• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The New Barbarism

I have thought much on this very subject, if it can be thought of as just one subject, rather than many. I think there are many contributors:

#1: Detachment from reality. This is perhaps partly due to the internet making people have to deal with others face-to-face less, as it grows more and more prominent. A larger factor, I believe, is the world becoming increasingly co-dependent. We often rely on others completely for survival. Not neighbors and local businesses, but people from across the nation or from other nations. The world is becoming a house of cards that will cause great suffering if part of it collapses. If (hypothetically) the government collapsed tomorrow and there was suddenly no police, no hospitals, no imports from out of town, no public schools, no road repairs, etc, how many people would be able to survive, I wonder? I suspect it would not be many.

#2: Someone connected school sports and gangs. A thought occured to me while watching Cool Hand Luke -- in that movie, the two people who were feuding were given boxing gloves and allowed to get it out of their systems. Now they would be allowed to stew, eventually leading to more serious violence. School sports perhaps give an outlet for a young male's competitive nature, and the human wish to be a part of something. It also allows them to work out their aggression in a harmless manner, while learning to be respectful to their rivals (if they have a good coach), as the Cool Hand Luke example possibly has something to do with. The current rapper-type gang mentality was becoming fashionable the last year I was in high school. The rappers (probably not intentionally) really did glamorize it, sort of like how a war movie can glamorize war, so that's part of it.

#3: Gender roles. I'm all for gender equality and women not being held back by their gender. However, I feel that there are likely unforeseen and subtle side effects of this. Gender roles have an evolutionary purpose, and as we outgrow our evolutionary dictates, we acquire deadend hard-coded behavior, such as the aforementioned aggressive, competitive urges that sports help curb. Feminine equality is relatively new and will likely cause some waves as it settles in. I've noticed an increasing trend of women being treated like meat, and worse the glamorization of being a sex object. Sometimes voluntarily making oneself a sexual object is seen as empowering. I find this very disturbing.

#4: Lack of community. As populations grow, and traveling long distances for work or school becomes more commonplace, we begin to lose our sense of community. In a large city, I feel crime is likely to be higher, because I think people are more likely to rob someone they don't know, or hardly know; a well-known neighbor would be safer. Around college, families and friends break up and spread across the country. The internet also contributes to not getting to know locals. As we become a world community, we lose close-knit local communities.

#5: Fear and ignorance. The cornerstones of barbarism. We live in fear of terrorists. We live in fear of upsetting people, due to political correctness and outrageous lawsuits. In the US you can sue someone over something ridiculous and are fairly likely to win. Political correctness is kin to censorship. And with things like the push for Creationism to be taught in schools being taken seriously, surely we are on the brink of barbarism if we are not already there.

Those are my thoughts. The question is, what to do about them? If nothing else, live the way you think people should live. Don't lie, cheat, or steal. Be friendly and polite and respectful to all, even those who are not so to you. Lead by example. Meet your neighbors and buy from local farmers' markets. Wounds this deep can only heal with much time.

Robert E. Howard, creator of Conan, seemingly felt that barbarism was the natural state and civilization was inherently flawed. He said in a letter, "... [W]hen a civilization begins to decay and die, the only thing men or women think about is gratification of their body's desires. They become preoccupied with sex." Sounds like the modern US to me!

Edit: I believe we are well into the decline of Western civilization, and I don't think the question is how do we stop or curb it, but how do we recover after it reaches its inevitable conclusion, possibly in our lifetimes?
 
Mister_Awesome said:
...

Robert E. Howard, creator of Conan, seemingly felt that barbarism was the natural state and civilization was inherently flawed. He said in a letter, "... [W]hen a civilization begins to decay and die, the only thing men or women think about is gratification of their body's desires. They become preoccupied with sex." Sounds like the modern US to me!
Click to expand...
To be honest, I think it may have been Robert E. Howard who had a few problems in the trouser regions. ;)
 
It really is a tricky one.

The problems we're seeing may just be the symptoms of an ongoing social malaise. So to start:

Relative poverty is increasing, the gap between the rich and poor in this country has actually increased in recent years. Its fair enough to state that the real grim absolute poverty has all but gone but the media seem to enjoy pushing the lives and lifestyles of the rich and famous down the collective gullet. This is of course going to cause tension in certain areas.

The ongoing demonisation of youth and their cultures by the media isn't helping and may well be creating a form of self fulfilling prophecy (we're bad because they say we're bad).

The education system isn't helping too much either. The lack of discipline aside the kids are monitored and judged on an almost daily basis, teaching is done purely to pass the exams and the performance of the kids is used to judge the schools. However the media (one of the main mouth pieces of the adult society) continously slates and derides the education system. So of course the kids think why bother. Of course nobody considers the stresses this place on the kids or the schools or the parents.

Lack of hope. Lets face it, what hope do kids have these days? 15 minutes of fame on big-brother or the grind of a job? The jobs available to a school leaver at 16 are basically non-existent. The traditional industries which would have soaked up hordes of 16 years olds have gone. The options are a shit job or more education, the promise at the end of that being a better paid shit job or, if you're bright enough, yet more education. At the end of the final stretch of education (university) you can look forward to to debts of £9,000 and upwards and a shit job.

Outside of work or school what do you have? Outside of the major cities? Fuck all. A lot of the areas where kids could congregate with some safety have gone. Want to go to the pictures with some mates? Fine, it is a 32 mile round trip to a desolate business park. Cinema in the nearest town to where you live? Demolished for housing or converted into a bingo hall.

People keep going about lack of respect from kids to adults. How about the other way? Shouldn't this "respect" work both ways and be earnt by both parties? Respect the kids, they'll choose which home you go in when you're old. :)

There are countless factors which will influence the behaviour of any member of society.

Perhaps in the end perhaps we're seeing one of two things. The New Barbarism may be the end result of changes in the way society functions or a temporary aberration as society mutates into something new and strange.
 
Mister_Awesome said:
Robert E. Howard, creator of Conan, seemingly felt that barbarism was the natural state and civilization was inherently flawed. He said in a letter, "... [W]hen a civilization begins to decay and die, the only thing men or women think about is gratification of their body's desires. They become preoccupied with sex." Sounds like the modern US to me!
Click to expand...
Robert E Howard (of whom I am a great fan) had a severely depressive personality and, tragically, took his own life at the age of 30. Thankfully, his truly prolific output still brings much pleasure to old farts like me.
 
Lack of hope. Lets face it, what hope do kids have these days? 15 minutes of fame on big-brother or the grind of a job? The jobs available to a school leaver at 16 are basically non-existent. The traditional industries which would have soaked up hordes of 16 years olds have gone. The options are a shit job or more education, the promise at the end of that being a better paid shit job or, if you're bright enough, yet more education. At the end of the final stretch of education (university) you can look forward to to debts of £9,000 and upwards and a shit job.
Click to expand...

It's true that the sorts of relatively well paid manual jobs which could previously have been done with a limited education have all but disappeared. But is everything else left "shit", even with an education? I look at my grandad, crippled with emphysema after a lifetime as a miner... is that really so much better than working in an office? I really don't think so and I think we need to be careful about romanticising a past that was, for most people, a hard and difficult life.
 
I think there needs to be a certain amount of standing back away from what's being discussed. I say this because, despite all of the stories, the percentage of kids who are up to no good on a regular basis is probably rather small. So, one wonders whether the furore is really based on any sort of accurate picture, or whether it's perhaps focusing too much on a minority.
 
lupinwick said:
Relative poverty is increasing, the gap between the rich and poor in this country has actually increased in recent years. Its fair enough to state that the real grim absolute poverty has all but gone but the media seem to enjoy pushing the lives and lifestyles of the rich and famous down the collective gullet. This is of course going to cause tension in certain areas.
Click to expand...

At the risk of sounding like ArthurASCII :p I think this has always happened though. I think what's happening now is the subsequent downside of, like a few things in my opening post, a perhaps necessary change. I think what's different now is the erosion of class boundaries, the idea of 'one's station' and what to expect from life, and the prevalence of the instant millionaire culture through either lotteries and scratchcards or instant fame through the sleb culture. It's not a case of pushing these lifestyles down the "collective gullet", it's more a case of dangling it like a carrot on a stick. This can only lead to disenfranchisement and the feeling of being owed something.


Perhaps in the end perhaps we're seeing one of two things. The New Barbarism may be the end result of changes in the way society functions or a temporary aberration as society mutates into something new and strange.
Click to expand...

I've touched on this already but I think it's a bit of both. The changes had to happen but whether things will ever really recover is another thing entirely.

I'd also like to throw in the ring the idea of adopting outside cultures quicker than we can actually adapt to them - if that makes sense. Our massive import of American culture - I'm not just talking wearing Nike trainers, but even the way we shop, the scale of shopping etc - has a cost. I think this extends to the way we have problems with ghettoisation of communities - again on a much bigger scale than ever before - and even to the way the government scratches it's head in puzzlement when they switch drinking times to match the continent and yet our behaviour and drinking culture doesn't automatically switch along to suit.
 
Quake42 said:
Lack of hope. Lets face it, what hope do kids have these days? 15 minutes of fame on big-brother or the grind of a job? The jobs available to a school leaver at 16 are basically non-existent. The traditional industries which would have soaked up hordes of 16 years olds have gone. The options are a shit job or more education, the promise at the end of that being a better paid shit job or, if you're bright enough, yet more education. At the end of the final stretch of education (university) you can look forward to to debts of £9,000 and upwards and a shit job.
Click to expand...

It's true that the sorts of relatively well paid manual jobs which could previously have been done with a limited education have all but disappeared. But is everything else left "shit", even with an education? I look at my grandad, crippled with emphysema after a lifetime as a miner... is that really so much better than working in an office? I really don't think so and I think we need to be careful about romanticising a past that was, for most people, a hard and difficult life.
Click to expand...

Yes, things have improved immensely in the past 40 years or so - but the kids who have been sold a pipe dream by the media aren't going to appreciate that until they themselves are in their 30s or 40s.

However continued education for all is not the solution. I know I'm painting a relatively bleak picture but to some kids I expect that is how it looks.

For what its worth, a lot of my work colleagues who come from working class backgrounds are more than pleased that they're not embarking on their university careers now - most folks I know wouldn't have been able to afford it.

To think, in 20 years time this may be considered the golden age.
 
Hmm, I must have spent way too long on the previous post.

and even to the way the government scratches it's head in puzzlement when they switch drinking times to match the continent and yet our behaviour and drinking culture doesn't automatically switch along to suit.
Click to expand...

You can't change several centuries of drinking culture overnight :) They were foolish to expect otherwise. Whoever told them things would change needs a introduction to stark reality (or a wall).
 
You can't change several centuries of drinking culture overnight They were foolish to expect otherwise. Whoever told them things would change needs a introduction to stark reality (or a wall).
Click to expand...

But bear in mind that the (ludicrous) licensing laws were introduced solely to keep WWI munitions workers sober. What is ridiculous is that the laws survived that long. Until the 80s, pubs even had to shut in the afternoon.

Germany and the Netherlands have similar a beer drinking culture to our own but they seem able to cope with bars being open all day. I for one am delighted that this particular bit of nannying has bitten the dust.
 
Quake42 said:
I for one am delighted that this particular bit of nannying has bitten the dust.
Click to expand...
Just out of interest, is this relief because it's one less controlling factor (ie: us being told how to live or lives) or is this to do with pub kicking out times and the like?
 
jefflovestone said:
I agree whole-heartedly. My own personal experiences vouch for this. I get some form of grief on average 3 or 4 times a week; last night I was threatened by a group of about 20 youths and had pieces of tarmac thrown at me from both males and females alike. In the same street, a few weeks ago, my nephew and his friend had their mobile phones, wallets and even a piece of clothing taken off them. Last year, in separate incidents, one of my brothers and two friends were all hospitalised due to assaults.
Click to expand...
Horrendous. Sorry to hear that. :(

I'm partially inclined to agree with Arthur regarding the cyclical nature of unruly generations. The teddyboys of yesteryear are after all the grandfathers of todays yobs. But I can't help feel it's considerably worse. Without proper statistics (i'm not one for trusting statistic anyway) or solid straight reporting it's really difficult to get an overall picture and I think a lot of the views here are feulled and informed by personal experience and perspectives. Perhaps you should put this to a poll?
 
Just out of interest, is this relief because it's one less controlling factor (ie: us being told how to live or lives) or is this to do with pub kicking out times and the like?
Click to expand...

The former. I dislike the government telling me when I am allowed to have a drink, despite the fact that I am now far too old to want to booze on all night. There are also practical benefits, such as staggering closing times and reducing the likelihood of confrontations in taxi queues and so on, but my main concern is reducing government interference in people's lives, especially when such interference is justified on the grounds of "we know best".
 
ghostdog19 said:
I'm partially inclined to agree with Arthur regarding the cyclical nature of unruly generations. The teddyboys of yesteryear are after all the grandfathers of todays yobs. But I can't help feel it's considerably worse. Without proper statistics (i'm not one for trusting statistic anyway) or solid straight reporting it's really difficult to get an overall picture and I think a lot of the views here are feulled and informed by personal experience and perspectives.
Click to expand...

How is it worse? We don't have huge crowds of rival gangs trashing seaside resorts and attacking each other with bottles, knives, chains, razors, etc.. What we have instead is a few small gangs with some sort of half-assed idea about US gangs work, who occasionally kill or wound each other. How much they make up the population of 'young adults' is anyone's guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're a minority.

Is it my imagination or is this thread starying to sound like a Daily Mail letters page...? ;) It sounds like we've all got to that stage in life whereby those damned youngsters do things all wrong and 'it would never have happened in my day', etc. ;)
 
Quake42 said:
The former. I dislike the government telling me when I am allowed to have a drink, despite the fact that I am now far too old to want to booze on all night. There are also practical benefits, such as staggering closing times and reducing the likelihood of confrontations in taxi queues and so on, but my main concern is reducing government interference in people's lives, especially when such interference is justified on the grounds of "we know best".
Click to expand...
Ah, gotcha. Cool. Had a feeling that was what you meant, but wasn't sure. Thanks for taking the time to clarify :)
 
Jerry_B said:
Is it my imagination or is this thread starying to sound like a Daily Mail letters page...? ;) It sounds like we've all got to that stage in life whereby those damned youngsters do things all wrong and 'it would never have happened in my day', etc. ;)
Click to expand...
Starying, Jerry? You must be mistooken. ;)
 
The report says 65% of Germans, 52% of Spanish and 50% of Italians would be willing to intervene if they saw a group of 14-year-old boys vandalising a bus shelter, compared with just 34% of Britons.
Click to expand...

I think we have to take the answers people give in surveys with a pinch of salt. I've never seen anyone challenge a bunch of youths when they're busy vandalising things. I certainly wouldn't. Why would I put my life at risk over a bus shelter or a phone box? I suspect the true number of people who'd actually intervene is far lower.
 
"The young people of today love luxury. They have bad manners, they scoff at authority and lack respect for their elders. Children nowadays are really tyrants, they no longer stand up when their elders come into the room where they are sitting, they contradict their parents, chat together in the presence of adults, eat gluttonously and tyrannise their teachers." - Socrates

The perception is as old as the hills, its a recurring pan-species archetype that rolls in generational circles down from history, and will continue into the future.

As for is this process increasing / and or accelerating? i'd say currently thats a "no"

http://www.gnn.gov.uk/Content/Detail.as ... wsAreaID=2

Even with (purportedly Disraelis's) words ringing in my ears, i think the statisitcs need to be allowed to speak.

So, where do we get this sensation from? This impression of the natural order being violently undermined? One would assume the mass media, but yet, are they distorting the picture, or merely mirroring the zeitgiest of the nation?

fwiw, here's my take on one specific area that needs to be addressed:
detection rates are down to 1 in 5 across the board, the fixed-tariff sentencing guideliness, combined with the vast majority of serious stabbings (etc) being reduced from (god forbid!) attempted murder to assault occasioning actual bodily harm (etc). tops 5 years, do half, 6 months on remand. call it an even 24 months with cushy pad including playstation, 3 square a day and intsant kudos when you're back on "the out" and i see no real dis-incentive.

Even though we have no spaces in prison(!?!), that is the last reason to let violent criminals off the hook. We've gone 180% from "3 strikes and you're out", to "take as many swings as you need, guys - on us".

A few high profile, high tariff cases will help change the mantra in impressionable teenagers minds from "carrying knives is cool", to "carrying knives and using them will get you 10 years".
Same for happy slapping or mob attacks, firm sentencing and then work at the causes.
 
Jerry_B said:
How is it worse? We don't have huge crowds of rival gangs trashing seaside resorts and attacking each other with bottles, knives, chains, razors, etc.. What we have instead is a few small gangs with some sort of half-assed idea about US gangs work, who occasionally kill or wound each other. How much they make up the population of 'young adults' is anyone's guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're a minority.
Click to expand...

I think the mods and rockers (&c.) thing was very different as I'm fairly positive the fighting wasn't indiscriminate and was generally restricted between themselves. In fact, photographs from the time actually vouch for this: fighting on the beaches with families of non-combatants sat on deck chairs or walking along the front. Now I'm not suggesting that these people weren't scared witless, but it's fairly obvious that they aren't in the firing line.

If that happened today, I'm not sure that would be the case at all.
 
lupinwick said:
It really is a tricky one.
Lack of hope. Lets face it, what hope do kids have these days? 15 minutes of fame on big-brother or the grind of a job? The jobs available to a school leaver at 16 are basically non-existent. The traditional industries which would have soaked up hordes of 16 years olds have gone. The options are a shit job or more education, the promise at the end of that being a better paid shit job or, if you're bright enough, yet more education. At the end of the final stretch of education (university) you can look forward to to debts of £9,000 and upwards and a shit job.
Click to expand...
There was always lack of hope. IMO there's more reason for hope now than there was 50 years ago, people at least have a chance for upward social mobility. What there's a lack of is acceptance of reality. Not everyone can afford foreign holidays and a leather 3 piece suite, we certainly couldn't, but we didn't consider ourselves hard done by and that it was anyone elses fault. To quote Victoria Wood "Life is hard...so think on't".
Christ I'm channeling my dad.
The media's image of "how we live now" is making everyone think they have to have stuff and they have to have it now, they have a right. But rights come with responsibilities and duties.

And as for teenagers having nothing to do. They should try growing up in the 60s and 70s when there literally was nothing to do. During the day and through most of the night there was no radio, no telly, we had no internet, no computer games, no mobiles...WTF did we do? I have no idea.
 
jefflovestone said:
I think the mods and rockers (&c.) thing was very different as I'm fairly positive the fighting wasn't indiscriminate and was generally restricted between themselves. In fact, photographs from the time actually vouch for this: fighting on the beaches with families of non-combatants sat on deck chairs or walking along the front. Now I'm not suggesting that these people weren't scared witless, but it's fairly obvious that they aren't in the firing line.

If that happened today, I'm not sure that would be the case at all.
Click to expand...

It's still pretty much a case of small gangs fighting amongst themselves, or individuals attacking other individuals. That's not really anything new or some sort of malaise particular to the present time.
 
beakboo said:
There was always lack of hope. IMO there's more reason for hope now than there was 50 years ago, people at least have a chance for upward social mobility. What there's a lack of is acceptance of reality. Not everyone can afford foreign holidays and a leather 3 piece suite, we certainly couldn't, but we didn't consider ourselves hard done by and that it was anyone elses fault. To quote Victoria Wood "Life is hard...so think on't".
Christ I'm channeling my dad.
The media's image of "how we live now" is making everyone think they have to have stuff and they have to have it now, they have a right. But rights come with responsibilities and duties.

And as for teenagers having nothing to do. They should try growing up in the 60s and 70s when there literally was nothing to do. During the day and through most of the night there was no radio, no telly, we had no internet, no computer games, no mobiles...WTF did we do? I have no idea.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. Another thing that makes me laugh is when certain people try to claim that they're from 'the ghetto' (when they actually mean somewhere in London). They must be living in one of those odd ghettos where there's electricity, running water (perhaps hot and cold), they have mobile phones, etc..
 
Jerry_B said:
I agree completely. Another thing that makes me laugh is when certain people try to claim that they're from 'the ghetto' (when they actually mean somewhere in London). They must be living in one of those odd ghettos where there's electricity, running water (perhaps hot and cold), they have mobile phones, etc..
Click to expand...
Actually, there's a large chunk of New Cross that's been known locally as "the ghetto" for years. I always thought they came from there.
 
Unless something has happened in the past few weeks since I was last there, New Cross still has a water supply, public lighting, a sewage system, mobile phone coverage, etc. ;) And it's hardly a ghetto by any stretch of the imagination (unless perhaps if you've never left Kensington...) ;)
 
Is assault lawful when protecting someone?

Assault is against the law but what if it is committed to protect someone else?

Protecting the vulnerable is considered a key tenet of a civilised society, but recent events have shown that intervention in an effort to uphold community values can come at a very high price.

As well as the recent high-profile cases of men being killed after stepping in to stop troublemakers, there is also the memory of Philip Lawrence, the headmaster who was fatally stabbed in 1995 when trying to save a pupil from a gang.

The dilemma of intervention is one many of us - including broadcaster Jeremy Vine - have grappled with in our minds, if not in reality. But what protection does the law afford the person who commits violence when protecting someone else?

"There's the concept of self-defence in case law that extends to defending not just one's self and one's property but also one's nearest and dearest and family," says solicitor Robert Brown.

"If I was married and my wife was being attacked then it would be a form of self-defence by analogy to protect property or family. So to that extent there would be some permission."

This self-defence protection extends to anyone else, including a stranger.

The Criminal Law Act could also be used. This aims at preventing a crime and permits assault if, for example, a shoplifter is being stopped from leaving a store.

"Therefore by analogy if you see someone beating up a stranger and intervene and you are accused of assault then you could use the Criminal Law Act to say 'I've a defence because I've prevented a crime,'" says Mr Brown.

"Therefore there's a rather broad defence in law to protect someone who intervenes."

The force used must be "reasonable and proportionate" and that is decided by a jury, which should take into account the difficulty of assessing what this means in the heat of the moment.

In Scotland, the self-defence law also applies and it covers actions on behalf of anyone else, says Alasdair Thomson of the Glasgow Law Practice.

"You can act in self-defence of another in Scots law and you can come to the assistance of a person under threat of imminent physical violence," he says.

"But the response has to be proportionate to the violence that's potentially being meted out. It's not classed as an assault because there's no intent to injure."

And any means of escape has to be taken at the earliest opportunity, for the defence to hold.

But the advice from police is unequivocally against intervention. A spokeswoman for the Association of Chief Police Officers says they have only one instruction - call the police.

And a Home Office statement said: "The public should not intervene in any situations of any criminal activity. They may put themselves in danger, exacerbate the situation and ultimately be acting on the wrong side of the law."

Those who have stepped in have sometimes found the authorities interpret events in an unsympathetic way.

A rail guard who intervened to protect passengers from a man who had allegedly threatened them has reportedly been sacked and charged with threatening behaviour, after appearing to head-butt the man.

Lottery

And in a separate incident, Magazine reader John, from London, says he was charged with grievous bodily harm after a teenager who had been abusing a woman in a petrol station then squared up to him and threatened to knock him out. John punched the youth and fractured his jaw.

He was charged with GBH, suspended from work, depicted as a thug by lawyers and faced the prospect of jail, but the charge was dropped when CCTV evidence clearly showed the youth, who was eventually convicted of affray, behaving threateningly.

"Much as I would want to help out another person who was being attacked or abused, these situations can quickly escalate into violence," says John.

"And even if you don't get hurt as a result, the police are going to get involved, as are lawyers who are smart enough to make the whole thing a lottery."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6956394.stm

Pick the bones out of that lot....
 
Jerry_B said:
It's still pretty much a case of small gangs fighting amongst themselves, or individuals attacking other individuals.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I don't think that's the case at all now. I think much of the violence is now more indiscriminate and random. That's not to say there isn't gang-related violence, and I'd say this does account for a lot of the gun crime (which is far more prevalent than it was in the 1960s, gangs or not), but I'd say from what happens in my town, a few miles outside Manchester, the majority of assaults aren't gang-on-gang at all.

Also, I've a couple of very good friends who are nurses and who, up until recently, both worked in A&E in different hospitals for years and they've both said that the amount of victims of assaults coming through the doors has definitely increased since the 1990s.
 
Last time I was in A&E (last week) I was only there an hour before the first stabbing came in, and this was 5 am. :( Time was when all I'd have to compete with was kids with saucepans on their heads.
 
jefflovestone said:
I disagree. I don't think that's the case at all now. I think much of the violence is now more indiscriminate and random. That's not to say there isn't gang-related violence, and I'd say this does account for a lot of the gun crime (which is far more prevalent than it was in the 1960s, gangs or not), but I'd say from what happens in my town, a few miles outside Manchester, the majority of assaults aren't gang-on-gang at all.
Click to expand...

But it's still probably certain people (i.e. pissed people, yoofs) attacking certain other people (i.e. pissed people, yoofs). Sure, random passers-by may get picked on, but I wouldn't be surprised if such attacks were less common. The violence may seem indsriminate and random, but it's a moot point whether that's actually the case.
 
beakboo said:
Last time I was in A&E (last week) I was only there an hour before the first stabbing came in, and this was 5 am. :( Time was when all I'd have to compete with was kids with saucepans on their heads.
Click to expand...

Last time i was in an A&E in England (London) a stab-victim was assaulted by a drunk as his assailant was pumped up having just come from a fight. Nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top