zlacker

>>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"...

>>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

>>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.

>>indy+cc
I haven’t personally noticed London getting any more dangerous over the past 10 years that I’ve lived here.

>>foldr+Ld
You need to go out there, then.

There are areas where people do drugs openly, and overdosing, too, and no one cares. A cop walked past a lady overdosing.

You should watch videos of YouTubers going to these areas if you do not want to do it yourself.

The areas are famous for tourists where most phone snatching is rampant, 18 a day at a minimum, on one famous street alone.

FWIW, I am talking about London.

>>johnis+ue
> You should watch videos of YouTubers

Oh FFS.

Do you seriously consider this robust evidence?

Instead, have a look at the Crime Survey for England and Wales (HINT: This tracks peoples experience of crime and so includes unreported crime)

>>GJim+ii
No, that was just an example, for people not wanting to go out.

You are free to walk around these areas (just go to Knightsbridge) with an expensive watch to see if it is true or not. Get back to us safely to report.

Also... I literally just saw a cop walk past a lady overdosing as if all is fine, and did nothing to the woman who threw a bottle at the YouTuber. Who cares if it is on YouTube or not? I saw it regardless.

>>johnis+Ji
You’re acting like an old man who shakes fist at clouds, using their own anecdotal experiences over data in order to confirm your own pre conceived notions. Tale as old as time. What’s sad is you won’t recognise it.

>>jama21+G25
I am 30 years old.

> using their own anecdotal experiences over data in order to confirm your own pre conceived notions

I am not doing this, at all, in fact, you are dead wrong. You think I am not aware of any of these fallacies / biases? I am self-aware enough.

Address this, tired of repeating myself: >>44905149 .

> I consumed https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-...

Official sources.

> And I consumed many people's "unsafe" experiences, similar to YOUR "safe" experiences.

I am considering both sides here.

> As I said, N = ~4 saying "it's safe" means fuck all, just like N = ~4 saying the opposite.

This should alone should strengthen the claim that I am considering both sides, and it means jack shit.

> So... you appear to be another person who invalidates and completely disregards other people's experiences (and your own Government's publishing) in favor of yours, because somehow yours is more valid. It is not.

---

Next time please do it without any personal attacks, that does not favor your case (wait, do you actually have any?) that is already standing on weak legs. If you have no case apart from personal attacks, then yeah, I am in the wrong here, with regarding to you.

If you are not interested in actually doing your research, do not even bother, I am tired of the old story that "but muh experiences matter more!!11!". They DO NOT. Your experiences are not the universal truth, and it goes both ways.