This is an interesting article from the Mail.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

By JAMES SLACK

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

...from the article...

In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.

It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.

It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2FeDHX0QS

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

(I know, I know. It's the Mail so find another source that claims the statistics aren't so.)

I didn't do it! (I haven't been back to the UK since 1984)

For once I don't argue with the Daily Mail. It's a pity comparable US figures are not shown; the article sideswipes at the US without giving any details.

From all accounts, crime in the UK is quite appalling. Sentences are too low, the unemployed and unemployable are cossetted, and prison conditions seem to be so comfortable that it's almost like a holiday camp (except you can't go out). Who said "tough on crime, and tough on the causes of crime"? Well, it was just words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Homicide figures per 100,000 pop. on this site are

Honduras 91.6

Thailand 4.8

US 4.2

UK 1.2

France 1.1

Germany 0.8

Switzerland 0.7

We may beat 'em up, but we don't seem to kill so many.

There is another thread about killings in the US. Please try and stay on topic.

PS: Just something I always wanted to say.

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Homicide figures per 100,000 pop. on this site are

Honduras 91.6

Thailand 4.8

US 4.2

UK 1.2

France 1.1

Germany 0.8

Switzerland 0.7

We may beat 'em up, but we don't seem to kill so many.

Violent crime is more than just beating people up and according to the stats you are 500 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the UK than you are of getting killed in the USA. I don't like those odds if I'm walking through London.

Oddly enough, the violent crime rate in CANADA is twice that of the USA. I always thought of them as a more peaceful bunch.

Like I posted in another thread, there is a reason that footie matches in the UK are attended by approx 99.8% adult males. It is simply too violent to risk taking the wife/girlfriend and kids. That's messed up. Perhaps the biggest showcase for England throughout the world is the Premiership...and you can't take your family there and guarantee their safety...but in super violent, gun-crazy America no one worries about taking their kids to a sporting event?

So what is the cause of all this violent behaviour in the UK? Video games? Hollywood movies? Break-up of the family? What are they doing differently to justify all this violence?

I always thought soccer (I'm a rugger man myself) was a man's game, and the fans were men and boys (girls play netball and rounders, and some of them even play cricket). I'd be surprised if the boys couldn't go to matches. Maybe they don't want to any longer.

Why is Britain so violent? Well, as I said above, I haven't even been there for years, but my first thought would be indecisive government since Thatcher was ousted. I disagreed with most of the things she did, but at least she was positive. Major, Blair, Brown.... wishy-washy.... give the plebs everything they want, and they'll vote us back in. Cameron.... just wishy, not even washy. Look how long it took to get a grip on last year's riots (was it last year?); do you think Thatcher would have waited that long? She had a vision for Britain... the others haven't had a vision for years.

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Homicide figures per 100,000 pop. on this site are

Honduras 91.6

Thailand 4.8

US 4.2

UK 1.2

France 1.1

Germany 0.8

Switzerland 0.7

We may beat 'em up, but we don't seem to kill so many.

Violent crime is more than just beating people up and according to the stats you are 500 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the UK than you are of getting killed in the USA. I don't like those odds if I'm walking through London.

Oddly enough, the violent crime rate in CANADA is twice that of the USA. I always thought of them as a more peaceful bunch.

Like I posted in another thread, there is a reason that footie matches in the UK are attended by approx 99.8% adult males. It is simply too violent to risk taking the wife/girlfriend and kids. That's messed up. Perhaps the biggest showcase for England throughout the world is the Premiership...and you can't take your family there and guarantee their safety...but in super violent, gun-crazy America no one worries about taking their kids to a sporting event?

So what is the cause of all this violent behaviour in the UK? Video games? Hollywood movies? Break-up of the family? What are they doing differently to justify all this violence?

The rest of the western world is also exposed to exactly there same movies, games, divorce rates, etc. We can't blame all of the extreme violence in the UK on these factors, there is something inherently wrong with British social fabric (or the lack thereof) and sadly families and children are paying the cost.

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Homicide figures per 100,000 pop. on this site are

Honduras 91.6

Thailand 4.8

US 4.2

UK 1.2

France 1.1

Germany 0.8

Switzerland 0.7

We may beat 'em up, but we don't seem to kill so many.

Violent crime is more than just beating people up and according to the stats you are 500 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the UK than you are of getting killed in the USA. I don't like those odds if I'm walking through London.

Oddly enough, the violent crime rate in CANADA is twice that of the USA. I always thought of them as a more peaceful bunch.

Like I posted in another thread, there is a reason that footie matches in the UK are attended by approx 99.8% adult males. It is simply too violent to risk taking the wife/girlfriend and kids. That's messed up. Perhaps the biggest showcase for England throughout the world is the Premiership...and you can't take your family there and guarantee their safety...but in super violent, gun-crazy America no one worries about taking their kids to a sporting event?

So what is the cause of all this violent behaviour in the UK? Video games? Hollywood movies? Break-up of the family? What are they doing differently to justify all this violence?

The rest of the western world is also exposed to exactly there same movies, games, divorce rates, etc. We can't blame all of the extreme violence in the UK on these factors, there is something inherently wrong with British social fabric (or the lack thereof) and sadly families and children are paying the cost.

He droll to have my own words quoted back at me however I can't argue with what you said but still stick by where I originally posted this view.

I always thought soccer (I'm a rugger man myself) was a man's game, and the fans were men and boys (girls play netball and rounders, and some of them even play cricket). I'd be surprised if the boys couldn't go to matches. Maybe they don't want to any longer.

Why is Britain so violent? Well, as I said above, I haven't even been there for years, but my first thought would be indecisive government since Thatcher was ousted. I disagreed with most of the things she did, but at least she was positive. Major, Blair, Brown.... wishy-washy.... give the plebs everything they want, and they'll vote us back in. Cameron.... just wishy, not even washy. Look how long it took to get a grip on last year's riots (was it last year?); do you think Thatcher would have waited that long? She had a vision for Britain... the others haven't had a vision for years.

Violence at football grounds is greatly reduced from when you and I were young lads - though I don't believe my absence from the grounds is a directly contributing factor. Even then, compared to the Seventies, the grounds were a lot safer. The British took the issue seriously, and decided to take serious measures to reduce violence and football grounds. Proactive policing, active segregation of supporters and a heavy police presence on the approaches to matches proved effective.

From koheesti's post above:

"...according to the stats you are 500 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the UK than you are of getting killed in the USA"; well, I should certainly hope so. A violent crime like a clap in the chops with a cold cod, or a bit of a kicking, I'll walk away from, while being killed I would find much more life-changing. A more reasonable comparison would be to compare the risk of being murdered in the UK with the risk of being murdered in the US (probably counted according to similar criteria), or the risk of violent crime in one country with violent crime in another (here, much greater care would be needed to check the criteria were compatible).

Back in the Seventies, by the way, when the football violence was at its worst, my father-in-law used to take his daughters to football matches, while the only regular attendee at rugby league games that I know is my friend's daughter, who grew up in the town where they live and has greater local affiliations.

SC

Apologies: Double post

All the smart people left and went to the new world leaving the dregs behind what can you expect ? lol

Chuckd - when you posted the headline from the Daily Mail you left off one important item - viz.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.



By James Slack

UPDATED: 00:14, 3 July 2009

You see what I'm geting at?

The bloody date !!

About 1,200 days ago !!

Life moves on, old son - we now have a civilised government, taking us out of wars and such, which Tony Blair so loved to be involved with.

Now our only fights are with our traditional enemies - the Frogs.

Violence at football grounds is greatly reduced from when you and I were young lads - though I don't believe my absence from the grounds is a directly contributing factor. Even then, compared to the Seventies, the grounds were a lot safer. The British took the issue seriously, and decided to take serious measures to reduce violence and football grounds. Proactive policing, active segregation of supporters and a heavy police presence on the approaches to matches proved effective.

The 'proactive policing' caused the Hillsborough disaster. Thank goodness this is finally being investigated properly.

Also, the 96 deaths on this one afternoon may have skewed the statistics for football violence at that time.

Statistics, statistics and oh bother you fill in the rest..............

I always thought soccer (I'm a rugger man myself) was a man's game, and the fans were men and boys (girls play netball and rounders, and some of them even play cricket). I'd be surprised if the boys couldn't go to matches. Maybe they don't want to any longer.

Why is Britain so violent? Well, as I said above, I haven't even been there for years, but my first thought would be indecisive government since Thatcher was ousted. I disagreed with most of the things she did, but at least she was positive. Major, Blair, Brown.... wishy-washy.... give the plebs everything they want, and they'll vote us back in. Cameron.... just wishy, not even washy. Look how long it took to get a grip on last year's riots (was it last year?); do you think Thatcher would have waited that long? She had a vision for Britain... the others haven't had a vision for years.

Violence at football grounds is greatly reduced from when you and I were young lads - though I don't believe my absence from the grounds is a directly contributing factor. Even then, compared to the Seventies, the grounds were a lot safer. The British took the issue seriously, and decided to take serious measures to reduce violence and football grounds. Proactive policing, active segregation of supporters and a heavy police presence on the approaches to matches proved effective.

From koheesti's post above:

"...according to the stats you are 500 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the UK than you are of getting killed in the USA"; well, I should certainly hope so. A violent crime like a clap in the chops with a cold cod, or a bit of a kicking, I'll walk away from, while being killed I would find much more life-changing. A more reasonable comparison would be to compare the risk of being murdered in the UK with the risk of being murdered in the US (probably countd according to similar criteria), or the risk of violent crime in one country with violent crime in another (here, much greater care would be needed to check the criteria were compatible).

Yes, the homicide rate is higher in the USA than in the UK but walking down the street on the way to the store, you are still 500 times more likely to be beaten, stabbed or raped in the UK than being shot in the USA. That shows how incredibly violent the UK is and it puts in perspective just how tiny the chance is of getting shot and killed in the USA is. No one thinks about getting shot in the USA, yet in the UK families are afraid to go to footie matches so it's quite clear which country's citizens are really living in fear.

I always thought soccer (I'm a rugger man myself) was a man's game, and the fans were men and boys (girls play netball and rounders, and some of them even play cricket). I'd be surprised if the boys couldn't go to matches. Maybe they don't want to any longer.

Why is Britain so violent? Well, as I said above, I haven't even been there for years, but my first thought would be indecisive government since Thatcher was ousted. I disagreed with most of the things she did, but at least she was positive. Major, Blair, Brown.... wishy-washy.... give the plebs everything they want, and they'll vote us back in. Cameron.... just wishy, not even washy. Look how long it took to get a grip on last year's riots (was it last year?); do you think Thatcher would have waited that long? She had a vision for Britain... the others haven't had a vision for years.

Violence at football grounds is greatly reduced from when you and I were young lads - though I don't believe my absence from the grounds is a directly contributing factor. Even then, compared to the Seventies, the grounds were a lot safer. The British took the issue seriously, and decided to take serious measures to reduce violence and football grounds. Proactive policing, active segregation of supporters and a heavy police presence on the approaches to matches proved effective.

From koheesti's post above:

"...according to the stats you are 500 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the UK than you are of getting killed in the USA"; well, I should certainly hope so. A violent crime like a clap in the chops with a cold cod, or a bit of a kicking, I'll walk away from, while being killed I would find much more life-changing. A more reasonable comparison would be to compare the risk of being murdered in the UK with the risk of being murdered in the US (probably countd according to similar criteria), or the risk of violent crime in one country with violent crime in another (here, much greater care would be needed to check the criteria were compatible).

Yes, the homicide rate is higher in the USA than in the UK but walking down the street on the way to the store, you are still 500 times more likely to be beaten, stabbed or raped in the UK than being shot in the USA. That shows how incredibly violent the UK is and it puts in perspective just how tiny the chance is of getting shot and killed in the USA is. No one thinks about getting shot in the USA, yet in the UK families are afraid to go to footie matches so it's quite clear which country's citizens are really living in fear.

I believe the Daily Mail editorials as much as I believe Fox News editorials, not even accounting for the age of the report. Lets move the spotlight from the USAs inability to control guns by raking over the coals to find a biased 3 year old newspaper commentary .

...

Yes, the homicide rate is higher in the USA than in the UK but walking down the street on the way to the store, you are still 500 times more likely to be beaten, stabbed or raped in the UK than being shot in the USA. That shows how incredibly violent the UK is and it puts in perspective just how tiny the chance is of getting shot and killed in the USA is. No one thinks about getting shot in the USA, yet in the UK families are afraid to go to footie matches so it's quite clear which country's citizens are really living in fear.

How many times more likely are you to be beaten, stabbed or raped in the US than shot to death with a gun? Compare like with like.

I think you'll find that football matches in the UK are prohibitively expensive, not prohibitively violent.

I was back in the old country last month, and no-one I met was living in fear. I was out on the piss after a particularly distressing rugby match in the city centre, and saw no hooligan behaviour; none of my family complained about crime or violence; and I didn't see any oppressive police presence, either.

Perhaps we should ask the Blether, or Smokie, whether they live in fear of crime or violence.

SC

I was back in the old country last month, and no-one I met was living in fear. I was out on the piss after a particularly distressing rugby match in the city centre, and saw no hooligan behaviour; none of my family complained about crime or violence; and I didn't see any oppressive police presence, either.

SC

A rugby match in the city centre? In a few days the New Year sales will be in full swing - now that can be frightening.

I always thought soccer (I'm a rugger man myself) was a man's game, and the fans were men and boys (girls play netball and rounders, and some of them even play cricket). I'd be surprised if the boys couldn't go to matches. Maybe they don't want to any longer.

Why is Britain so violent? Well, as I said above, I haven't even been there for years, but my first thought would be indecisive government since Thatcher was ousted. I disagreed with most of the things she did, but at least she was positive. Major, Blair, Brown.... wishy-washy.... give the plebs everything they want, and they'll vote us back in. Cameron.... just wishy, not even washy. Look how long it took to get a grip on last year's riots (was it last year?); do you think Thatcher would have waited that long? She had a vision for Britain... the others haven't had a vision for years.

Violence at football grounds is greatly reduced from when you and I were young lads - though I don't believe my absence from the grounds is a directly contributing factor. Even then, compared to the Seventies, the grounds were a lot safer. The British took the issue seriously, and decided to take serious measures to reduce violence and football grounds. Proactive policing, active segregation of supporters and a heavy police presence on the approaches to matches proved effective.

From koheesti's post above:

"...according to the stats you are 500 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the UK than you are of getting killed in the USA"; well, I should certainly hope so. A violent crime like a clap in the chops with a cold cod, or a bit of a kicking, I'll walk away from, while being killed I would find much more life-changing. A more reasonable comparison would be to compare the risk of being murdered in the UK with the risk of being murdered in the US (probably countd according to similar criteria), or the risk of violent crime in one country with violent crime in another (here, much greater care would be needed to check the criteria were compatible).

Yes, the homicide rate is higher in the USA than in the UK but walking down the street on the way to the store, you are still 500 times more likely to be beaten, stabbed or raped in the UK than being shot in the USA. That shows how incredibly violent the UK is and it puts in perspective just how tiny the chance is of getting shot and killed in the USA is. No one thinks about getting shot in the USA, yet in the UK families are afraid to go to footie matches so it's quite clear which country's citizens are really living in fear.

I believe the Daily Mail editorials as much as I believe Fox News editorials, not even accounting for the age of the report. Lets move the spotlight from the USAs inability to control guns by raking over the coals to find a biased 3 year old newspaper commentary .

Please provide data that the article is incorrect. Simply because you don't like the Mail does not mean the article is wrong.

The article is 3 years old FACT.

If we just look at murder and I think I would prefer to be on the receiving end of a violent crime than a murder, I am nearly 4 times more likley to be murdered in the USA than UK

http://www.juancole.com/2012/07/58-murders-a-year-by-firearms-in-britain-8775-in-us.html

Also these facts are a little more up to date.

While these Statistics

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime

Do not paint a pretty picture for UK, Germany or France, at least in those countries you stand a chance of recovery where as good old,USofA just goes for shootings and murders, from which there is no recovery.

I've looked at some of these figures (who is Juan Cole? who is nationmaster?), and I agree that on nationmaster, the figure for Britain looks appalling. But how up-to-date are they? nationmaster's figures for murder are dated 2004. I would rather trust the wikipedia figures I gave earlier.

Whatever figures we look at, there seems little doubt that the situation in Britain is very bad indeed. I suspect that the crime is predominantly urban, and that most country people feel as safe as they ever did.

But it is still true that the US' murder rates are far worse than any other civilised country.

I've looked at some of these figures (who is Juan Cole? who is nationmaster?), and I agree that on nationmaster, the figure for Britain looks appalling. But how up-to-date are they? nationmaster's figures for murder are dated 2004. I would rather trust the wikipedia figures I gave earlier.

Whatever figures we look at, there seems little doubt that the situation in Britain is very bad indeed. I suspect that the crime is predominantly urban, and that most country people feel as safe as they ever did.

But it is still true that the US' murder rates are far worse than any other civilised country.

IsanB the problem I was having is I just can not find anything more up to date than 2009 for Violent crime. I do also find it strange that UK, Germany and France are the top three, it makes me start to think about the recording methodology in the EU compared with elsewhere.

I always thought soccer (I'm a rugger man myself) was a man's game, and the fans were men and boys (girls play netball and rounders, and some of them even play cricket). I'd be surprised if the boys couldn't go to matches. Maybe they don't want to any longer.

Why is Britain so violent? Well, as I said above, I haven't even been there for years, but my first thought would be indecisive government since Thatcher was ousted. I disagreed with most of the things she did, but at least she was positive. Major, Blair, Brown.... wishy-washy.... give the plebs everything they want, and they'll vote us back in. Cameron.... just wishy, not even washy. Look how long it took to get a grip on last year's riots (was it last year?); do you think Thatcher would have waited that long? She had a vision for Britain... the others haven't had a vision for years.

Violence at football grounds is greatly reduced from when you and I were young lads - though I don't believe my absence from the grounds is a directly contributing factor. Even then, compared to the Seventies, the grounds were a lot safer. The British took the issue seriously, and decided to take serious measures to reduce violence and football grounds. Proactive policing, active segregation of supporters and a heavy police presence on the approaches to matches proved effective.

From koheesti's post above:

"...according to the stats you are 500 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the UK than you are of getting killed in the USA"; well, I should certainly hope so. A violent crime like a clap in the chops with a cold cod, or a bit of a kicking, I'll walk away from, while being killed I would find much more life-changing. A more reasonable comparison would be to compare the risk of being murdered in the UK with the risk of being murdered in the US (probably countd according to similar criteria), or the risk of violent crime in one country with violent crime in another (here, much greater care would be needed to check the criteria were compatible).

Yes, the homicide rate is higher in the USA than in the UK but walking down the street on the way to the store, you are still 500 times more likely to be beaten, stabbed or raped in the UK than being shot in the USA. That shows how incredibly violent the UK is and it puts in perspective just how tiny the chance is of getting shot and killed in the USA is. No one thinks about getting shot in the USA, yet in the UK families are afraid to go to footie matches so it's quite clear which country's citizens are really living in fear.

What a load of complete drivel.

Please provide some honest statistics that back up your 500x more likely in the UK claim, and not the Daily Mail!

Not sure where you have been visiting in the UK to make such extraordinary claims re the level of violence. Perhaps you need a trip to E. St Louis, Camden, Newark or Watts to put things in perspective.

Re the claims about football matches and violence you are about 30 years out of date but nice story. My 10 year old son went a school trip to a football match the other day with 20 class mates and had a great day out. Ticket prices, CCTV and efficient security have largely eradicated violence within stadiums.

If "no one thinks about getting shot in the USA" as you claim, why the need for all the "toys" for alleged self-defence? If there's no perceived threat, let's get rid of the weapons as they obviously are not needed!

...

If "no one thinks about getting shot in the USA" as you claim, why the need for all the "toys" for alleged self-defence? If there's no perceived threat, let's get rid of the weapons as they obviously are not needed!

The toys are for overthrowing the government. Americans believe that civil war is a constitutional right, and that every man should be prepared for the next one

SC

No one thinks about getting shot in the USA because not only the criminals have guns.

Fact - Whether today or three years ago, women & children are a rarity at football matches in England. No need to ask people in England, they show the matches on TV around the world and when they show the stands it's clear it is not a family game (however it is in the USA though where it is a safer environment)

There are hotbeds of violence in American inner cities for sure, and most have strict gun laws (and most vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats, fwiw). Since this thread is about the violent crime in the UK, I wonder if there are any rough neighborhoods there, or is everyplace just fields of lollipops and unicorns?

No one thinks about getting shot in the USA because not only the criminals have guns.

Fact - Whether today or three years ago, women & children are a rarity at football matches in England. No need to ask people in England, they show the matches on TV around the world and when they show the stands it's clear it is not a family game (however it is in the USA though where it is a safer environment)

There are hotbeds of violence in American inner cities for sure, and most have strict gun laws (and most vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats, fwiw). Since this thread is about the violent crime in the UK, I wonder if there are any rough neighborhoods there, or is everyplace just fields of lollipops and unicorns?

There are several well-known 'no-go' areas in the UK, for various reasons.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2107552/Manchester-Liverpool-Birmingham-areas-drugs-gangs--just-like-Mexico-Brazil.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN9fOTpidhU

http://metro.co.uk/2012/02/28/cities-in-uk-are-becoming-no-go-drug-ghettoes-334865/

All the videos and articles are dated in 2012 and split between the drug no-go areas and the Muslim-controlled no-go areas. (The latter are so labelled by the BNP)

...

All the videos and articles are dated in 2012 and split between the drug no-go areas and the Muslim-controlled no-go areas. (The latter are so labelled by the BNP)

... who have a strongly vested interest in drumming up anti-islamic sentiment.

To add, I did worry about getting shot in the US, because any loonie might have a gun, and when one interacts with strangers, it is often hard to identify the loonies. As someone who stood out from the crowd a little, I was an obvious target. However, a winsome smile kept me safe for all the time that I was there, and I never had any need for the tools of civil insurrection

SC

I noticed the graphic in the Daily Mail comparing Ciudad Juarez and Manchester had the following statistics:

CJ Manchester

Population 1.3 million 2.2 million

Murders 6000 (at least) 35

Police 5000 armed with assault rifles 7500 armed with truncheons

Not really a valid comparison.

As for the videos all all I can say is those big brave BNP men must be real girl's blouses. I used to go to Brum regularly for work and I always enjoyed it. Mind you, I like a bit of variety and diversity and I'm not afraid of being the only white man in town.

http://www.foxnews.c...-football-game/

No one thinks about getting shot in the USA because not only the criminals have guns.

Fact - Whether today or three years ago, women & children are a rarity at football matches in England. No need to ask people in England, they show the matches on TV around the world and when they show the stands it's clear it is not a family game (however it is in the USA though where it is a safer environment)

There are hotbeds of violence in American inner cities for sure, and most have strict gun laws (and most vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats, fwiw). Since this thread is about the violent crime in the UK, I wonder if there are any rough neighborhoods there, or is everyplace just fields of lollipops and unicorns?

There are several well-known 'no-go' areas in the UK, for various reasons.

http://www.dailymail...ico-Brazil.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN9fOTpidhU

http://metro.co.uk/2...hettoes-334865/

All the videos and articles are dated in 2012 and split between the drug no-go areas and the Muslim-controlled no-go areas. (The latter are so labelled by the BNP)

What a load of tosh....! How can you have no-go areas if a couple of BNP geniuses can spend time driving around and (gosh how brave) actually getting out of their car and setting foot in the "occupied territory"?

And in answer to Koheesti's earlier post, of course there are unpleasant places in the UK. Every paradise has its mosquitoes! But compared to Newark, East St Louis, parts of Memphis and Detroit, Camden etc, they are a walk in the proverbial park.

As far as I am aware the only real no-go area that has ever existed (outside BNP and Daily Mail scare headlines) was the Bogside area on the west bank of Londonderry/Derry, from Aug1971 to July 1972. That was a seriously nasty place run by the delightful Martin McGuinness....