zlacker

[return to "Online Safety Act – shutdowns and site blocks"]
1. coldte+j6[view] [source] 2025-08-13 07:49:35
>>azalem+(OP)
Yeah, the government that let the strets go rampant with crime, that they don't even bother tracking anymore, is concerned about the people's "online safety"...
◧◩
2. jama21+R9[view] [source] 2025-08-13 08:28:17
>>coldte+j6
I always hear this but it seems to mostly be made up? Like yeah, there’s crime in London, but less than in most European or American cities… seems like a narrative that keeps being pushed without merit
◧◩◪
3. indy+cc[view] [source] 2025-08-13 08:45:43
>>jama21+R9
I live in London and I can tell you no, it isn't mostly made up.

The crime rates in other places is irrelevant if the city you've lived in for the last 20 years has become noticeably more dangerous.

This is not "a narrative that keeps being pushed without merit", in fact the people who dismiss such claims are often the ones who live very insulated lives.

◧◩◪◨
4. vidarh+Sd[view] [source] 2025-08-13 09:00:56
>>indy+cc
I live in London too, and don't recognise these claims at all.

I've been here 25 years, and most of the areas that used to be sketchy are now not.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. indy+pg[view] [source] 2025-08-13 09:25:59
>>vidarh+Sd
Which areas are you familiar with?

I witnessed the aftermath of a murder last week in Stoke Newington! (Saw that the road had been closed off)

I've seen women publicly urinating into drains on a busy road (Hackney)

There are massive increases in the number of homeless people (Tooting, Clapton, Shadwell), several times I've seen a homeless looking person harass women passing by.

Seen needles lying around (Shadwell, Commercial Road)

The general advice now is never to wear a watch in Central London, this wasn't the case 10 years ago.

I've seen security guards restrain people trying to leave shops in Central London after they shoplifted.

So yeah, some areas might not look sketchy, and these gentrified places (e.g. Stoke Newington) might be ok if you stick to the bars, restaurants and then Uber home, but for a lot of people these remain dangerous if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. vidarh+Jg[view] [source] 2025-08-13 09:30:13
>>indy+pg
I've literally spent hours walking around Shadwell and Commercial Road over the last couple of months, as well as places like Bow, Canning Town, Forest Gate, Romford that used to be awful. I've lived in Croydon most of the last 25 years.

I'm also not seeing any more homeless in London now than I used to see on Oxford Street when I lived by Marble Arch in 2000, for example. There were large encampments in the subways near Marble Arch at that time - I've not seen anything like it since.

> The general advice now is never to wear a watch in Central London, this wasn't the case 10 years ago.

Says who? I've never heard anyone say this, and don't know anyone who'd worry about wearing a watch in Central London.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. johnis+3i[view] [source] 2025-08-13 09:44:39
>>vidarh+Jg
> Phone snatching in Central London has become a significant issue, with the Metropolitan Police reporting around 80,000 phones stolen last year, primarily by organized criminal gangs. To combat this, police have increased visibility and implemented operations to deter theft, particularly in hotspot areas.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/26/mobile-ph...

If you do not like The Guardian, search for "central london phone snatching".

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. vidarh+Ej[view] [source] 2025-08-13 09:58:01
>>johnis+3i
Yes, that's a lot. And yet per the Crime Survey, in London we are less likely to be a victim of crime than in the country as a whole, and crimes are at one of the lowest levels in decades based on interviewing people about whether they have been victims of crime, not police reports or press.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. johnis+8k[view] [source] 2025-08-13 10:01:36
>>vidarh+Ej
You are free to believe that, but I would still be on alert.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. vidarh+bn[view] [source] 2025-08-13 10:32:58
>>johnis+8k
I'm not going to live in fear due to the fevered fictions drived by the gutter press and not supported by any data.
[go to top]