Is it just me or does the copper in this story come across as a complete ****?

[Peter]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-45301449

I hope he ends up ****ing homeless, the condescending ****....

[IUFG]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-45301449

I hope he ends up ****ing homeless, the condescending ****....

All coppers are bástards, p. You knows this.

Cambridge innit. Don't want to go distressing the tourists.

[Peter]

All coppers are bástards, p. You knows this.

Cambridge innit. Don't want to go distressing the tourists.

The bit about soldiers returning from awar with only one leg is quite astonishing. As is the assumption that they are all drug addicts and that in some way his behaving like a compassionless **** is in their interests......

I get ****ing annoyed with these ****ers telling me what I should do with my money. If I want to give money to a homeless bloke I am going to ****ing do it. Anyone who feels uncomfortable at a cash point can go and **** themselves as well.

[IUFG]

The bit about soldiers returning from awar with only one leg is quite astonishing. As is the assumption that they are all drug addicts and that in some way his behaving like a compassionless **** is in their interests......

I get ****ing annoyed with these ****ers telling me what I should do with my money. If I want to give money to a homeless bloke I am going to ****ing do it. Anyone who feels uncomfortable at a cash point can go and **** themselves as well.

Most of these homeless in Cambridge seem to have a mangy looking dog too.

It those little whippets that I don't want to stand next to whilst withdrawing my cash.

[Peter]

Most of these homeless in Cambridge seem to have a mangy looking dog too.

It those little whippets that I don't want to stand next to whilst withdrawing my cash.

At one of the car parks in Cambridge they sit next to the pay machine and help people use them. A valuable public service. I have used them many a time. Jolly decent fellows :)

I was chatting to some bouncers outside a pub in Colchester when three men starting beating up a homeless bloke. I went to do something and they dragged me back. I asked them why they wouldnt help (as they knew the bloke and said he was lovely) and they told me they were forbidden from intervening given their bouncing role.

Just as they were saying that two bouncers from the pub opposite ran over the road and dragged the three blokes offhim, pinning two of them to the ground, waiting for the police. I just looked at the two bouncers I was talking to and shook my head. Pair of ****s.

[IUFG]

At one of the car parks in Cambridge they sit next to the pay machine and help people use them. A valuable public service. I have used them many a time. Jolly decent fellows :)

You need help to use a car park machine? Nevermind.

I parked in the Grand Arcade for a gig at the Corn Exchange. Nearly a fúcking hour it took to get out of it after the gig. Seems every fúcker else parked in there too. It cost a fortune too.

There were no homeless there to help then!

[Peter]

You need help to use a car park machine? Nevermind.

I parked in the Grand Arcade for a gig at the Corn Exchange. Nearly a fúcking hour it took to get out of it after the gig. Seems every fúcker else parked in there too. It cost a fortune too.

There were no homeless there to help then!

Grand arcade is a ****. I use Queen Anne but they changed the machines. There are three different types and they all operate differently. I did need a bit of help.....

[Burney]

The bit about soldiers returning from awar with only one leg is quite astonishing. As is the assumption that they are all drug addicts and that in some way his behaving like a compassionless **** is in their interests......

I get ****ing annoyed with these ****ers telling me what I should do with my money. If I want to give money to a homeless bloke I am going to ****ing do it. Anyone who feels uncomfortable at a cash point can go and **** themselves as well.

I laughed at the 'soldiers coming back with only one leg and going 'Look at poor me. Give me some money' bit, I must admit.

Proper copper, that. None of this touchy-feely sh1t. Just 'Sling your hook, you legless cvnt! You're making the place look untidy.'

I would immediately promote him to Chief Superintendent.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

I laughed at the 'soldiers coming back with only one leg and going 'Look at poor me. Give me some money' bit, I must admit.

Proper copper, that. None of this touchy-feely sh1t. Just 'Sling your hook, you legless cvnt! You're making the place look untidy.'

I would immediately promote him to Chief Superintendent.

darkie wot dun it too.

Won't be long before all police are wearing body cams all the time. How the fúck can they dish out any real justice under that kind of scrutiny?

[Burney]

darkie wot dun it too.

Won't be long before all police are wearing body cams all the time. How the fúck can they dish out any real justice under that kind of scrutiny?

I also like how he chuckles at the 'irony' of fining people for begging, thus ensuring they continue begging and he can keep nicking the ****s. :hehe:

The answer is that they can't do any proper violence anymore. This is why they are no longer feared. I'd suggest your average Notting Hill Carnival attendee would be a bit less brave if the possibility existed once he was back at the station on his own of him 'falling' down several flights of stairs and somehow managing to bump his head on every single stair on the way down.

Those were the days, h.

[Peter]

I laughed at the 'soldiers coming back with only one leg and going 'Look at poor me. Give me some money' bit, I must admit.

Proper copper, that. None of this touchy-feely sh1t. Just 'Sling your hook, you legless cvnt! You're making the place look untidy.'

I would immediately promote him to Chief Superintendent.

I imagine him doing a funny voice and a little dance to that part about the one-legged soldier.

He just sounds like a typical Cambridge arsehole. He is basically admitting that he is nicking someone because they are making people feel uncomfortable, as though that is a crime.

The more I experience the police the more I think they are even bigger arseholes than they were when I was young and getting pulled over all the time for the crime of being young and driving a **** car.

[Burney]

I imagine him doing a funny voice and a little dance to that part about the one-legged soldier.

He just sounds like a typical Cambridge arsehole. He is basically admitting that he is nicking someone because they are making people feel uncomfortable, as though that is a crime.

The more I experience the police the more I think they are even bigger arseholes than they were when I was young and getting pulled over all the time for the crime of being young and driving a **** car.

I really do think taking public nuisances off the street is within the purview of the police. And beggars are an unsightly, noisome nuisance, aren't they? Personally, I'm always terrified that one might :shudder: touch me. Ick.

[Sir C]

I imagine him doing a funny voice and a little dance to that part about the one-legged soldier.

He just sounds like a typical Cambridge arsehole. He is basically admitting that he is nicking someone because they are making people feel uncomfortable, as though that is a crime.

The more I experience the police the more I think they are even bigger arseholes than they were when I was young and getting pulled over all the time for the crime of being young and driving a **** car.

Here's the deal with the 'homeless'. These people have decided to live outside the usual bounds of society. They reject the usual bourgeois ideas of personal responsibility, work, looking after a family and so on, in favour of sitting around demanding we all feel sorry for them for smelling bad and causing liberals to beat their chests and berate Evil Tories for, well, anything really.

The point is that by dropping out these people are betraying exactly your lot. Their refusal to work and pay tax means that there is less tax revenue to give away to whichever insane minority you lot find fashionable at the moment. Male lesbians, Owen Jones, whatever. The homeless are stealing from Our NHS, from Our Benefits Monkeys and from Our Loony Left Councils.

wd the homeless.

[Burney]

Here's the deal with the 'homeless'. These people have decided to live outside the usual bounds of society. They reject the usual bourgeois ideas of personal responsibility, work, looking after a family and so on, in favour of sitting around demanding we all feel sorry for them for smelling bad and causing liberals to beat their chests and berate Evil Tories for, well, anything really.

The point is that by dropping out these people are betraying exactly your lot. Their refusal to work and pay tax means that there is less tax revenue to give away to whichever insane minority you lot find fashionable at the moment. Male lesbians, Owen Jones, whatever. The homeless are stealing from Our NHS, from Our Benefits Monkeys and from Our Loony Left Councils.

wd the homeless.

Talking of loonies, have you followed this Green Party shìtshow?

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/green-party-deputy-leader-challenor-15082023

[IUFG]

Talking of loonies, have you followed this Green Party shìtshow?

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/green-party-deputy-leader-challenor-15082023

Ahh, so she's somehow complicit in her father's "despicable sex crimes against children".

Well at least for consistency, 'they' should now go around the houses of the wider family and tear down photographs of her dad, his parents and grandparents and make Aimee grovel in apology for eternity for her father's acts.

wd the Greens

[Peter]

I really do think taking public nuisances off the street is within the purview of the police. And beggars are an unsightly, noisome nuisance, aren't they? Personally, I'm always terrified that one might :shudder: touch me. Ick.

I am more annoyed by charity chuggers to be honest. Bucket shaking ****s asking for money or my bank details for some strange charity that probably spends 40% of its income on 'lobbying' MPs over lunch.

They never move those ****s along do they. Far easier to pick on the pissed bloke with no shoes.

**** the Police!

[Viva Prat Vegas]

One assumes that Peter's harassment by that Cop who's taken a dim view of him is continuing asunder

[IUFG]

**** the Police!

Tha.
:music:

[barrybueno]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-45301449

I hope he ends up ****ing homeless, the condescending ****....

Luke is the only complete **** in that story P

[Peter]

One assumes that Peter's harassment by that Cop who's taken a dim view of him is continuing asunder

No, that **** has gone quiet for three weeks when I challenged him to interview me under caution. He knows he can't do this because as soon as he does, and I raise all the issues about criminal damage, he can no longer ignore it.

He said he would be forced to arrest me if I didnt come in for a chat (another bluff) and I told him he had no grounds nor need to arrest me and that I was happy to attend a voluntary interview at any time or place of his choosing. Not hear a word for nearly a month. ****!

[Burney]

Ahh, so she's somehow complicit in her father's "despicable sex crimes against children".

Well at least for consistency, 'they' should now go around the houses of the wider family and tear down photographs of her dad, his parents and grandparents and make Aimee grovel in apology for eternity for her father's acts.

wd the Greens

Well in fact he did know what his dad was charged with when he made him election agent - and there was a conviction for animal cruelty. Equally, having a bloke who rapes little girls while wearing a dress (as this link makes clear https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sick-pervert-abused-10-year-15060652 ) going around campaigning for his in-no-way-completely-mental son who wears a dress and advocating that people like that ought to be allowed into female-only changing spaces, toilets, etc is a really fvcking bad look, don't you think?

[IUFG]

Well in fact he did know what his dad was charged with when he made him election agent - and there was a conviction for animal cruelty. Equally, having a bloke who rapes little girls while wearing a dress (as this link makes clear https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sick-pervert-abused-10-year-15060652 ) going around campaigning for his in-no-way-completely-mental son who wears a dress and advocating that people like that ought to be allowed into female-only changing spaces, toilets, etc is a really fvcking bad look, don't you think?

Well, that behaviour is in no way normal or acceptable to a civilised society. And quite rightly, he gets called a 'monster', etc and thrown in jail for 22 years.

But!; wearing a dress, pretending to be something your not, believing you are another gender and using non-gender specific utilities is perfectly fine, b.

[Burney]

Well, that behaviour is in no way normal or acceptable to a civilised society. And quite rightly, he gets called a 'monster', etc and thrown in jail for 22 years.

But!; wearing a dress, pretending to be something your not, believing you are another gender and using non-gender specific utilities is perfectly fine, b.

Yes. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that a pervert who likes to dress up as a female has a son who also likes to dress up as a female. I'm sure it's not a dysfunctional family or anything.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

I really do think taking public nuisances off the street is within the purview of the police. And beggars are an unsightly, noisome nuisance, aren't they? Personally, I'm always terrified that one might :shudder: touch me. Ick.

You can take a nuisance off the street. It if for Parl to decide what constitutes a nuisance - burglars, rapists etc - and the ordinances against said nuisances are called laws, which the Filth then act on.

If you don't agree with that, you're basically putting yourself in a position where loads of Sperz fans could come into your boozer and claim it was you, not they, who were being a nuisance and demand the Pigs take you away.

Or do you believe that, in the event of two groups calling the other a nuisance, they shouldn't take the largest group's word, they should basically support whoever seems in the socio-economic class closest to a Berni?

If so, you calling for a private police state built around your own personal prejudices.

[Monty92]

Yes. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that a pervert who likes to dress up as a female has a son who also likes to dress up as a female. I'm sure it's not a dysfunctional family or anything.

I'm trying to think what a steel-manning of your argument here would look like.

I guess it would be something along the lines of "This is an isolated case and to describe those involved in such generalising terms - 'people like that' - is to entirely mischaracterise and demonise the entire trans community, which already faces appalling levels of discrimination, persecution and stigmatisation."

[IUFG]

I'm trying to think what a steel-manning of your argument here would look like.

I guess it would be something along the lines of "This is an isolated case and to describe those involved in such generalising terms - 'people like that' - is to entirely mischaracterise and demonise the entire Jewish community, which already faces appalling levels of discrimination, persecution and stigmatisation."

you could change one word in that paragraph to anything imo . . .

[Burney]

I'm trying to think what a steel-manning of your argument here would look like.

I guess it would be something along the lines of "This is an isolated case and to describe those involved in such generalising terms - 'people like that' - is to entirely mischaracterise and demonise the entire trans community, which already faces appalling levels of discrimination, persecution and stigmatisation."

Meh. If you're a bloke and like dressing up as a girl and trying to pretend you actually are a girl, you're a fvcking deviant, probably mental and likely to be a sex case. These things are self-evident, m.

[Burney]

You can take a nuisance off the street. It if for Parl to decide what constitutes a nuisance - burglars, rapists etc - and the ordinances against said nuisances are called laws, which the Filth then act on.

If you don't agree with that, you're basically putting yourself in a position where loads of Sperz fans could come into your boozer and claim it was you, not they, who were being a nuisance and demand the Pigs take you away.

Or do you believe that, in the event of two groups calling the other a nuisance, they shouldn't take the largest group's word, they should basically support whoever seems in the socio-economic class closest to a Berni?

If so, you calling for a private police state built around your own personal prejudices.

It's not about having a vote, though, is it? It's societal norms that have evolved over centuries. The social contract, if you will. If you choose to exist outside that contract, you've got it coming.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

It's not about having a vote, though, is it? It's societal norms that have evolved over centuries. The social contract, if you will. If you choose to exist outside that contract, you've got it coming.

Homeless and begging were societal norms since the end of feudalism, and almost certainly before.

We gradually stamped that out for a 40 year period after the second world war, but then your tribe flogged off all the council houses, called them all scroungers, introduced austerity etc etc etc and low and behold, they've come back.

To say the societal norms on average over the last 2-3 (or more) centuries don't involve homelessness and begging is bøllocks.

And societal norms are different for different social groups. I'd imagine you and a group of geordie chavs on a hen night have a different concept of what is acceptable behaviour.

[Sir C]

Homeless and begging were societal norms since the end of feudalism, and almost certainly before.

We gradually stamped that out for a 40 year period after the second world war, but then your tribe flogged off all the council houses, called them all scroungers, introduced austerity etc etc etc and low and behold, they've come back.

To say the societal norms on average over the last 2-3 (or more) centuries don't involve homelessness and begging is bøllocks.

And societal norms are different for different social groups. I'd imagine you and a group of geordie chavs on a hen night have a different concept of what is acceptable behaviour.

Wait, there was no homelessness of begging between 1945 and 1985?

Where do you learn this shít? Is there some special school of leftiness where you leave your brain at the door and get injected with a cranium full of reatrded gibberish?

Forgive my intemperate tone; I have, I fear, become subjected to far too many leftist lies and they have started to grate more than they ought. I must delete Twitter and stop reading The Guardian.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Wait, there was no homelessness of begging between 1945 and 1985?

Where do you learn this shít? Is there some special school of leftiness where you leave your brain at the door and get injected with a cranium full of reatrded gibberish?

Forgive my intemperate tone; I have, I fear, become subjected to far too many leftist lies and they have started to grate more than they ought. I must delete Twitter and stop reading The Guardian.

F¨ck off, C. I thought you were better than that.

"Gradually stamped out" doesn't mean disappeared over night, does it?

It means it was prioritised and more progress than previously was made, meaning levels of both begging and homelessness began to fall.

This is shown by the post war consensus - WC agreeing to keep the NHS etc - which allowed the poor to happily vote for SuperMac etc.

Obv, WW2 with its bombing and the Cold War with it's threat of Commie revolution played a part in both sides agreeing to build loads of houses.

Indeed it was something the parties competed on, like NHS spending today.

This changed in the '80s, for whatever reason. (And personally, unlike any of my fellow lefty mates, I think the unions brought it on themselves.)

But Maggie sold off the council houses without rebuilding them, and created that greed is good mentality in place of a society she didn't believe existed.

I could go on about Blair and coalition austerity but I'm not writing a thesis.

But if you can't understand what "Gradually stamped out" means in simple, fücking English, then I worry about you, mate.

[Sir C]

F¨ck off, C. I thought you were better than that.

"Gradually stamped out" doesn't mean disappeared over night, does it?

It means it was prioritised and more progress than previously was made, meaning levels of both begging and homelessness began to fall.

This is shown by the post war consensus - WC agreeing to keep the NHS etc - which allowed the poor to happily vote for SuperMac etc.

Obv, WW2 with its bombing and the Cold War with it's threat of Commie revolution played a part in both sides agreeing to build loads of houses.

Indeed it was something the parties competed on, like NHS spending today.

This changed in the '80s, for whatever reason. (And personally, unlike any of my fellow lefty mates, I think the unions brought it on themselves.)

But Maggie sold off the council houses without rebuilding them, and created that greed is good mentality in place of a society she didn't believe existed.

I could go on about Blair and coalition austerity but I'm not writing a thesis.

But if you can't understand what "Gradually stamped out" means in simple, fücking English, then I worry about you, mate.

It wasn't grasually stamped out. At times it was reduced, at other times it increased.

Here's a thing I don't understand - and I see it often. "Maggie sold off the council houses without rebuilding them," This suggests that once a house is sold it ceases to be a, well, house. Whether owned by the council, a housing association, an owner occupier or a landlord, it is still a house wherein people live. It doesn't disappear. If Maggie had demolished council houses without rebuilding them, your argument would make sense. Sadly, it doesn't.

You realise that the 'greed is good' mentality at which you love to sneer is what has lifted vast swathes of the earth's population out of abject misery since Thatcher and Reagan defeated communism and ushered in an era of free trade, d0 you? I mean, considering what 'greed is good' has done to India compared with the wasted years of socialism post independence suggests that whilst leftist principles are all well and good, they're generally paid for by the suffering of the poor starving populace.

[Burney]

F¨ck off, C. I thought you were better than that.

"Gradually stamped out" doesn't mean disappeared over night, does it?

It means it was prioritised and more progress than previously was made, meaning levels of both begging and homelessness began to fall.

This is shown by the post war consensus - WC agreeing to keep the NHS etc - which allowed the poor to happily vote for SuperMac etc.

Obv, WW2 with its bombing and the Cold War with it's threat of Commie revolution played a part in both sides agreeing to build loads of houses.

Indeed it was something the parties competed on, like NHS spending today.

This changed in the '80s, for whatever reason. (And personally, unlike any of my fellow lefty mates, I think the unions brought it on themselves.)

But Maggie sold off the council houses without rebuilding them, and created that greed is good mentality in place of a society she didn't believe existed.

I could go on about Blair and coalition austerity but I'm not writing a thesis.

But if you can't understand what "Gradually stamped out" means in simple, fücking English, then I worry about you, mate.

No. What happened in the 1980s was that the inefficient, uncompetitive mass employment industries of the north, Wales and Midlands closed. The post-war consensus was predicated on mass employment, which was no longer economically viable. This meant that large numbers of young people descended on the cities and - most importantly - London in search of their fortunes. As has always been the case, some of these young people fell between the cracks and got chewed up and spat out as homeless.

So what in fact took place was an economic and demographic shift whose inevitable consequence was a rise in numbers of homeless.

And you're confusing a perpetual anomaly with a societal norm. They're not the same thing at all.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

It wasn't grasually stamped out. At times it was reduced, at other times it increased.

Here's a thing I don't understand - and I see it often. "Maggie sold off the council houses without rebuilding them," This suggests that once a house is sold it ceases to be a, well, house. Whether owned by the council, a housing association, an owner occupier or a landlord, it is still a house wherein people live. It doesn't disappear. If Maggie had demolished council houses without rebuilding them, your argument would make sense. Sadly, it doesn't.

You realise that the 'greed is good' mentality at which you love to sneer is what has lifted vast swathes of the earth's population out of abject misery since Thatcher and Reagan defeated communism and ushered in an era of free trade, d0 you? I mean, considering what 'greed is good' has done to India compared with the wasted years of socialism post independence suggests that whilst leftist principles are all well and good, they're generally paid for by the suffering of the poor starving populace.

Come off it, C.

That isn't why I flipped.

Had you wanted to discuss history, then fine. Got a 1st in it - know it ain't all black and white.

But you claimed I'd said or implied that "there was no homelessness of begging between 1945 and 1985?" and as such, I was one of those bogstandard fückwitted leftiies, when I am, in fact, a very superior class of lefty who hates my own side as much as you Tories.

But to continue. How many begging homeless soldiers did we have in the '20s? Lots. Why so many less in the 40s? (And yes I do know the relative casulaty stats. Use pot-Waterloo, if you'd prefer.)

I was at the LSE '89-92 and there were no beggars on the Tottenham Court Road r anywhere central back then. Went there last year and was so, so shocked to see all these homeless beggars bedding down in the furniture shop doorways at 7pm.

Next - you really don't understand about social housing. If a council has loads, it can put a crippled junkie soldier in a flat for no cost to itself and it's rate payers. But if they got sold at a discount, to those who then flog them to property developers and pocket the cash, then rent goes up almost double and therefore it costs too much to house the homeless.

And you don't have to preach to me about free trade. Where have you ever seen me criticise it. I'm a Cain and Hopkins junkie. (Google Gentlemanly Capitalism if you haven't read it. One of the most important works in economic imperialism.)

And while you do need free trade, you do not need "greed is good" to eradicate poverty. cf Scandi countries.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

No. What happened in the 1980s was that the inefficient, uncompetitive mass employment industries of the north, Wales and Midlands closed. The post-war consensus was predicated on mass employment, which was no longer economically viable. This meant that large numbers of young people descended on the cities and - most importantly - London in search of their fortunes. As has always been the case, some of these young people fell between the cracks and got chewed up and spat out as homeless.

So what in fact took place was an economic and demographic shift whose inevitable consequence was a rise in numbers of homeless.

And you're confusing a perpetual anomaly with a societal norm. They're not the same thing at all.

But they didn't end up as homeless in '80s London, B.

Some got given council flats. People of my persuasion squatted.

You could argue that the C21st wealth of London meaning squats are worth tons to the council is to blame for homelessness. But that's crap. Most of us squatters were resourceful, middle-class, graduate types who could go back to mummy, anyway.

I am not confusing an anomaly, because the end of industry was early 80s and admittedly played out during that decade. We didn't see the effects on homeless until a decade or more later. For various reasons.

Again, there wasn't homelessness in London during my 2nd year when Maggie left. It didn't seem to come back until the time of the crash - when suddenly belts had to be tightened and the lack of social housing began to bite.

[Sir C]

Come off it, C.

That isn't why I flipped.

Had you wanted to discuss history, then fine. Got a 1st in it - know it ain't all black and white.

But you claimed I'd said or implied that "there was no homelessness of begging between 1945 and 1985?" and as such, I was one of those bogstandard fückwitted leftiies, when I am, in fact, a very superior class of lefty who hates my own side as much as you Tories.

But to continue. How many begging homeless soldiers did we have in the '20s? Lots. Why so many less in the 40s? (And yes I do know the relative casulaty stats. Use pot-Waterloo, if you'd prefer.)

I was at the LSE '89-92 and there were no beggars on the Tottenham Court Road r anywhere central back then. Went there last year and was so, so shocked to see all these homeless beggars bedding down in the furniture shop doorways at 7pm.

Next - you really don't understand about social housing. If a council has loads, it can put a crippled junkie soldier in a flat for no cost to itself and it's rate payers. But if they got sold at a discount, to those who then flog them to property developers and pocket the cash, then rent goes up almost double and therefore it costs too much to house the homeless.

And you don't have to preach to me about free trade. Where have you ever seen me criticise it. I'm a Cain and Hopkins junkie. (Google Gentlemanly Capitalism if you haven't read it. One of the most important works in economic imperialism.)

And while you do need free trade, you do not need "greed is good" to eradicate poverty. cf Scandi countries.

Come along g, I was just yanking your chain a little. I am aware that you are entirely different kettle of fish to the silly ones.

In truth, I cannot remember a London without some homeless types - from the tramps of my youth in the late 60s and early 70s to the junkies of today, it seems to me that they have always been with us, just to a slightly larger or lesser degree.

There are fewer examples of greedy bástards than Scandis, in my opinion. Have you seen how those fúcker's live, man?