Jump to content

Stabbing in Hither Green.

apbremer

By apbremer
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

intexasatthe moment

intexasatthe moment

Posted
Posted

I think RPC and Rendel are agreeing that context is important when using words .


So not that earth shattering really ,but good common ground .


Where I can't see common ground is the conclusion drawn by Rendel from RPC's "I used to have a friend who used your argument every time she described something low-quality using the horrible abbreviation for Pakistani or a derogatory term for traveller." that he is accused of being the same as someone saying "P" or "G".


And ,although all kinds of personal remarks and judgements will no doubt be winging their way to me for saying this ,I do sometimes find the use of the word lunatic offensive .For example in the phrase about taking over the asylum .

rendelharris

rendelharris

Posted
Posted

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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


> Where I can't see common ground is the conclusion

> drawn by Rendel from RPC's "I used to have a

> friend who used your argument every time she

> described something low-quality using the horrible

> abbreviation for Pakistani or a derogatory term

> for traveller." that he is accused of being the

> same as someone saying "P" or "G".


I believe there's a clear implication that there is an equivalency - the fact that RPC hasn't suggested otherwise in multiple subsequent posts would seem to support that.


ETA - if not, why even mention it?!

intexasatthe moment

intexasatthe moment

Posted
Posted

I don't think that's necessarily the case Rendel.


RPC hasn't posted frequently on this thread and hasn't responded to various comments and questions raised .


Perhaps they're doing their best not to get too drawn into an exchange and are focussing only on some aspects ?


I don't know of course ,so probably pointless to speculate .

Blah Blah

Blah Blah

Posted
Posted
It is reported that Mr Brooks and his disabled wife are not able to return home yet and have been subject to threats from the family of the killed burglar. The family also have had the audacity to put hundreds of flowers and cards literally on the doorstep of the pensioner's home (neighbours have moved them to the pavement off the property).
JohnL

JohnL

Posted
Posted

Don't like destroying tributes - but this was a threat in many peoples view. Flowers removed to a nearby churchyard apparently.


https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/moment-furious-man-destroys-shrine-to-dead-burglar-henry-vincent-who-was-stabbed-to-death-by-a3809846.html

Blah Blah

Blah Blah

Posted
Posted
You can't help but feel that Mr Brooks is being further victimised by this. Are the family of the burglar just being facetious in their behaviour, given that he did not actually die at the house, but in the next street while fleeing (according to reports). Any threats of retribution must be taken seriously by the Police. This is a family with a history of distraction burglaries on elderly people for which two members are currently serving jail sentences. So these are not reasonable people.
rendelharris

rendelharris

Posted
Posted
I don't like the police overreaching themselves using the "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" regs, but this would seem an obvious place to use it; the people leaving tributes have been back twice to replace ones which have been torn down, it's only a matter of time before a physical confrontation happens. Seems a clear case of deliberate provocation and must be not only terrifying for Mr.Brooks but also extremely concerning for all the neighbours.
robbin

robbin

Posted
Posted

BB you have mentioned distraction burglaries more than once, but certain members of their group's history is way worse than that, by reports I have read. They appear to include serious (armed) threats of violence, what amounts to attempted armed robbery and extortion (in one case the suspect accomplice was involved in an attempt to hijack a car using a knife against two plain clothes police officers - which led to convictions). They are reported in the press to have made threats of violent revenge against the victim and his wife (no matter how long it takes) and their house is now boarded up and they have to live somewhere else. At their time of life, having done nothing wrong (in fact no doubt traumatised anyway from the horrible experience - I imagine he feels awful to have killed someone even if in self defence) I think that's a disgrace. Personally, I cannot see any case for the Police not taking a seriously hard line. They have plenty of powers to do so if someone is being threatened, harassed or intimidated. I hope the victims have good family support.


The Police and CPS obviously concluded the homeowners were victims. No amount of intimidation of a victim ought to be tolerated.

JoeLeg

JoeLeg

Posted
Posted

This is where I find myself really morally conflicted. I understand the police have to be very delicate on this matter, but frankly I have no trouble believing that Mr Osman is now very worried about retribution. I also think Mr Vincent?s family should be realistic about what their late relative was doing, the kind of man he was and the kind of life he lived. They make themselves look extremely unpleasant when they call for Mr Osman to be tried for murder and imply that Mr Vincent is the victim in this.


Let?s be honest, we?re talking about a career criminal here, who ended up dying in the course of committing a burgalry. I have no support for capital punishment, but this kind of thing is different - if you break into someone?s house and they defend themselves, then I think you bought it on yourself. Vincent had the option to flee, he didn?t need to engage Osman in a fight.


The family of Vincent should have enough sense to know when local community feelings outweigh their personal - and frankly misplaced - sense of injustice. Also, I?m aware that the traveller community comes in for an unfair share of prejudice and hatred, but at this time they should be making it plain that they do not support the threats that have been levelled at Mr Osman.


In the end, this is a case where a hardened criminal died in the process of committing crime, and his family need to recognise that. Of course they should mourn for the dead and regret the passing of someone who made wrong choices, but was also a father, brother, son and friend, but none of that excuses the subsequent, intimidating behaviour by those who wish for some kind of vengeance, and who show rank insensitivity to Mr Osman and his neighbours.

adonirum

adonirum

Posted
Posted

Well I have to say, bravo to the Guardian for finally identifying publicly their, shall we call it, demographic.


Listen to the ITV news article regarding the tributes and tearing down of same. You can hear "do you realise who the family are" being said to the neighbour removing the tributes.


Those of us who actually know and have experience through dealings with the traveller community, will recognise this as an oft spouted veiled threat to intimidate anyone who challenges their behaviour.

uncleglen

uncleglen

Posted
Posted

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Deliberate choice of word Uncle? Glad to hear it,

> looking at the majority of your posts I assumed

> they were just created by a random Daily Mail

> froth generator.

>

> If you took two seconds to look at the discussion,

> you'd see that it is actually RPC who's arguing

> for a more PC form of language, saying we mustn't

> use the term "lunatic" in any context because it's

> offensive to those with MH issues, and I argued

> against that. RPC actually obviously feels

> sincerely about this and I rather regret being

> quite so aggressive about it (though I wasn't

> until I was accused of being the same as someone

> saying "Paki" or "Gyppo"). However, you're just

> jumping without an ounce of thought on the

> opportunity to have a go at "the PC brigade"

> without thinking at all about who's said what.

> But I'm guessing you don't often engage the old

> brain before rushing to comment.

I will have a go at the as a matter of course - I don't care who said what since the responses are so predictable...in your bourgie way

rendelharris

rendelharris

Posted
Posted

uncleglen Wrote:

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


> I will have a go at the as a matter of course -

> I don't care who said what since the responses are

> so predictable...in your bourgie way


You want to take some water with it, Uncle...

rendelharris

rendelharris

Posted
Posted

JohnL Wrote:

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

> No charges but the crossbow was confiscated

>

> https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/grandmother-

> fires-crossbow-machete-wielding-12382814

>

> Didn't even know crossbows were legal - as it was

> confiscated I suppose they aren't


Completely legal for over-18s, surprised they're not used more often in criminal activity to be honest. Same caveats as carrying knives or a baseball bat apply though in terms of intent.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...