NYTimes Sends American Tourists to One of England's Most Dangerous Areas for 'Hip' Vacation


One would think that The New York Times is purposefully putting American's in harm's way with its latest travel section vacation suggestion. If it isn't doing it on purpose, it certainly is acting almost criminally negligent over its reader's safety abroad. Back on March 22, the Times suggested that Americans vacation in Deptford, one of England's most dangerous, crime infested areas. And why would the Times want to send Americans into such a seedy and dangerous place? Because it's "hip," man. What else?

The suggestion by the NYTimes for American tourists to visit Deptford brought all manners of jaw-dropping, guffaws from the British press this week. The disbelief is thick over there because Deptford has some of the highest crimes stats in the country -- the tenth most violent according to Britain's Home Office -- and Britons simply cannot fathom why The New York Times would willingly send Americans unawares into the heart of such violence and crime.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

According to the Mirror, Deptford had "8,376 violent offences committed against people in Deptford's borough Lewisham." And worse: "The figure includes four murders, 1,674 robberies, 135 gun crimes and 101 rapes."

Sheese. 135 "gun crimes" in a country that has banned guns! And the Times is sending Americans into that maelstrom? And what is the Times' reason for touting this hell hole?

The coming of New Cross and Deptford has been predicted for some time. It won’t be an easy ride. The area lies in an inglorious corner of southeast London; those with well-cushioned sensibilities need not make the journey. But with the unpolished location comes that most heady of urban ingredients: an edge. For now, these neighboring districts still feel more like eccentric outposts than uncut diamonds.

Until the well-washed masses start arriving in larger numbers, this still feels a bit like London’s Wild West (southeast, actually), a boisterous concoction of blue-collar aesthetics and intermittent hipsterism. Perhaps some of the chaos will make it to the other side.

The Times may be quipping about "well-washed masses" but its description of Deptford seems more like a white-washed missive to residents of the area. One resident told the Mirror, "All I can say is I hope they like hoodies, muggers and junkies - there are enough of them here." The Mirror even quotes a local official, Deptford councillor Heidi Alexander, wondering what is going on at the Times. "It does seem a bit bizarre," she said.

The Daily Mail also finds the Times' suggestion a tad on the unbelievable side.

All very flattering for Deptford. But a little puzzling for some of the folk who live there, it seems. Cynics pointed out the community is chain-free (security gates on store fronts) largely because many of the shops are boarded up. And when the article says the area has 'an edge', the first thought of many was that it meant a knife edge.

For its part, the Daily Telegraph found several more residents of Deptford that were flabbergasted by the Times' ballyhooing of the crime infested neighborhood.

Mechanic David Ferndale, 33, added: "I would seriously recommend any American thinking of booking up an expensive trip over here to Google the place first. "Have a look at the local paper – there are stabbings and shootings all the time."

So what gives? Why is the Times so keen to sell this violence plagued area as a tourist's haven? One can only imagine that the Times' desire to be "cool" and "hip" takes precedence over its desire to keep its vacationing patrons safe!

Of course, maybe with all those belt-tightening measures going on at the Times, maybe they don't get Google?


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Shootings in a country in

Shootings in a country in which guns are banned notwithstanding, if there are stabbings 'all the time', the Brits better get rid of knives, too.

NYT wants us dead

You really have to understand their mentality, the NYT wants Americans dead. After they released U.S. government secrets to our enemies it was quite clear who's side they were on. The real question is why the NYT head guy hasn't been convicted for treason? What's up with that?

What a Great Idea!

Imagine; the NYT is sending its readers to a location where they might encounter the wrong end of a knife in thier search for "hip".

One might consider the "Thinning the herd" potential as almost amusing.  And, look at the bright side, a major vehicle of the MSM has discovered a new/novel way to further reduce their readers and continue their slide to oblivion.

Can I just point out that

Can I just point out that gun crime includes imitation weapons, and Britian hasn't banned all guns - just hand guns.

 Also thought US had banned drugs, how's that working out for you?  No drugs at all on your streets? Thought not.

Ban this

Gosh, you just proved what all conservatives knew all along, writing laws that ban things won't change behavior. Gun laws and drug laws don't work.

D

Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.

Well that can be applied to

Well that can be applied to every law ever written.  Shall we just scrap them all?

You are correct Amies. Laws

You are correct Amies. Laws written by man are essentially worthless except to provide for post facto punishment. People have a responsibility to themselves and families to provide for their own protection before the fact. This includes physical protection. Are you big and strong enough to defend against a 300lb, drug addled maniac bent on rape and murder? Thought not!!. Look into a handgun for your own protection, a phone call to the police will just enable them to get to the crime scene while your body is still warm. Take responsibility for your life. Try excercising your God given Constitutional  Rights. You may find you like freedom.

~nada

Try excercising your God given Constitutional  Rights.

She's not an American, doesn't have any.

 

That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel. 

Actually I do

I'm Irish, I do.

Well actually I have dual nationality with Britain (yes I know Britain doesn't have a constitution) 

And that's before the European Laws are considered

EDIT: and god didn't give me any of these rights thank you.

 

~Constitutional rights

Nada was referring to an American's Constitutional right of armed self-defense.

This is the Irish version.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Personal Rights

Article 40

1.    All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal
before the law.

This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its
enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and
of social function.

2.    1° Titles of nobility shall not be conferred by the
State.

2° No title of nobility or of honour may be accepted by any citizen
except with the prior approval of the Government.

3.    1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect,
and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal
rights of the citizen.

2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may
from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life,
person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with
due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to
respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that
right.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State
and another state.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available,
in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law,
information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

4.    1° No citizen shall be deprived of his personal
liberty save in accordance with law.

2° Upon complaint being made by or on behalf of any person to the High Court or
any judge thereof alleging that such person is being unlawfully detained, the
High Court and any and every judge thereof to whom such complaint is made shall
forthwith enquire into the said complaint and may order the person in whose
custody such person is detained to produce the body of such person before the
High Court on a named day and to certify in writing the grounds of his
detention, and the High Court shall, upon the body of such person being
produced before that Court and after giving the person in whose custody he is
detained an opportunity of justifying the detention, order the release of such
person from such detention unless satisfied that he is being detained in
accordance with the law.

3° Where the body of a person alleged to be unlawfully detained is
produced before the High Court in pursuance of an order in that behalf made
under this section and that Court is satisfied that such person is being
detained in accordance with a law but that such law is invalid having regard to
the provisions of this Constitution, the High Court shall refer the question of
the validity of such law to the Supreme Court by way of case stated and may, at
the time of such reference or at any time thereafter, allow the said person to
be at liberty on such bail and subject to such conditions as the High Court
shall fix until the Supreme Court has determined the question so referred to
it.

4° The High Court before which the body of a person alleged to be
unlawfully detained is to be produced in pursuance of an order in that behalf
made under this section shall, if the President of the High Court or, if he is
not available, the senior judge of that Court who is available so directs in
respect of any particular case, consist of three judges and shall, in every
other case, consist of one judge only.

5° Nothing in this section, however, shall be invoked to prohibit,
control, or interfere with any act of the Defence Forces during the existence
of a state of war or armed rebellion.

6° Provision may be made by law for the refusal of bail by a court to a person
charged with a serious offence where it is reasonably considered necessary to
prevent the commission of a serious offence by that person.

5.    The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and
shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law.

6.    1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of
the following rights, subject to public order and morality:

                              
i.           
The right of the
citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave
import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of
public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving
their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy,
shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the
State.

The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent
matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

                           
ii.           
The right of the
citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms.

Provision may be made by law to prevent or control meetings which are
determined in accordance with law to be calculated to cause a breach of the
peace or to be a danger or nuisance to the general public and to prevent or
control meetings in the vicinity of either House of the Oireachtas.

                         
iii.           
The right of the
citizens to form associations and unions.

Laws, however, may be enacted for the regulation and control in the public
interest of the exercise of the foregoing right.

2° Laws regulating the manner in which the right of forming
associations and unions and the right of free assembly may be exercised shall
contain no political, religious or class discrimination.

So the "State" defends your personal rights. That is the opposite of our Consitution. (and what nadadhimmi was talking about) I like all the provisions for the unborn.

 

That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel. 

I know my

I know my constitution.

This one: The State guarantees in its laws to respect,
and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

Refers to matters in the Law courts.

On this point: "The right of the
citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms."

Please consider the history of Ireland (and that this constituation is technically for the entire island) and consider why large groups of armed people may not be allowed to assemble freely.  And are you telling me that in the US a large group of armed people can
form an assembley without proir notice and warning to anyone.

Also this constitution was created in 1921, I am sure the US constitution would look very different if it was only 88 years old

 

 

 

~There is nothing in our Constitution

That prohibits armed citizens from peaceable assembly. But this is beside the point. Nadadhimmi based his comment to you on the assumption that you were an American citizen, with American rights. I let him know that you are not an American.

That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel. 

I was enjoying the

I was enjoying the constitutional discussion.

Britain is unusal in its lack of constituation, think it dissappeared at the long parliment and was over written by the magna carta

amies: I think the point

amies:

I think the point you miss is that weapons are vital to a revolutionary based constitutional governemtn such as either of ours(US and Irish) .

Both countries people effectively won their freedom during revolutionary wars using an armed population.  It is just that threat of an armed population that keeps its government in check.

The US founders understood the revolutionary nature of an armed public keeping the government in check and enshrined the armed populous in the 2nd Amendment.  That armed population, capable of rising at a moments notice to conduct another armed revolution against a tyranical government was key to founders such as Jefferson.  Jefferson's view of a peoples control over their government and protection of God given liberties was diametrically opposite to the view that rights were bestowed by the government on the people.

In comparison, the IRA sought to manipulate itself into sole control  following their successful revolt against the British with no possibility of a popular revolt against itself and left such an article out of Irelands constitution.  THey also view rights as descending from the government.  In other words, they own the populous raher than the populous controlling the government.

 

Who did?

If God didn't give you any of those rights, who did?

In Ireland?  Technically it

In Ireland?  Technically it was the IRA

just hand guns

amies, hand guns are the guns most people use for protection. I think Ted Nugent said it best...

So why in God's good name would any human being wish to force unarmed helplessness on another? That level of cruel indecency and forced victimization is incomprehensible to me and about 100,000,000 Americans who own guns.

As far as improper drug use goes it is a moral problem and as with any good vs evil situation there is no winning. But if you don't fight you lose.

I would say that improper

I would say that improper gun use is also a moral problem

Out of intrest on the drug thing ever seen the Portugal experimant results?

Of course

Of course you do. As do I. But the difference between us is that YOU think your morals superior to all around you and that YOU should be able to dictate if they should be "allowed" to defend themselves.

So, yes it is a moral debate. Yours are decidedly immoral, however.

I will have to say, though, that your unconcern with human rights is a good reason why Britain died several decades ago. It will not return. It is long dead. It died when it gave up its morals.

Be sure and visit my home blog PubliusForum.com.

Britain never had a gun

Britain never had a gun cultiure, it's police still aren't armed.  As for Britain dying, blame Thatcher.

I am concerned with human rights, my main concern is the right to life.   

How am I morally superior?  You believe your morals are so perfect you can have all the guns you want.

Britain never had a gun culture?

What kind of nonsense is that?  What are you, 8?  How can there be a ban of something that, according to you, didn't exist?

Do you have access to history books?  Have you done any research before posting nonsense?

~Fun Facts

1825: Percussion-cap guns invented by Reverend John Forsyth -
firing mechanism no longer uses flash pan, a tube lead straight into
the gun barrel, the tube had an exposive cap on it that exploded when
struck

Puckle Gun - 1718
In 1718, James Puckle of London, England,
demonstrated his new invention, the "Puckle Gun," a tripod-mounted,
single-barreled flintlock gun fitted with a multishot revolving
cylinder.

 

 

 

 

That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel. 

british guns

Also remember the British never had a problem taking their guns and going somewhere else and blowing the heck out of whoever was there but those were just the 'good old days' when they were a world power and were not slowly losing their culture to the religion of peace because of reproduction and immigration laws.

Before guns they did a good job with bow-and-arrows and swords.

A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections

Yeah...

"...it's police still aren't armed."

You don't really believe THAT one do you?

Be sure and visit my home blog PubliusForum.com.

supporting link

See Life of Crime part 7. The BBC tells us that guns are being given to the police. And so it begins.

right!

Whistles are way more efficient against criminals!

That and lots of appologies and rehabilitation fight crime very well.

 

"stop, or......I'll say stop again!"

improper gun use

amies, Like improper drug use, improper gun use makes you a criminal. I'm glad you agree that doing the wrong thing is wrong. So I would urge you to use your gun properly to defend yourself and family so you don't become a victim.

I don't know about Portugal, but I remember the pictures of heroin addicts in Britain waiting for people to bring them another fix. And then there's the Netherlands where they pay people to be non-contributers. Does the "Portugal experimental results" show increased responsibility, better decision making, or improved work performance?

The Protugal experiment

"Does the "Portugal experimental results" show increased responsibility, better decision making, or improved work performance?"

Don't think they looked at those stats.

What they DID look at was after 6 years of  drug decriminalization drug use FELL, Significantly.

Of course Amsterdam Pot use has for some time now been lower than in the USA (per capita). 

 

the numbers

Ok, you made me look it up, here are the numbers.

  • lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. (a 33% drop!!!)
  • lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). (a 25% drop!)
  • new HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half.
  • the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well. (150% increase in people seeking treatment!)

Drug use is down, HIV infections are down but the last point answers my question...

"Does the "Portugal experimental results" show increased responsibility, better decision making, or improved work performance?"

With a 150% increase in people seeking drug abuse treatment the answer has to be a resounding NO. It's wonderful they have the funding to help the peoples lives they have destroyed. Treatment is so much better than prevention. lol

improper gun use....

By definition, improper gun use is what criminals would practice, right?  So crime is a moral problem, not guns.

Proper gun use is what armed law-abiding citizens would practice to defend themselves and their families against criminals.  Of course there's also hunting and target shooting.

What do you consider improper gun use, other than what criminals practice?

My favorite section of the

My favorite section of the National Rifleman is the page of the newspaper clips of people, around the country, that have either held at gun point, shot and wounded, or shot and killed would be assailents.

You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?

The NYT is simply trying to

The NYT is simply trying to help Americans achieve, in the eyes of liberals, the highest status available in the world today: VICTIMHOOD.

Times staff should get steep discounts, take their friends!

I can think of other MSM that should get steep discounts to vacation in, well, several other "hot" spots around the world.  If they make it back, they can write all about it, and invite their other MSM friends over too!

 

How irresponsible of the Times

Why send the folks abroad (spending $ and depriving an American funeral home of business) when there are some great one-tank-trips into the belly of New York City and Philly. And lets not forget the garden spots of East LA and Compton.

Actually one-tank trips should read one-way trips.

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Mark Twain

Who reads the NYT?

Really, who reads it? The loony left, correct? So if the Times is sending their reader into violent areas and their reader are loony left wing liberals then what's the problem? I don't see one.

I can think of a couple of other places the NYT's can send it's readers like the Somali coast or Darfur... they might want to pack a lunch and take Mia Farrow with them. Just a thought.  

 

http://www.davart.ne...
The Angry White Guy Blog

I'm curious

would the area they are trying to send American tourists also be an area inhabited by "angry youths?"

I've never been to England but I can imagine the P.C. of the NYT.

amies;

If your rights didn't come from God, where did they come from?

If you follow the concept/model desired by government, i.e., that rights are granted by the government, it makes it a little easier for that government to manufacture a crisis (or other excuse) to take those rights away.  [I am sure that more articulate folks will explain this point better.]

Our Declaration of Independence explains why our Founding Fathers took the actions they did, which included High Treason against King George III, with the signing of that Declaration.

As they explained it...

…”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”…

As they knew what tyranny was (the unfettered behavior of people in power, when there were no checks-and-balances), the concept of God-granted rights (also referred to by some as Natural Law) was supposed to provide an additional layer of protection from human nature at its worst.

The fact that the Declaration of Independence (and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) were written by flawed men and the fact that we haven't achieved all of the goals stated doesn't render these important documents null and void.  We are a work in progress.

Socialism (in all of its forms) cannot deliver the Utopia it promises.  Despite our mistakes during our history, nothing bad we have done (as far as the 20th century goes) can hold a candle to the human blood spilled by the socialist tyrants of the 20th century.

NY Times

Are we surprised?

It's a liberal mouthpiece of the left. - Useless

It's editorial policy is Left. - Useless

They got caught on several occasions making up fictitious stories - Making their investigative purpose - Useless

If you can't depend on other sections of this paper, what do you have - A useless, dinosaur.

Unfortunately we know it's only a matter of time when the Libs vote to bail out this rag. It's a shame at one time this was a good paper, not anymore and our hard earned tax dollars will be wasted yet again.