"tim..." writes:

"Robin9" wrote in message
...

I'm astonished to learn houses in Thornton Heath are available for
as little as £300K.

me too

Where do you think the gangs are based

https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/five-croydon-gangs-trapping-youngsters-15932262
Shockingly one 18-year-old man said: "You never go to Thornton Heath naked (without a knife)."

https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/croydon-gangs-stabbing-youth-violence-16524563


and really not liking Thornton Heath

https://www.ilivehere.co.uk/thornton-heath.html


--
Mark

"Mark Bestley" wrote in message
...
"tim..." writes:

"Robin9" wrote in message
...

I'm astonished to learn houses in Thornton Heath are available for
as little as £300K.

me too

Where do you think the gangs are based

In the slummy parts of Croydon

Which I didn't think included Thornton Heath (not that I've been there
often - about 3 times in my life)

tim

On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 18:57:09 +0100
Mark Bestley wrote:
"tim..." writes:

"Robin9" wrote in message
...

I'm astonished to learn houses in Thornton Heath are available for
as little as £300K.

me too

Where do you think the gangs are based

https://www.mylondon.news/news/south...ngs-trapping-y
oungsters-15932262
Shockingly one 18-year-old man said: "You never go to Thornton Heath naked
(without a knife)."

I think they mean:
"Unsurprisingly one 18 year old thick as mince gang member said:"

Most parts of London have their gangs. I know Enfield pretty well and thats
supposedly quite rough but to be brutally honest the blacks and other
miscellanious non-asian ethnics generally keep to their own mini ghettos such
as Edmonton and happily stab each other there and don't bother many other
people. The only time they crawled out from under their rocks and trashed the
town centre was in the riots a few years back after that gangster was shot.
Then presumably after becoming scared of being more than 1 mile from mummy
they all cleared off again.

The more violent sociopathic brats stab each to death the better IMO (and a
hell of a lot of others too), takes the scum out of the gene pool and saves
on prison costs as they'd end up there anyway.

Cue posts of horror from liberal ****s....

wrote in message ...
On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 18:57:09 +0100
Mark Bestley wrote:
"tim..." writes:

"Robin9" wrote in message
...

I'm astonished to learn houses in Thornton Heath are available for
as little as £300K.

me too

Where do you think the gangs are based

https://www.mylondon.news/news/south...ngs-trapping-y
oungsters-15932262
Shockingly one 18-year-old man said: "You never go to Thornton Heath naked
(without a knife)."

I think they mean:
"Unsurprisingly one 18 year old thick as mince gang member said:"

Most parts of London have their gangs. I know Enfield pretty well and
thats
supposedly quite rough but to be brutally honest the blacks and other
miscellanious non-asian ethnics generally keep to their own mini ghettos
such
as Edmonton and happily stab each other there and don't bother many other
people. The only time they crawled out from under their rocks and trashed
the
town centre was in the riots a few years back after that gangster was
shot.
Then presumably after becoming scared of being more than 1 mile from mummy
they all cleared off again.

The more violent sociopathic brats stab each to death the better IMO (and
a
hell of a lot of others too), takes the scum out of the gene pool and
saves
on prison costs as they'd end up there anyway.

the problem with that attitude is that there *is* collateral damage.

tim

wrote:


Where do you think the gangs are based

https://www.mylondon.news/news/south...ngs-trapping-y
oungsters-15932262
Shockingly one 18-year-old man said: "You never go to Thornton Heath naked
(without a knife)."

I think they mean:
"Unsurprisingly one 18 year old thick as mince gang member said:"

Most parts of London have their gangs. I know Enfield pretty well and thats
supposedly quite rough but to be brutally honest the blacks and other
miscellanious non-asian ethnics generally keep to their own mini ghettos such
as Edmonton and happily stab each other there and don't bother many other
people. The only time they crawled out from under their rocks and trashed the
town centre was in the riots a few years back after that gangster was shot.
Then presumably after becoming scared of being more than 1 mile from mummy
they all cleared off again.

The more violent sociopathic brats stab each to death the better IMO (and a
hell of a lot of others too), takes the scum out of the gene pool and saves
on prison costs as they'd end up there anyway.

Cue posts of horror from liberal ****s....

Trouble is a lot don’t die straight away or even at all but survive with
injuries that cost the NHS thousands to deal with and in some cases they
will need health attention for life , that is a deliberate aim with some
attacks
where the victim is deliberately injured such as damaging the intestines by
sticking a knife up the anus which means they will need a stoma.

And while you may hope that the incidents will stay within certain segments
of the community like their “music� spread outwards to copy cat little
chavs wanting to look hard while driving their silly Seat Leons with
gangsta music blaring out many white Kids are now thinking it fairly normal
to carry a weapon.


GH

In message , at 11:51:36 on Tue, 8 Oct 2019,
tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at
11:55:53 on Mon, 7 Oct 2019, David Cantrell
remarked:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:32:28AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:47:38
on Fri, 4 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
I repeat, it's something that lots of people have done, and lots of
people do do, so is clearly not completely unreasonable.
First you have to finds a school with places, and the good ones are
likely to be full. Even if you are turning up for the first year of
Secondary because the allocations will have been done 9mths earlier.

The children will lose their friends, places on sports teams, have a new
set of teachers, strange classmates, quite likely a different syllabus
with some subjects not available, and in the run-up to public exams this
can be very seriously disrupting.

And yet people do it. No matter how many reasons you can think of for
not doing it, people do it anyway, thus proving that for at least some
families it's a sensible thing to do.

The most common reason for moving (and children being forced to go to
a different school, or have a very long commute) is divorce.

I expect the second most common reason is some financial disaster

which "losing your job and having to get a new one, some miles away"
falls into

It's the *having* to move which is the disaster. Sometimes it's possible
to get a job locally, or rely on a joint breadwinner, or have a longer
daily commute, or even a weekly commute.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:37:50 on Tue, 8 Oct
2019, MissRiaElaine remarked:
On 08/10/2019 11:51, tim... wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at
11:55:53 on Mon, 7 Oct 2019, David Cantrell
remarked:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:32:28AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:47:38
on Fri, 4 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
I repeat, it's something that lots of people have done, and lots of
people do do, so is clearly not completely unreasonable.
First you have to finds a school with places, and the good ones are
likely to be full. Even if you are turning up for the first year of
Secondary because the allocations will have been done 9mths earlier.

The children will lose their friends, places on sports teams, have
a new
set of teachers, strange classmates, quite likely a different syllabus
with some subjects not available, and in the run-up to public
exams this
can be very seriously disrupting.

And yet people do it. No matter how many reasons you can think of for
not doing it, people do it anyway, thus proving that for at least some
families it's a sensible thing to do.

The most common reason for moving (and children being forced to go
to a different school, or have a very long commute) is divorce.

I expect the second most common reason is some financial disaster
which "losing your job and having to get a new one, some miles away"
falls into

When I was 17 my father was pretty much compelled to move from London
to Solihull, just outside Birmingham. It was a case of "move or find
another job" and as at the time work wasn't exactly easy to find, he
moved. My mother, brother and I had little choice but to move with him.

Sounds like he had a reasonably assured job in Solihull (was it the same
employer?)

A big problem with moving to a new job, specially if there aren't
expenses paid, is that it typically costs a year's worth of disposable
income, and very few jobs in the private sector have a guarantee of
security. Some public sector employers are better, but they've taken to
offering fixed contracts to get around the same issue.

Not that it's entirely their fault - eg arranging maternity cover for a
year is a bit of a hostage to fortune (for the employer) unless the
replacement is given a fixed term contract.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:51:36 on Tue, 8 Oct 2019,
tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:55:53
on Mon, 7 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:32:28AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
10:47:38
on Fri, 4 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
I repeat, it's something that lots of people have done, and lots of
people do do, so is clearly not completely unreasonable.
First you have to finds a school with places, and the good ones are
likely to be full. Even if you are turning up for the first year of
Secondary because the allocations will have been done 9mths earlier.

The children will lose their friends, places on sports teams, have a
new
set of teachers, strange classmates, quite likely a different syllabus
with some subjects not available, and in the run-up to public exams
this
can be very seriously disrupting.

And yet people do it. No matter how many reasons you can think of for
not doing it, people do it anyway, thus proving that for at least some
families it's a sensible thing to do.

The most common reason for moving (and children being forced to go to a
different school, or have a very long commute) is divorce.

I expect the second most common reason is some financial disaster

which "losing your job and having to get a new one, some miles away" falls
into

It's the *having* to move which is the disaster. Sometimes it's possible
to get a job locally, or rely on a joint breadwinner, or have a longer
daily commute, or even a weekly commute.

Oh stop moving the goalposts

the person who has taken this job with the *unacceptable* commute must have
do so for some reason

and when they did that they must have weighed up the options of moving house
or commuting.

And if they decide on the commute, then presumably thought that wasn't going
to be unacceptable to them.

tim







--
Roland Perry

In message , at 17:07:34 on Fri, 11 Oct
2019, tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:51:36 on Tue, 8 Oct
2019, tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at
11:55:53 on Mon, 7 Oct 2019, David Cantrell
remarked:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:32:28AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
10:47:38
on Fri, 4 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
I repeat, it's something that lots of people have done, and lots of
people do do, so is clearly not completely unreasonable.
First you have to finds a school with places, and the good ones are
likely to be full. Even if you are turning up for the first year of
Secondary because the allocations will have been done 9mths earlier.

The children will lose their friends, places on sports teams,
have a new
set of teachers, strange classmates, quite likely a different syllabus
with some subjects not available, and in the run-up to public
exams this
can be very seriously disrupting.

And yet people do it. No matter how many reasons you can think of for
not doing it, people do it anyway, thus proving that for at least some
families it's a sensible thing to do.

The most common reason for moving (and children being forced to go
to a different school, or have a very long commute) is divorce.

I expect the second most common reason is some financial disaster

which "losing your job and having to get a new one, some miles away"
falls into

It's the *having* to move which is the disaster. Sometimes it's
possible to get a job locally, or rely on a joint breadwinner, or
have a longer daily commute, or even a weekly commute.

Oh stop moving the goalposts

I'm simply pointing out that that circumstances under discussion are
really quite rare. And have to be pretty dire to uproot the family from
their schools, friends, etc.

the person who has taken this job with the *unacceptable* commute must
have do so for some reason

and when they did that they must have weighed up the options of moving
house or commuting.

And if they decide on the commute, then presumably thought that wasn't
going to be unacceptable to them.

--
Roland Perry

On 11/10/2019 17:39, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:07:34 on Fri, 11 Oct
2019, tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:51:36 on Tue, 8 Oct
2019,Â* tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at
11:55:53Â* onÂ* Mon, 7 Oct 2019, David Cantrell
remarked:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:32:28AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
10:47:38
on Fri, 4 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
I repeat, it's something that lots of people have done, and lots of
people do do, so is clearly not completely unreasonable.
First you have to finds a school with places, and the good ones are
likely to be full. Even if you are turning up for the first year of
Secondary because the allocations will have been done 9mths earlier.

The children will lose their friends, places on sports teams,
have aÂ* new
set of teachers, strange classmates, quite likely a different
syllabus
with some subjects not available, and in the run-up to public
examsÂ* this
can be very seriously disrupting.

And yet people do it. No matter how many reasons you can think of for
not doing it, people do it anyway, thus proving that for at least
some
families it's a sensible thing to do.

The most common reason for moving (and children being forced to go
to aÂ* different school, or have a very long commute) is divorce.

I expect the second most common reason is some financial disaster

which "losing your job and having to get a new one, some miles away"
falls into

It's the *having* to move which is the disaster. Sometimes it's
possibleÂ* to get a job locally, or rely on a joint breadwinner, or
have a longerÂ* daily commute, or even a weekly commute.

Oh stop moving the goalposts

I'm simply pointing out that that circumstances under discussion are
really quite rare. And have to be pretty dire to uproot the family from
their schools, friends, etc.

You don't know anybody in the services then, or even some civil service
jobs. You get posted from one end of the country to another or abroad,
commuting is out of the question. I moved school several times, three
junior schools and two secondaries, in three different countries.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.