just lol. They were a few crimes, nothing major, and nobody in London really cared or seemed to be affected. Please stop spreading FUD.
> I'm also quite shocked you don't notice the homeless in London
Have you been to San Francisco, Chicago or LA? There is really no comparison.
And yes, I have been to SF and LA. I have walked through the tent cities and seen the people defecating in the streets. That was never the question, and your whataboutery is not constructive.
ಠ_ಠ
I have lived in London, Newcastle, Sydney, Gothenburg, Stockholm, Warsaw, and Gdansk.
I have travelled the world most of my life, and I now perpetually travel, more or less living out of a suitcase. I have long-stayed in six different countries this year alone.
Refrain from sharing your opinions online unless you actually know what you're talking about. Clearly, you don't.
If your point was that San Francisco has more homeless, or that Chicago is more violent, well, I never disputed that did I?
That's not because a lot of people break their neck walking up stairs, it's because how disproportionate and irrational the response to the terror scare is.
If news reported on every case of people dying a preventable death while utilizing something we have learned to build in a safer manner by now, they'd do little else.
It just isn't as flashy as people blowing up.
About 12,000 people die each year falling down stairs in the US alone.
Going by these numbers the proportionate response would be to spend at least a trillion dollars each year for a war on unsafe stairs.
A war on cancer on the other hand would eat up more than the US's GDP if it was to be in any way propotionate to the cost of lives.
Either would be more effective than the war on terror or the surveillance state at saving lives though.