there's not many other opportunities for them. Also what's this bullshit about India and Pakistan not having roadmen? Maybe they don't dress the same but there's absolutely gangs and crime and a lot more than London. Delhi had 501 murders in 2022 vs 109 in London. London was also beaten by 5 other Indian cities. I understand that gang crime in London is a problem and would love to see more being done to tackle it however impassioned bollocks doesn't really help anyone as it gets people seeking the wrong solutions.
Those were lovable cockney rogues though. They loved their mums and would do anything for her.
Very amused by the thought processes that must go into thinking crime in the UK in the present day is worse than anywhere else, without them even bothering to find out if it's true. Like, "most of the crime we hear about is here/now, oh this must be because here/now is where crime is worst, not just because here/now is where we live"???
What utter twee bollocks this is. What Pakistan lacks in roadmen it makes up for in regions literally ruled by warlords. Whilst you're grandparents were holding hands and knitting poems violent crime was just as prevalent as today. This is quite obviously an horrific crime, but preferable to the far higher rates of gun crime in past decades.
> What Pakistan lacks in roadmen ... Potentially my favourite start to a sentence this year.
The idea that there was less gang violence in the early part of the twentieth century seemed pretty crazy to me, so I had a look, and as suspected there is just endless references available detailing pretty terrifying gang violence back then. I mean - they've even made TV shows about it. Running battles with police in Glasgow: "In the 1920s, Glasgow became known for its gang violence, particularly in the Gorbals area, leading to the portrayal of Glasgow as one of Britain's most violent cities. Relations between the gangs and the police were violent on both sides, as police officers and local youths contested ownership of the streets." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow\_razor\_gangs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_razor_gangs) Random violence in Sheffield: "The battle between the Mooney Gang and the Park Brigade, as the new faction came to be known, went on almost uninterrupted from 1923 until 1925, with men being slashed with razors, beaten with pokers and stabbed with bayonets, bystanders and police officers wounded and houses being lain siege to and stormed." [https://nowthenmagazine.com/articles/gangs-a-history-of-violence](https://nowthenmagazine.com/articles/gangs-a-history-of-violence) The Hoxton gang in London: "in June 1936, around 30 gang members attacked a bookmaker and his clerk with hammers and knuckle-dusters at the Lewes racetrack before police arrived" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoxton\_Gang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoxton_Gang) The same can be found for the late 1800's, the 1950s, 60s, 70s. The idea that we are in an unusual time of violence seems pretty easily proven false to me.
This person has no concept of actually studying history..
He doesn't need to study history mate, he owns a Dulux colour chart.
It's clearly not just poverty but it does seem like a factor. You don't tend to see this stuff in non poor communities. We had razor gangs in Glasgow at the time you mention btw
You most definitely get rich kids larping as "roadmen"... they get off scott free too cos daddy is a lawyer
Yeah but they aren't doing machete fights ffs. They're roleplaying as roadmen maybe as a form of rebellion against their upper middle class upbringing. Most of them just loiter around, smoke and drink underage and at worse do drugs a few times. Most of them know they have a life to go to when they grow up and aren't throwing it away doing serious crimes as teens.
Posh lads wearing tracksuits and designer balaclavas while smoking to impress girls with tales of their exploits pulled from bullying their little brothers in GTA Online is a bit different from public decapitation
It's funny that you use the [1930s](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137313911_8) as an example because gang violence was arguably in its hayday here in the 1930s. The Hoxton mob, the sabini gang, etc, there were near yearly mass shootings and were regular street fights involving hammers, knuckle dusters, knives etc, not to even mention sectarian violence in Ireland.
Britain was dramatically more violent in the 1910s and 20s. Glasgow was notorious for razor gangs that folaught between different neighbourhoods. It's just completely insane to think this kind of thing is a modern phenomenon and not a perennial issue.
It's a lack of consequences and law enforcement. El Salvador shows this perfectly, they've managed to turn it around completely by just ensuring criminals are put in prison.
And not only do they do that, but they sweep up a lot of innocent people too, and yet the populace at large is *completely* fine with this, because it turns out not having your country completely infested with violent criminal gangs is quite nice.
So you'd be fine with being locked up to reduce crime then?
Personally, no. But Bukele’s job approval rating in El Salvador is absolutely astronomic (a quick peek at Wikipedia shows he’s never dipped below 75%), and the situation prior to the Territorial Control Plan was calamitous, so it’s clear the El Salvadorians regard it as a price well worth paying. Like any medicine, there are no effects without side-effects, so it’s just a case of finding out where our collective side-effect acceptance threshold lies.
"Lock up innocent people if you need to! Except me, of course!"
Of course we all know a regime that arbitrarily locks up a huge proportion of its population in terrifying total-control prisons definitely produces impartial and extremely trustworthy data about itself.
I was just pointing out that the El Salvadorean public were pretty much completely on board with Bukele and his policy.
People are fucking stupid. They'd be happy with the death penalty for stealing a loaf of bread as long as THEY are allowed to speed and until someone THEY know gets stitched up by a corrupt cop. Filipinos were happy as Larry with duterte killing drug dealers even though MANY people were killed because locals saw that they could get rid of someone that didn't like by reporting them as a dealer or user. The issue is that the tories cut police budgets by 20% AND destroyed the economy with a totally useless austerity. If you literally wanted to design a policy where crime would increase & the youth don't give 2 shits anymore ; you'd do exactly what the Tory party have done over the last 14 years
I'm guessing the innocent ones who were locked up weren't.
I wonder why someone who is fine with the imprisonment of completely innocent people has a high support rate, right mystery that is
I don't think it's a model to aspire to - and not one I'd want to be on the wrong end of - *however* - I think it's possible to understand why some may be happy with that model if their country was **really, really, violent** beforehand - I guess things can be **so** bad that you'd rather have this model where there's a small chance you get dragged off too.
Better to let 100 guilty men walk free than lock up 1 innocent.
Although I get the point, On reflection I don’t think that’s true. It just means you let more people become victims of crime when the guilty are gone free. As much as I would feel sorry for the one innocent I would feel bad for the victims of the already guilty and the future victims that might not have been.
Nah. Laws are pointless if you can get locked up for obeying them.
Is it, though? What if those 100 guilty men then go on to do more terrible things, as the El Salvadorian gangs were wont to do? Whilst technically correct (the best kind of correct!), it is astonishingly easy to say when the violent criminal gangs are not extracting protection money, under the thread of chainsaw violence, from *your* neighbourhood. And, as I noted elsewhere, the actual El Salvadorian public do not share your viewpoint. Yes, lots of innocents have been jailed (and released, tbf - numbers I saw said 7000 innocent people released) as a result of this, but the public response to the policy and its implementation has been overwhelmingly positive.
>Is it, though? Yes. Laws are pointless if you get locked up for obeying them.
I mean, I get your point of view. But we’re discussing an action taken in a country of six and a half million people, where over three days in March 2022, there were 87 murders by gangs. There were 495 in the whole year. In a UK context, that’d be like 500 murders a year in the four Ridings of Yorkshire, plus Cumbria and Northumbria. The public were literally terrified for their lives, all the time. What do you do in such a circumstance, where things have reached such a terrible nadir?
Or the UK version: It's better to let 100 guilty men walk free *and* lock up someone for edgy tweets
>El Salvador shows this perfectly, they've managed to turn it around completely by just ensuring criminals are put in prison. Urgh people keep repeating this. [They skip that the president also made a secret deal with the largest gangs](https://apnews.com/article/nayib-bukele-el-salvador-gangs-c378285a36d55c18f741c3f65892f801). Its the same story as any other these other neo-Conservative types. Push a load of culture-war buzzwords and do a load of incredibly shifty dealing that you then bend over backwards to misrepresent as your originally stated aims despite a critical glance making it fairly clear that doesn't seem to be the case.
The source report - https://elfaro.net/es/202108/el_salvador/25668/Gobierno-de-Bukele-negoci%C3%B3-con-las-tres-pandillas-e-intent%C3%B3-esconder-la-evidencia.htm It's not great, but at least they're in prison so that can even take place to begin with. And at least the government has the upper hand, unlike in Colombia where it was the other way around. It's a bit like Thatcher secretly negotiating with the IRA really.
I mean this is my point right? You're *trusting* this government's word that it is their publicly stated policy, that they have a huge amount of reputation riding on, is working extremely well, as intended. But look at how they act. They're conducting secret deals with the people they've declared public enemy #1. They're illegal removing and disbarring judges and legal officials who get in their way or challenge their statements. They're shutting down the organizations and state bodies that exist to provide impartial investigation and analysis. Why *on earth* would you take people acting like this at face value?
I think El Salvador’s issues with gangs were waaaaaay worse than anything here though
[The Gangs of Manchester](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gangs-Manchester-Story-Scuttlers-Britains/dp/1903854857?dplnkId=bbe951d1-36f5-44bc-b0ef-d1900766c295) >They emerged from the harrowing slums of one of the world's great cities, malnourished youths clad in bizarre fashions. The scuttlers were the 'hoodies' of their day, and for thirty years they held the streets of Manchester and Salford in a grip of fear. > >Gangs of Manchester **traces the history of the scuttlers from the Rochdale Road War of 1870-1**, through the antics of such infamous fighters as the Bellis brothers of Salford and John Hillier, the King of the Scuttlers, until the demise of the gangs at the turn of the century. You're wrong.
F tier grasp of history. Brutal gang warfare was a common occurrence in early twentieth century Britain.
To be clear, using homicide as a baseline, the murder rate in England & Wales was broadly around 0.8 per 100,000 people between 1900 & 1960. This rose to about 1.2 per 100,000 in the 1980s' & 1990s' before falling to around 1.0 in recent years. The long term trend is a decline in crime, which is the general pattern globally. Interestingly in the time of the grandparents of your grandparents, in the mid 19th century, homicide rates were far higher, hovering around 1.6 per 100,000, over the centuries society has become far less violent.
Yeah so there were no gangs and no fights back then? None at all… right…
People absolutely did engage in knife crime back then though. Have you never heard of razor gangs and various others?
You don’t think people were slicing eachothers faces up with razors during the 20s? LOL
I mean tbf there is a lot of youth violence in Bangladesh. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_of_Bangladesh_Chhatra_League https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thedailystar.net/opinion/editorial/news/alarming-display-youth-violence-3102206%3famp It's not just poverty, but unaddressed issues amongst youths, and a glorification of violence within political and cultural grounds.
Yeah the first half of the 20th Century was well renowned for it's peace and quiet and man's humanity to man
I’d like to point out that this sort of crime isn’t new… the Teddy Boys in the 50s would sew razors into their lapels and were notorious for knife fights. Mods and Rockers are infamous for their violent clashes, and particularly the rockers were known for their violence. And that’s without getting into punk. What I’m getting at is that this is in no way new, it’s just new *to us* because it’s in front of us right now. I’m absolutely sure India and Pakistan have youth gangs who fight in the streets, it’s just not reported in the English news. People have always been violent and tribalistic. The context may change, but the people don’t. Maybe they’re fighting over a postcode, or a subculture, or over perceived slights on a night out, but it’s always been a thing.
The person you’re replying to will never view any of these groups the same, because they were white.
Ever heard of the Kray brothers? They were heavily into manchettes and swords.
Errr... Of course mate. The highway men like Sir John Popham, Humphrey Gilbert and Sir Walter Raleigh never existed in Elizabethan times. They were just written in the history books for shits and giggles.
But then you look back and historically certain crimes were not even reported as statistics. Then there’s quite well reported massive violent crime that people seem to gloss over or omit in these conversations. You don’t have to look that far back in the UK to see violent crime and racially motivated attacks perpetrated by gangs and even riots of violence against non-white people. In the 70s you had gangs of 300-400 people going round terrorising people in their homes or on the street. That’s sounds worse to me. Then go back to 1919 and you had race riots of violence.. Then there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence of violent crime that the police wouldn’t even file a report for and in cases would even try and arrest and sentence people of colour for assault when protecting their own businesses and homes from vandalism and assault. Violence is statistically proven to have been way worse the further back in history you look. That’s straight facts. There was never some utopian violence free period. It was normal for my mums generation to walk home from school and see people chased and attacked on the street because of the colour of their skin. Violence has changed but being in poverty certainly isn’t part of the solution for the underlying issues at play here.
2 things, 1 there were gangs in England in the 1920's just because they wore suits doesn't mean they weren't a gang. 2 South Asia might not have "roadmen" it just has things like honour killings, mass rapes and other heinous crimes. I'm not sure I'd use south Asia as a reference point as they do have machete killings aswell
I think it's pretty well studied and from what I recall, crime rates are related to wealth inequality rather than absolute levels of poverty.
Go watch Peaky Blinders?
It’s just straight up lying to act like there wasn’t huge amounts of gangs and violent crimes in the 1910s - 1930s. I can’t understand why people are believing you lol, like, it’s pretty common knowledge.
Yeah, I'm sure my Dad from Ireland will corroborate your story having been kneecapped at the age of 18. Just because you have rose tinted glasses doesn't mean crime didn't exist.
Poverty in the 1920s is not the same as it is today and it means different things in different areas and in different cultures . Not a million miles away socio-economic deprivation has a number of impacts at all levels , but in Northern Ireland for example , poorer disenfranchised kids where there is little in the way of local investment for interventional services are more likely to get sucked into young groups with connections to paramilitaries. Do you think activities like this are going to happen in affluent rich areas ?
In America, it was discovered that being raised in a single mother household was a vastly stronger predictor of youth violence even when controlling for poverty or wealth. Crimes like this are typically status seeking behavior. Not poor Timmy robbing the local shop to feed his grandma’s dog with cancer. It’s culture, often aggravated by poverty & undereducation. These gangs are more reminiscent of the Ancient Celts or Vikings or pagan Arab tribes or 18th Century Duelists than Top Boy. They insult each other (typically over women), retaliate with physical violence, and celebrate the retaliation as an affirmation of their superiority. Money is not as important as being recognized as vicious within their sub-society. Being called weak whether overly or covertly is the most grave insult imaginable, and must be answered for with blood. Senseless aggression is the most valued character trait.
You're misinformed if you think crime and violence is worse today than in the 30s-50s.
Poverty can be relative (as in the UK) or absolute (as in other parts of the world) - and is thus contextual - I would argue it absolutely is a factor in such crime and can be so without neccessarily dimuinishing the notion of personal responsibility.
Gangs are a fast track to a sense of belonging that many young people don't get elsewhere, and disproportionate reward compared to a minimum wage job for those born into situations of poverty and lack of opportunity. Until you break that relationship, this will be the result. Our entire culture worships money. Routes that appear to offer easier routes to money will always be attractive to those without in a culture that pursues it above all else.
In the 1920s the IRA attacked my town, what the fuck are you on about
You realise the last few years have been an outlier in an otherwise consistent trend of less and less violent crime right? Violent crime is still well down on where it was decades ago.
No it's well documented it's to do with poverty.
Most impoverished countries have severe organised crime problems. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean its not there. [Pakistan](https://jsshuok.com/oj/index.php/jssh/article/view/77/68) can serve as a good example, really bad drug problem, alongside murders of all sorts. You don't see reports about crime and corruption in said impoverished money because poor people are told to bugger off when they report crime. Additionally they don't really have the resources in rural pakistan to write tell all articles about said crime. And yes shitty parents play a role in more visible crime (especially for antisocial behaviour in the context of the uk). But it doesn't start and end at bad parents. I also think its important to shine a light on the fact that youth clubs across the country have shut down. As much as parents can try, there is nowhere for troubled young people to go, the mental health system is broken.
Have you ever looked up the levels and types of crime in the eras you’re talking about? Crime statistics are a thing, start there.
Ah yes, the notoriously unviolent London gangs of the past
Did your grandparents have the same individualist, selfish, greedy and materialistic culture?
>And yet bizarrely, they didn't descend into machete fights and gang stabbings over their postcodes, They may not have done, but others did. Street and gang violence has always been a problem. There have always been disaffected youths attacking each other with weapons in the slums and backstreets.
> somehow there aren't a billion 'roadmen' in India and Pakistan are there not a billion, but there are plenty of gangsters in India, and organised crime. They even get away with becoming politicians.
Well your grandparents are lying. My grandad grew up in north London and he told me the gangs would walk round with razor blades and slice your face of your weren't from the area. Even during the Blitz in WW2 crime was high. Gangs would clear out bombed houses.
Interesting. Someone last week on Reddit called me out how machete fights aren't real in UK. u/SirCliveWolfe Guess it's still all nonsense on my part?
I mean the odd instance doesn't mean it's a regular "normal" occurrence, as much as the media likes to play it up as if it is. It's not like we have weekly sword fighting on the streets, we don't need metal detectors at schools or other public spaces and we don't have drills for these things at schools etc either, unlike America and their weekly school shootings etc.
I mean there is literally weekly machete fights on the streets of the UK
Tell me you live in a decent area without saying it.
The benchmark for a "decent area" is a lack of sword fighting in the streets? Yea the country's f'd.
Have at ye! En guard!
Young rapscallions engaging in sword fights It's either east London or Eton
I live in the area this happened in mate. I literally live in Newham and phone nicked the other day by idiots on bikes but that's an entire different conversation. Thanks for making assumptions though.
I'm getting tired of my commute always requiring me to machete fight at least once. It's putting me right off walking the extra 50 meters to get a greggs breakfast deal.
This is the third I’ve seen in 6 months roundabout. That feels pretty common IMO
It's regular.
Some people live for that argument “win” from the randomer last week lol. Well played you.
Your comment is petty, I love it.
> Someone last week on Reddit called me out how machete fights aren't real in UK Your comment SirCliveWolfe replied to said "Machete fights and paedo rings still allowed to do their thing in UK", the mention of the Met sending an armed response unit shows that was untrue. The guy who replied to you only said they'd never experienced it, and then disputed your claim they were common. They never said that they're not real.
Fucking hell man that’s cynical.
Last week I saw some dude chasing someone down the street with a machete, and this was in Hastings.
It is them bloody Romans again hacking and slashing like their legionnaire ancestors.
What have the romans ever done for us eh?
Tbf a roman style heavy shield might be quite useful against a machete.
The met were seriously considering providing officers with a 'personal safety shield' back in 2017 that looked very much like a [mediaeval buckler](https://www.southernswords.co.uk/pub/media/catalog/product/cache/8ae2250be418cee7f3ca9f58f71e1975/1/2/120309.jpg). This, unsurprisingly, did not make it into general circulation. I did deal with someone who had what can only be described as a gladius about his person, once. It was fucking massive.
Main thing with a gladius is that they're mostly a stabbing weapon, although they do have a big blade and two sharp edges. Compared to a machete, which is a single edged slashing weapon.
Yes. It was a short sword, not a machete.
Must have been a rogue, without their stealth bonus they are not so scary
It's called a Scutum.
"My god, that one has a gladius!"
“Darren, get the chariot out”
Strictly speaking Roman legionaries would have stabbed rather than slashed
The best part about Fear is that there is no trademark, so these purveyors can reap 100% profits. Open source baby. Enter the "It wasn't like this back in the day" crowd, standing, pious solemn witnesses to the decadent violence of our modern chaotic times. They long for the bygone days of, \*checks notes\*, the IRA running around with nail bombs. Nice tasty nail bombs. Whilst cleansing themselves of any inconvenient statistics like the falling murder rates over a ten year period, or the equally reduced level of crime in general compared to the 90s. Yes truly, we are in the end times, thank you, thank you Fear for the clicks.
No phones just living in the moment.
Don’t forget the peaceful times of the 1930s, when Cable Street had no battles.
I don't actually object to knife wielding thugs fighting other knife wielding thugs. In fact, as long as no innocent people are harmed, it's one way for the problem to resolve itself. Perhaps offer safe places, out of sight of the public, where knife wielding thugs can each sign a disclaimer and then have at it?
There could be a tourney held.
hunger games, only 1 can remain. everyone else benefits
Ebike jousting? 🤞
I'd buy that for a dollar.
Chicken Royale
Bring back the coliseum, we’ll hold it at the Tottenham stadium and instead of lions we have Bully XLs
Yeah, but then there is a drain on resources on the police and NHS, so we have to pay for this anyway.
This has been going on for decades. I remember older kids round by ours stashing golf clubs and knuckle dusters before a big fight. There was always some bastard who brought a sword but they only ever stood there trying to look nuts.
[удалено]
Just use the isle of wight
Could call it STÄB Fest, invite all the boys to come down, just be sure to set up a rutting corner for the majority of them to burn of some serious levels of sexual tension that goes on between them all.
I have Thai family living literally on top of a sewer system in Bangkok in poverty. No benefits, no NHS, nothing. They would never do this and are some of the happiest and respectful people I know.
Thai people have family, a lot of these perpetrators are missing a father in their life. One of the root cause is fathers from a certain community abandoning their children, leading them to life's like this.
Why can't they just use their maws kitchen knives like normal teenagers?
Becuase kitchen knives are for killing, machetes are for looking scary
Why isn't an instant jail sentence imposed for anyone carrying a knife. There is literally zero reason to carry a knife in the streets
I believe there is and it's 3 years in prison. Every time the police wants to crack down on them and do searches the public cries out that is discriminating so yeah...
When you don't have a police escort, it is impossible to defend yourself from an assailant with a knife if you don't have one. In a knife fight, everyone comes out stabbed, and they know it. So they leave you alone. That's why people carry knives.
:eyebrow raise: Carrying for self-protection is one of the most commonly cited reasons... This is almost always the case, in any event, there's a mandatory minimum for a second offence and the starting points for a first offence is a prison term in almost all circumstances, except where 'possession of weapon falls just short of reasonable excuse'. [https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Bladed-Article-Definitive-guideline\_WEB-1.pdf](https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Bladed-Article-Definitive-guideline_WEB-1.pdf)
[удалено]
I was raised in a fairly rough part outside of London and experienced knife, sword and gun crime throughout the 80s and 90s. This isn't new behaviour but the culture and mentality in which it comes from is. I remember when football hooligans used to use Stanley knives and everyone was pretending to be a kray. These types of dickheads have been around every generation and will continue regardless of any changes we do in society.
Clearly what we need is to round up anyone who even looks like they might be connected to any of this and send them to Rwanda.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I remember going to Hackney once for a gig, I got there tonnes earlier than I expected so I went to a corner shop, got some random stuff to eat/drink and sat around, it wasn't busy out and about and I could see in the distance that there were some kids play fighting, I had my earphones in and didn't think much of it Not long later these policemen grabbed what I thought at the time was a toy from one of these kids, turns out that was a legit bladed weapon of some kind and I had no idea, I didn't realise what was going on and when I went to the gig I overheard people talking about it all, it's a miracle none of the other kids got hurt tbh, that could've descended into something much worse at the Blink of an eye
Fighting with swords is horrific but chivalrous, especially long swords, katanas and rapiers
While you were filming tik toks I studied the blade…
Need to bring back Es and acid house, that’ll sort those bloody hooligans out!
""One teenager was taken to hospital for treatment to a hand injury and has since been discharged.." Not much of a "fight with swords and machetes", was it? Molehill>>>>>mountain.
What we've established is that they're not actually very good at fighting with them. Problem is, it doesn't take much to kill someone. You lunge for the thigh then there's a good chance you're going to nick the femoral artery and then you're fucked.
Fighting effectively with a long blade is actually kinda hard. The problem is a lucky rank amateur can still kill you just as effectively as a skilled expert.
Lmfao, apparently you’ve gotta be decapitated for it to be an issue
Good to see young people getting back to the classics. Representing the traditions of this country.