Question about the The Krays

Doc Ruby

batistuta9 wrote: »

Maybe they did, maybe they helped out their community when no one else would & made their area a safer place

The community wouldn't need help if it wasn't for the likes of these scum. In fact, the community often enables these types by sticking to some sort of omerta code of silence, where being called a "rat" meant a permanent boycott. Talk about lemmings leaping off a cliff while playing right into the hands of criminals, I mean what do they think they're paying taxes for.

Its true that the media plays a big part as well. Watching movies like The Godfather you see these epic struggles against drug dealers and deep philosophies and whatnot, a complete whitewash.

The reality is that the mafia was all but wiped out after prohibition ended so they kept the ball rolling by introducing heroin first to prostitutes to keep them under control, and then to poor communities, laying the groundwork for all the ghetto misery we see today throughout the US.

MaxSteele

Doc Ruby wrote: »

They kept the ball rolling by introducing heroin first to prostitutes to keep them under control, and then to poor communities, laying the groundwork for all the ghetto misery we see today throughout the US.

It'll be like Boyz in the Hood Father. The pimps will have the whooers on crack to keep them in line.

corktina

they nailed my head to a coffee table once, they didn't WANT to, I had to MAKE them do it

Oh no wait, that was Doug and Dinsdale...

Jumboman

kraggy

Biggins wrote: »

Part fear/part notoriety.

Just look at O.J. Simpson and others of even smaller questionable nature.
Some people love to mix in that company. It massages their ego sometimes.

Who in their right mind looks up to OJ Simpson?

I don't know anyone who does.

Pottler

kraggy wrote: »

Who in their right mind looks up to OJ Simpson?

I don't know anyone who does.

Danny DeVito looks up to him all the time.

the purple tin

It's a funny thing when the myth that builds up around somebody overtakes the reality.

batistuta9

Doc Ruby wrote: »

The community wouldn't need help if it wasn't for the likes of these scum. In fact, the community often enables these types by sticking to some sort of omerta code of silence, where being called a "rat" meant a permanent boycott. Talk about lemmings leaping off a cliff while playing right into the hands of criminals, I mean what do they think they're paying taxes for.

That's not true at all, it's bullshít frankly.

Are you suggesting if it wasn't for powerful criminal figures there'd be no crime and people would live in some sort of utopian paradise?

What about the petty crime or other types of crime which would be taking place - and still is rife in areas where no major crime figure has or does live - that's nearly non existent in area's like where Escobar lived?

Where were the people of Medellín's taxes or government when they were living in a rubbish dump?

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Its true that the media plays a big part as well. Watching movies like The Godfather you see these epic struggles against drug dealers and deep philosophies and whatnot, a complete whitewash.

The reality is that the mafia was all but wiped out after prohibition ended so they kept the ball rolling by introducing heroin first to prostitutes to keep them under control, and then to poor communities, laying the groundwork for all the ghetto misery we see today throughout the US.

The smarter guys expanded their horizons not only by drugs but by becoming involved in various other activities like the unions - well after prohibition

+ Drugs aren't the sole reason for the problems of ghetto's - they're often created by society itself; fúck all the poor, emigrants, trouble makers, ect. in some area and forget about them

Doc Ruby

batistuta9 wrote: »

That's not true at all, it's bullshít frankly.

Are you suggesting if it wasn't for powerful criminal figures there'd be no crime and people would live in some sort of utopian paradise?

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm telling you that every time someone looks away because it contravenes some schoolyard code, a community brings itself one step closer to being ruled by idiots they didn't vote for. That's what a rat really is.

batistuta9 wrote: »

What about the petty crime or other types of crime which would be taking place - and still is rife in areas where no major crime figure has or does live - that's nearly non existent in area's like where Escobar lived?

You're right, every neighbourhood should have its own drug lord looking after it. No, no wait, they tried that in Mexico and the bodycount is almost up to 60,000. Civilisation exists through cooperation, not bowing down to swaggering louts.

batistuta9 wrote: »

The smarter guys expanded their horizons not only by drugs but by becoming involved in various other activities like the unions - well after prohibition

+ Drugs aren't the sole reason for the problems of ghetto's - they're often created by society itself; fúck all the poor, emigrants, trouble makers, ect. in some area and forget about them

Everything is small beans compared to drugs in criminal enterprises. Take away the money, and you take away the power, which is why the mob was almost wiped out after prohibition ended. Drugs are particularly unique in that the victims collude in the crime, covering for the dealers to scratch that itch.

Are you really standing up for the morals of those illiterate chuckleheads in the American mafia?

coolhandluke

Paddy's alright.....

batistuta9

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm telling you that every time someone looks away because it contravenes some schoolyard code, a community brings itself one step closer to being ruled by idiots they didn't vote for. That's what a rat really is.

You said this "The community wouldn't need help if it wasn't for the likes of these scum" - looks like a suggestion to me

They're looking away as you put it, because these men are actually doing more for them & their community in their eyes than anybody else, they're not some impressionable kids wondering in awe at a guy with a roll of notes, they're adults able to comprehend who's actually more valuable to them & their area, a crime boss that actually provides for the area or some clown in a government office or behind an alter who ignore them

people do what's in their best interests whether it's seeing only the good in a crime boss who helps their area or voting for again and again for a politician who's useless in their job but provide for the local area or county - plenty of examples of this in Ireland - Is it OK to be ruled by idiots that people vote for?

+ people elected Escobar - go figure

Doc Ruby wrote: »

You're right, every neighbourhood should have its own drug lord looking after it. No, no wait, they tried that in Mexico and the bodycount is almost up to 60,000. Civilisation exists through cooperation, not bowing down to swaggering louts.

I didn't they the should have a drug lord looking after it, i'm saying in certain situations as with Escobar the locals found it benefited them

but did civilisation stop countless children being buggered by the clergy in this country? Did civilisation stop Pol Pot? Genocide in Rwanda?

Is it OK to bow down to swaggering louts if they're from a higher social class and are the leader of the country or church?

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Everything is small beans compared to drugs in criminal enterprises. Take away the money, and you take away the power, which is why the mob was almost wiped out after prohibition ended. Drugs are particularly unique in that the victims collude in the crime, covering for the dealers to scratch that itch.

Are you really standing up for the morals of those illiterate chuckleheads in the American mafia?

Lester Freamon "You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money, and you don't know where the fúck it's gonna take you."

and since you're found of Mexico you should know full well that it's vastly corrupt - is that in your idea of civilisation through cooperation

I'm neither standing up for them or glorifying them, I'm trying to give you examples of why people choose to see them in a good way - it's their reality, what actually happens in the real world. Not some view that if there's was no bad men bad things wouldn't happen - 'society will look after us we'll never want again'

Motivator

Higher wrote: »

Wrong. The poor people of Medellin loved him. Most in Colombia did not. Ask the people in Cali, Colombia what they think of Escobar..

I was only chatting to Oscar Sanchez from Cali on Christmas Day, he never mentioned anything about Mr.Escobar? Should I ask specifically the next time I ring him or do I wait for him to mention it first?

Doc Ruby

batistuta9 wrote: »

You said this "The community wouldn't need help if it wasn't for the likes of these scum" - looks like a suggestion to me

They're looking away as you put it, because these men are actually doing more for them & their community in their eyes than anybody else, they're not some impressionable kids wondering in awe at a guy with a roll of notes, they're adults able to comprehend who's actually more valuable to them & their area, a crime boss that actually provides for the area or some clown in a government office or behind an alter who ignore them

people do what's in their best interests whether it's seeing only the good in a crime boss who helps their area or voting for again and again for a politician who's useless in their job but provide for the local area or county - plenty of examples of this in Ireland - Is it OK to be ruled by idiots that people vote for?

+ people elected Escobar - go figure





I didn't they the should have a drug lord looking after it, i'm saying in certain situations as with Escobar the locals found it benefited them

but did civilisation stop countless children being buggered by the clergy in this country? Did civilisation stop Pol Pot? Genocide in Rwanda?

Is it OK to bow down to swaggering louts if they're from a higher social class and are the leader of the country or church?



Lester Freamon "You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money, and you don't know where the fúck it's gonna take you."

and since you're found of Mexico you should know full well that it's vastly corrupt - is that in your idea of civilisation through cooperation

I'm neither standing up for them or glorifying them, I'm trying to give you examples of why people choose to see them in a good way - it's their reality, what actually happens in the real world. Not some view that if there's was no bad men bad things wouldn't happen - 'society will look after us we'll never want again'

What a pile of apologist crap. You're reaching for every bogeyman you can lay your fingers on, bending over backwards to excuse the scum of the earth. I didn't see your "made men" stopping any child abuse or genocides. I'm just waiting for the nazis to make an appearance in this stream of consciousness.

Oh yes, the few people in these communities will take the money earned from the suffering of other sons and daughters and thank whatever god they believe in that at least its not them suffering, as if a god would have any time for people like that.

Let's be quite clear here bud, you're trying to say that gangsters are good for a community. Does that not strike you as more than a bit cracked?

Senna

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In the real world the vast majority of people ruin their own lives and in gangland the vast majority of killing is intra-gangland. If the people Pottler's talking about made their living from drugs and prostitution then they are effectively providing a service, albeit illegally, to people who seek it.

The problem with providing drugs to people who want drugs and sex to people who want sex is some groups have arbitrarily decided it's 'wrong' (or bad for business) and have thus prohibited their supply.

When drugs and sex become prohibited 'commodities' they're left to the black economy (free market). How does one settle a dispute when deals go wrong in the black economy? You just can't use the traditional channels of law and justice to settle disputes so unfortunately it's beating and ultimately killings. I guess the threat of violence is the only way of keeping order.

So its not their fault because it against the law?? its the laws fault for not providing a legal service to the ordinary descent druggie, gun carrying citizen who wants to pay to have sex??
Gangsters, mobsters, gangs, whatever you want to call them, i refer to all of them as scumbags, don't just interact with each other, they make the life's of thousands of decent people a misery and killings/deaths aren't always confined to scumbags.

batistuta9

Doc Ruby wrote: »

What a pile of apologist crap. You're reaching for every bogeyman you can lay your fingers on, bending over backwards to excuse the scum of the earth. I didn't see your "made men" stopping any child abuse or genocides. I'm just waiting for the nazis to make an appearance in this stream of consciousness.

Oh yes, the few people in these communities will take the money earned from the suffering of other sons and daughters and thank whatever god they believe in that at least its not them suffering, as if a god would have any time for people like that.

Let's be quite clear here bud, you're trying to say that gangsters are good for a community. Does that not strike you as more than a bit cracked?

I'm not excusing no one

I'm saying why people in certain communities have seen them as good

can you not comprehend that?

repsol

Jumboman wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why the The Krays are so popular in London ?

I just dont understand how people can look up to these Scumbags.

The way people talk about them you would swear they ran some sort of Charity :rolleyes:

Can anyone tell me why people from Belfast are proud of the Titanic?

Senna

Can anyone tell me what time the last bus to Galway is?

Doc Ruby

batistuta9 wrote: »

I'm not excusing no one

I'm saying why people in certain communities have seen them as good

can you not comprehend that?

No no, please, keep talking about Pol Pot and genocides and paedophile priests. Tell me especially about how gangsters keep people safe from these threats. You want to talk about the benefits gangsters bring to a community, seriously?

Chuck Stone

Senna wrote: »

So its not their fault because it against the law??

Who's apportioning blame? It is what it is. The laws are stupid and have never and will never be obeyed in a free society. Saudi Arabia is pretty good at suppressing drug use and prostitution but who wants to live in a mediaeval ****-hole like that?

its the laws fault for not providing a legal service to the ordinary descent druggie, gun carrying citizen who wants to pay to have sex??

What an interesting caricature you've created.

It's the the fault of those who support immoral laws that deem peaceful people criminals because of their choice of drug. It's the the fault of those who support immoral laws that make criminals out of people because they want to buy/sell sex.

Gangsters, mobsters, gangs, whatever you want to call them, i refer to all of them as scumbags, don't just interact with each other, they make the life's of thousands of decent people a misery

I've already responded to this - you could address my response rather than repeat yourself.

and killings/deaths aren't always confined to scumbags

Yes, innocent people get killed, but it is quite rare and is little more than a by-product of the violence that orbits the black economy.

animan

Blay wrote: »

A simpler explanation would be that anyone with power will be popular regardless of how it was gained or is exercised.

Enda Kenny for example.

batistuta9

Doc Ruby wrote: »

No no, please, keep talking about Pol Pot and genocides and paedophile priests. Tell me especially about how gangsters keep people safe from these threats. You want to talk about the benefits gangsters bring to a community, seriously?

You think everything that happens bad in the world is the cause of gangsters, with your let's be civilised búll****, that's why i gave those examples

I didn't say gangsters prevented them things happening at all, but that they did prevent crime in area's and benefited them - that's what people who actually lived there have said

If the people of Medellín felt Escobar benefited them - they must be wrong, what would they know. Listen to me Doc Ruby i know what the people of Medellin really thought

Senna

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Who's apportioning blame? It is what it is. The laws are stupid and have never and will never be obeyed in a free society. Saudi Arabia is pretty good at suppressing drug use and prostitution but who wants to live in a mediaeval ****-hole like that?

What an interesting caricature you've created.

It's the the fault of those who support immoral laws that deem peaceful people criminals because of their choice of drug. It's the the fault of those who support immoral laws that make criminals out of people because they want to buy/sell sex.

I've already responded to this - you could address my response rather than repeat yourself.

Yes, innocent people get killed, but it is quite rare and is little more than a by-product of the violence that orbits the black economy.

Yes I get your point, legalise everything and all problems go away. Stupid law getting in the way of our fun:rolleyes:

Chuck Stone

Senna wrote: »

Yes I get your point, legalise everything and all problems go away. Stupid law getting in the way of our fun:rolleyes:

Oh, I see... I made the mistake of thinking you were interested in having a reasoned discussion about the issues.

Doc Ruby

batistuta9 wrote: »

Listen to me Doc Ruby i know what the people of Medellin really thought

/facepalm.jpg

batistuta9

Doc Ruby wrote: »

/facepalm.jpg

nearly an hour and all that's all you could come up with

Pottler

Senna wrote: »

Yes I get your point, legalise everything and all problems go away. Stupid law getting in the way of our fun:rolleyes:

The law seldom gets in the way once you get past the street level Senna. Pretty useful for getting rid of upstart competitors though. Amazingly enough, not all Police are quite as pure as the driven snow, and know some bad-ass has to be at the top of the pile, keeping the lid on things. Your arguement all along is a little naive and unrealistic tbh.

Given the choice, which do you think the authorities would prefer, a few big fish who conduct themselves discretely and step on any neighbourhood guff rapidly and quietly, or a free for all with 100's of disparate gangs of louder scumbags running around the streets annoying the regular people? Here's the news, the police know the value of peace, and its price. Illegality is never going away, ever. The state know that, they're smart. They like it when it's contained, which is the best that can be hoped for. And I see their point, tbh.