West Ham Online

wils wrote: ↑25 Jun 2025, 12:31 Certain crimes are worse, stabbing etc. But you are less likely to be murdered or get glassed in a pub fight than you were years ago. Gangs fighting over postcodes had their equivalents in the 70s and 80s along with the football violence which many of us on here glamourise. 

But I find all the use of stats about tangible quality of life indicators like crime and homelessness are just proxy arguments for what really unsettles people about London: anomie.

People are afraid to state that cultural homogeneity is what people value in a city as they are bombarded with messaging about 'diversity' being a good thing and anyone who doesn't agree is at best a crypto fascist and in danger of social marginalisation.

To be against diversity in a city is not to say you think people from other cultural backgrounds are less human than those of your own, its just communities that are culturally homogenous are intrinsically better places to live. Even within diverse cities people seek out their own. A city entirely full of Indians will be a better and more interesting place than a city so mixed with Indians, Chinese, Europeans than no one culture dominates.

 

XKhammer wrote: ↑25 Jun 2025, 11:28

goose wrote: ↑25 Jun 2025, 10:24 London has a higher crime index than NY & Berlin.
Higher violent crime index than both as well.

https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8& ... and+London

goose wrote: ↑25 Jun 2025, 10:24 London has a higher crime index than NY & Berlin.
Higher violent crime index than both as well.

Eerie Decent" wrote: ↑25 Jun 2025, 09:35 Sven is single and childless.

In that scenario, you probably would see the benefits of modern day London.

Fauxstralian wrote: ↑22 Jun 2025, 11:17 People who arrived on the Windrush (many of whom had fought in the war) did so in a genuine belief that they should help rebuild Britain as part of the British Empire
In many cases they were met with racism (No Irish No Blacks No Dogs) & hostility 
Topped off by Theresa May attempting to deport many of them decades later as they had arrived as children with their parents without their own documents 

ps London is still the greatest city in the world 

Lee Trundle" wrote: ↑23 Jun 2025, 09:47

northbankfrank wrote: ↑22 Jun 2025, 11:17 I see One Sunny Day's racist baiting has got a couple of nibbles.

It seems to be his only reasoning in posting on this board now.

He gets the bites that gives him the attention he craves, I suppose.

northbankfrank wrote: ↑22 Jun 2025, 11:17 I see One Sunny Day's racist baiting has got a couple of nibbles.

None of the postwar Caribbean immigrants were invited to come to Britain, least of all those aboard the Empire Windrush, a troop transport ship en route from Australia to Britain via Jamaica. Because she was expected to leave Kingston under capacity, her operator advertised heavily in the three weeks before her arrival that they would offer private passage to the United Kingdom for £28 10s – around half the usual price. The novelty of several hundred Jamaicans voyaging across the Atlantic was so great that a Pathé newsreel crew arrived to film the passengers disembarking in Britain– a detail which explains a significant part of the event’s later prominence.

Nobody at the time was particularly happy with the news. The British government was completely unaware of the imminent arrivals until it was too late to stop them. In a debate in Parliament it was noted that there would be no guarantee the Windrush’s passengers would be able to find work, and Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee suggested redirecting the Windrush to East Africa.

Civil servants from the Colonial Office were dispatched to the Caribbean to orchestrate campaigns explaining that jobs in the UK were scarce, conditions were poor (rationing remained in place until 1954 for food, furniture, fuel, and clothing), and immigrants could not be guaranteed employment or housing (of which there was a chronic shortage).

Nevertheless, neither the British nor colonial governments had any power to prevent Commonwealth migration after the British Nationality Act (1948) formalized the right of all colonial subjects to settle in Britain. The framers intended this as a symbolic gesture against decolonization; they did not expect it to lead to mass migration.

At the heart of the Windrush myth is the claim of a postwar labor shortage. In fact, postwar Britain was a country with a pronounced labor surplus. Accordingly, between 1946 and 1960, 1.5 to 2 million people – 3.2-4.3% of the population – left the country, mostly for the Dominions and the USA. Despite Winston Churchill’s remonstrations – he described emigrants as “rats leaving a sinking ship” and pleaded “we cannot spare you!” – statements often repeated today as evidence of a labor shortage, this emigration was encouraged by both the Conservatives and Labour and fares were heavily subsidized. In the case of Australia, passage was available for just £10, a third of what passengers on the Empire Windrush had paid.

XKhammer wrote: ↑22 Jun 2025, 18:23

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑22 Jun 2025, 12:54 OSD would celebrate Bumsrush Day if he/she thought it would get them attention.

You just can't help yourself can you!
Bumrush Day????
Not even a little bit funny,l hope you say that to a West Indian and have your racist teeth knocked out 

only1billybonds wrote: ↑22 Jun 2025, 11:50 I have family members who are part of or descendants of the 'Windrush generation'.
In my eyes, they are just people,no need to hang labels on them. My problem is with the filth we are importing who mainly end up in the big city's and London being the biggest of them all suggests that there is more filth there than anywhere else.
And yes,Khan is a despicable, lying, self obsessed piece of shit.