'Stringer Bell' (Idris Elba) is from London.

This one killed me.  I love the show, and I was so used to his Baltimore street hood voice, that when I heard him being interviewed on PBS radio in his "normal" voice, it just about blew my mind!

Omar's back

Omar was gay and he was also one BAD MOFO. I wish they had not killed him off.

Omar was gay and he was also one BAD MOFO. I wish they had not killed him off.

He was my favorite character.  I was pretty ticked off when the little kid killed him.  

I have all five seasons on dvd, and I am just waiting long enough to forget a little more so I can watch it again.

Please don't make this thread all about those hundreds of crappy british tv shows from the 60's and 70's.

Ok I'll go, my pussy needs a scratch anyway.

Omar was gay and he was also one BAD MOFO. I wish they had not killed him off.

He was my favorite character.  I was pretty ticked off when the little kid killed him.  

I have all five seasons on dvd, and I am just waiting long enough to forget a little more so I can watch it again.

I'm just watching season 2. Omar's just back from New York and has teamed up with a 2 woman gang that robbed a stash that he was going to rob right under his nose

I'm trying to work out why this isnt two seperate threads?

Does the OP think Brits and Aussies are the same?

Well we were at one point, until we shipped our crim's down under.

(Just had to add that obligatory response)

That's something else I like about the Aussies. Being able to trace your roots back to the original criminals is prestigious. Only the Aussies could pull that one off.

Very Funny Lads, first time I heard those sort of comments I nearly kicked the end of my cot out.

Of course, some of us traced our ancestry back, only to find out that we didnt come from the criminal element of the first fleet......You honestly did expect your crims to sail themselves out to Oz, did you?

I like Brits because some of the nicest people I have ever met have been Brits and some of my best friends are Brits. ditto for Aussies.

I like the UK because the scenery is spectacular, the people were lovely and friendly and the beer is great.

Haven't been to Oz, but will make it there eventually.

sbk,

Next time you want to see British people, don't head to London, head straight to 'down under' theres thousands, sorry millions of the baaaastards there, most of which are winging about the 'mother country' .

Lets face it, where would you rather live, in that cold miserable hel_l or somewhere decent, like Australia?

Lets face it, where would you rather live, in that cold miserable hel_l or somewhere decent, like Australia?

So, you approve of my post about how the king should have moved everybody to Oz and made the old country the prison island?

Lets face it, where would you rather live, in that cold miserable hel_l or somewhere decent, like Australia?

So, you approve of my post about how the king should have moved everybody to Oz and made the old country the prison island?

GOD NO, then I might be stuck in that place & be all miserable and whingy.

Next time you want to see British people, don't head to London, head straight to 'down under'

Bondi Beach in particular

(i was hoping to date some cute aussies, but all could find were poms and kiwis )

PS. neverdie - sorry, but seems all the young aussies have re-stationed themselves in London dont know whats wrong with them HAHA)

^ Yes, I know its true, I had a couple of mates that went there chasing 'coin' a few years ago, but believe they are all back in Oz these days......something to do with the mismanagement of the British economy .

Bondi Beach is a SHOCKER, I don't understand why people flock there in there millions. You want to see a beautiful beach, head to Cape Laveque or something, runs rings around bondi. If you went to one of those beaches you may run the risk of bumping into nobody (or worse still, neveride)

Miggy, Maybe you were looking for these guys?

But too me this looks much better

I'm trying to work out why this isnt two seperate threads?

Does the OP think Brits and Aussies are the same?

Well we were at one point, until we shipped our crim's down under.

(Just had to add that obligatory response)

And the obligatory response to that..... Yeah, the petty crims were transported, the starving wretches that stole a penny's worth of bread.....the worst crims, the rapists and murderers, remained to breed the next generation of wicked crims, and so their ancestors remain.

Hmmm. A view not borne out by the Newgate Calendar, I have to admit.....

I thought some people, especially Aussies, may be interested in this fascinating historical link to The Newgate Calendar, reporting on crimes for which many were either executed at Tyburn or transported.

http://www.exclassics.com/newgate/ngintro.htm

The brutality of the punishment meted out on offenders without any effect on the crime rate in those days certainly proves that deterrents don't work. I suppose a case could be made that it removes that particular offender from the system though.

Why do countries like Australia which were founded on convict settlers have a lower crime rate than those like the US which were mainly settled by free immigrants? Does this show that criminal tendencies are not necessarily hereditary?

Disclaimer: This is not a US bashing post. The moderators are strongly advised to remove this post should it offend any of it's citizens by referring to the crime rate in that country.

My guess would be that Australia has a lower crime rate than the US, because it has far fewer people.

And they speak English......................

The brutality of the punishment meted out on offenders without any effect on the crime rate in those days certainly proves that deterrents don't work. I suppose a case could be made that it removes that particular offender from the system though.

The problem is letting them out of jail in the first place. When somone has been caught 3 times burglarizing a home, how many times was he NOT caught? 10? 20? 50? 100? 200?

As for why is the crime rate in Australia and many other countries lower than in the US? The answer is so non-PC I'm not touching it.

The brutality of the punishment meted out on offenders without any effect on the crime rate in those days certainly proves that deterrents don't work. I suppose a case could be made that it removes that particular offender from the system though.

The problem is letting them out of jail in the first place. When somone has been caught 3 times burglarizing a home, how many times was he NOT caught? 10? 20? 50? 100? 200?

As for why is the crime rate in Australia and many other countries lower than in the US? The answer is so non-PC I'm not touching it.

i will. TOO MANY dam_n LAWS

My guess would be that Australia has a lower crime rate than the US, because it has far fewer people.

Crime rate. It's proportional. Not crime statistics.

The brutality of the punishment meted out on offenders without any effect on the crime rate in those days certainly proves that deterrents don't work. I suppose a case could be made that it removes that particular offender from the system though.

Why do countries like Australia which were founded on convict settlers have a lower crime rate than those like the US which were mainly settled by free immigrants? Does this show that criminal tendencies are not necessarily hereditary?

Disclaimer: This is not a US bashing post. The moderators are strongly advised to remove this post should it offend any of it's citizens by referring to the crime rate in that country.

I don't consider your post a bash.  Without name-calling or vitriol, you merely stated a verifiable fact, as you understood it.

However, as far as that "fact' goes, what you write about the crime rate is a commonly held perception (it was my perception as well until only a few minutes ago.)  That is, until, I found this on my first Google hit:

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html

Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain -- has much higher levels of crime.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime."

This was from 2001, so things may have shifted since then, but I have to admit, I was surprised by these figures.

The brutality of the punishment meted out on offenders without any effect on the crime rate in those days certainly proves that deterrents don't work. I suppose a case could be made that it removes that particular offender from the system though.

Why do countries like Australia which were founded on convict settlers have a lower crime rate than those like the US which were mainly settled by free immigrants? Does this show that criminal tendencies are not necessarily hereditary?

Disclaimer: This is not a US bashing post. The moderators are strongly advised to remove this post should it offend any of it's citizens by referring to the crime rate in that country.

I don't consider your post a bash. Without name-calling or vitriol, you merely stated a verifiable fact, as you understood it.

However, as far as that "fact' goes, what you write about the crime rate is a commonly held perception (it was my perception as well until only a few minutes ago.) That is, until, I found this on my first Google hit:

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html

Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain -- has much higher levels of crime.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime."

This was from 2001, so things may have shifted since then, but I have to admit, I was surprised by these figures.

"Violent crime" is a subset of overall "crime".

"Violent crime" is a subset of overall "crime".

OK, if you insist on denigrating that quote, then there is this on all crime:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_...imes-per-capita

which, while Australia is omitted, shows that both New Zealand and the UK have higher overall crime rates than the US.

And for burglary, and least, there is this:

According to a 2004 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, looking at the period from 1981 to 1999, the United States had a lower surveyed residential burglary rate in 1998 than Scotland, England, Canada, the Netherlands, and Australia. The other two countries included in the study, Sweden and Switzerland, had only slightly lower burglary rates.

Given the two, I think is safe to say that sceadugenda's quote that the crime rate in the US is higher than in Australia, while not intended as a bash, is hardly the fact it was made it out to be. 

The brutality of the punishment meted out on offenders without any effect on the crime rate in those days certainly proves that deterrents don't work. I suppose a case could be made that it removes that particular offender from the system though.

Why do countries like Australia which were founded on convict settlers have a lower crime rate than those like the US which were mainly settled by free immigrants? Does this show that criminal tendencies are not necessarily hereditary?

Disclaimer: This is not a US bashing post. The moderators are strongly advised to remove this post should it offend any of it's citizens by referring to the crime rate in that country.

I don't consider your post a bash. Without name-calling or vitriol, you merely stated a verifiable fact, as you understood it.

However, as far as that "fact' goes, what you write about the crime rate is a commonly held perception (it was my perception as well until only a few minutes ago.) That is, until, I found this on my first Google hit:

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html

Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain -- has much higher levels of crime.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime."

This was from 2001, so things may have shifted since then, but I have to admit, I was surprised by these figures.

Surprising, but it makes sense. An ex-cop friend of mine from the UK said brawls in and outside of pubs among about 20 people was common. I said it never happens in the US - at least I've never heard of it. Then I remembered, in America, one of those 20 if not the pub owner himself likely has a gun so it's a good idea to behave more.

"Violent crime" is a subset of overall "crime".

OK, if you insist on denigrating that quote, then there is this on all crime:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_...imes-per-capita

which, while Australia is omitted, shows that both New Zealand and the UK have higher overall crime rates than the US.

And for burglary, and least, there is this:

According to a 2004 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, looking at the period from 1981 to 1999, the United States had a lower surveyed residential burglary rate in 1998 than Scotland, England, Canada, the Netherlands, and Australia. The other two countries included in the study, Sweden and Switzerland, had only slightly lower burglary rates.

Given the two, I think is safe to say that sceadungeda's quote that the crime rate in the US is higher than in Australia, while not intended as a bash, is hardly the fact it was made out to be. 

I don't care at all about your answer, but since we are prevaricating and digressing..... to whom do you refer as "you" in the above quoted text?

"denigrating the quote"? To point out that you were trying to counter a claim about "crime rate" with a quote about "violent crime" was valid and not "denigrating the quote". One is definitely a subset of the other.

I don't care at all about your answer, but since we are prevaricating and digressing..... to whom do you refer as "you" in the above quoted text?

"denigrating the quote"? To point out that you were trying to counter a claim about "crime rate" with a quote about "violent crime" was valid and not "denigrating the quote". One is definitely a subset of the other.

The "you" was you, Harcourt. And I have to ask, do you know the meaning of "prevaricate?"  It has to do with the deviating from the truth, but from your quote above, I am not so sure that is your meaning.  And then that means that you may not have intended to write I was lying earlier.

And of course violent crime is a subset of crime.  But it was flatly written that the crime rate was higher in the US than in Australia (and I was under the same impression as well.)  So I brought up some statistics which were indicative as the serious crime rate was higher, perhaps this might not be the case.  When you objected, I easily found two other sources which were indicative, at least, that the overall crime rate was higher in Australia than in the US. This was shown to be true for New Zealand and the UK, but only indicative that it might be true for Australia as well.

Regardless, there was certainly enough to say that the assertion that the crime rate in the US is higher than in the Australia is not a confirmed fact.

For someone who has taken issue with semantics in different posts, you seem pretty eager to jump on the set-subset distinction to refute a post which questions your opinions.

I don't care at all about your answer, but since we are prevaricating and digressing..... to whom do you refer as "you" in the above quoted text?

"denigrating the quote"? To point out that you were trying to counter a claim about "crime rate" with a quote about "violent crime" was valid and not "denigrating the quote". One is definitely a subset of the other.

The "you" was you, Harcourt. 

I should point out that the initial post about crime was sceadugenga's post, and that was the one to which I showed that crime might be higher in Australia than in the US.   My subsequent posts on subsets and overall crime were addressed to your posts.

Ahem....

If we could pause the English language discussion for a moment.

Bonobo, I don't believe your links show Australia with a higher crime rate than the US. There are lies, dam_n lies and statistics.

Any regular watcher of Hollywood productions and TV shows will know that gun battles are a daily occurrence in US streets.

 

Any regular watcher of Hollywood productions and TV shows will know that gun battles are a daily occurrence in US streets.

Well, you've got me there!

Ahem....

If we could pause the English language discussion for a moment.

Bonobo, I don't believe your links show Australia with a higher crime rate than the US. There are lies, dam_n lies and statistics.

Any regular watcher of Hollywood productions and TV shows will know that gun battles are a daily occurrence in US streets.

thats cause we're all southern republicans:)

I thought The South was traditionally Democrat. Something to do with Lincoln being a Republican rather than politics.