# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Suits can look deceivingly similar on the surface. Typically, there's a jacket, a pair of pants, a shirt, and a tie or bowtie. Suits can seem so basic that it's easy to assume that only the Don Drapers and David Beckhams of the world can pull them off because maybe they're just born with "the look" for it. However, you don't have to be a high-powered executive or a professional athlete to pull off a great looking suit. Knowing how to wear a suit and making it look good is easily within your reach.

The fit of a suit is the foundation on which to complete the rest of your look. If you have a jacket that feels suffocating to button up or pants that sag, factors such as materials, style, and colors can't really save you.

Once you see a proper suit compared to an ill-fitting one, the little details will start to stand out to you. These subtle details of a suit can add up to have a dramatic impact on the final appearance. Follow these 23 essential suit rules so you can wear a suit and style it with confidence.

Share this Image On Your Site

Once you get the fit of the suit down, you can start putting together the remaining details of your outfit. Of course your shoes and haircut matter too, but you want to start considering details like accessories. Following our rules above, you want to keep accessories from getting too busy. Consider a tie bar, pocket square, and some cool sunglasses for an easy combination, but don't add a ton more just because you have it on hand!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
23 Essential Suit Rules For Men - Sunglass Warehouse Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Suits can look deceivingly similar on the surface. Typically, there's a jacket, a pair of pants, a shirt, and a tie or bowtie. Suits can seem so basic that it's easy to assume that only the Don Drapers and David Beckhams of the world can pull them off because maybe they're just born with "the look" for it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Any doubts? Start with a simple alteration before asking for more complex changes.

2. Shoulder responsibiity

Before buying your suit on the high street or online, always try it at your nearest retailer first to ensure the shoulders fit. This is the single most important consideration: even the best tailor in the world will struggle if you get this wrong.

A good suit should be snug about your shoulders, not slouch off them.

3. Think silhouette

"You can tell a good suit from 50 yards off," says Grant. "The trousers should be slim, the shoulders narrow, the waist nipped."

This is the fit you're after, so grab your suit and keep it in mind as you head to the tailor's.

4. Taper, taper, taper

Most off-the-rack suit jackets and blazers are not tapered at the waist. Ideally yours should contour to your body, so ask your tailor to nip it in at the sides, creating a "V" effect. This will also serve to accentuate your shoulders.

5. Don't forget your overcoat

Remember, people see your coat before they see your suit. This too can be tapered at the waist to improve your silhouette, while large lapels can be slimmed down for a more fashion-forward look.

6. Wind your neck in

Look in a mirror: how does the fabric lie from the base of your neck down to your shoulderblades. There should not be a roll of fabric bulging along the base of your neck. If there is, the tailor should correct it.

7. Button up

Buttons are an easy way to improve the look of your jacket or coat. Simply changing their size or colour can have a positive effect, while a tailor can also advise on whether they could be moved: lower buttons can create a longer, slimming torso.

8. Get the sleeves right

"It's a relatively straightforward alteration to change sleeve lengths, and it can change the look of a jacket completely," says Grant.

Having a tailor slightly narrow your sleeves will cut a sharper figure and really help your silhouette. Meanwhile, in terms of length they should reveal about half an inch of shirt cuff - like the frame on an elegant painting.

9. Don't be tempted to shorten your jacket

A suit jacket should come down to the first knuckle on your thumb. Too short (a dangerously popular look at the moment) and you'll automatically look heavy in the middle. You have been warned.

10. Tweak the lapels

Nothing does more to dictate a suit's character than its lapel, but the good news is it's also an easy area for a tailor to hone. It should be about two inches at its widest point for a slick, modern look.

11. Put your best foot forward

Always take a pair of dress shoes with you to the tailor, to get the trousers right. You want very little break at the ankle: your hems should just clip the tops of your shoes, not bunch over them (this will help you look taller too).

12. Obey the bottom line

You shouldn't get a wedgie from your own suit, or look like you're in East 17. If the seat droops, have the tailor take it in. If it's tight, have him let it out.

Congratulations. You're good to go...

This article was written with Mr Mandrogynous in mind. If it appeals to you, chances are you'll love the convenience of the Braun WaterFlex. It lets you shave in the shower at the gym, cutting valuable minutes from your morning routine.

The Men's Lifestyle Guide is a destination for men who follow the motto: look sharp, feel smooth. Divided into the four tribes of Braun, it's a source for personal and customised style advice, lifestyle tips and guides to being awesome. Just take this quiz to decide which tribe you belong to and you'll be on your way to world domination.

Follow this link for more men's lifestyle tips and advice

Prize draw: win a men's lifestyle package "

You may also be interested in:

* Get excited: 2015's must-see movies "

* Laurence Hulse's top fitness tips "

* The 10 best health and fitness apps "

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Any doubts? Start with a simple alteration before asking for more complex changes. 2. Shoulder responsibiity Before buying your suit on the high street or online, always try it at your nearest retailer first to ensure the shoulders fit. This is the single most important consideration: even the best tailor in the world will struggle if you get this wrong.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some designers have more bark than bite. But with their dramatic Fall collection, Kate and Laura Mulleavy proved they have plenty of teeth. And sharp ones.

It was, said Kate, "a continuation of something that started last season." Japan was again the starting point of the sisters' journey, but the happy, shiny, pastel-colored, and manga-inflected confections of Spring gave way to "slasher" dresses in black, white, and bloodred. The Mulleavys turned their imaginations loose on "the connection between the Kabuki tradition and that of modern Japanese horror films." Yes, the gothic knitwear had a torn-web quality, and the torturous, sadomachistic shoes (a reworking of last season's) wrung winces from the audience, but the show was bigger than just that, more ambitious. String sculptures by the German-American artist Eva Hesse gave birth to the shaggy pieces with a primitive rag-doll look. Romantic, full-skirted cocktail numbers looked like they could have been painted by the Impressionist Edgar Degas.

The sisters-who have a successful Gap collaboration under their belt-are gradually increasing the percentage of daywear in their collections. For Fall there were tailored coats and zip-pocket pants and even (sheer and lustrous) oxford blouses. This is a smart move, not just because it will broaden their retail reach, but because occasions to wear wispy party dresses don't come along every day. But then again, neither does the Mulleavys' extraordinary talent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rodarte Fall 2008 Ready-to-Wear Fashion Show

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some designers have more bark than bite. But with their dramatic Fall collection, Kate and Laura Mulleavy proved they have plenty of teeth. And sharp ones. It was, said Kate, "a continuation of something that started last season."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I came upon Mr Miliband in a corridor. It was at a party: smart, glittery, arty, movey-shakey peeps and me. He was pressed against the wall. I was sidling. Normally, I wouldn't write about this. It wasn't public, it wasn't professional, he wasn't "on". But this isn't intrusive and it's not unpleasant; it's not really about him at all. It was his whistle. I noticed he had on a smarter than usual Labour Party single-breasted two-piece; a slim but not skimpy, fitted but not peaky suit, in a blue that hovered between the RAF and Ella Fitzgerald. He smiled in that way politicians smile at first-person columnists who work for Rupert Murdoch. "Magic flute," I said.

"Oh, it's made by . . ." and he mentioned a modern but Savile Row tailor. Bespoke.

"Mind if I finger your lapel? Yes, you do it."

"What?" He looked nervous.

"Run your finger down the inside of your lapel, just below the buttonhole."

"Ooh, what is it?" he whispered.

"You had no idea, did you? You had no idea you owned a little loop of thread, just above your heart."

"What's it there for?" He was surprised.

"It's for the stem of your poppy, on Remembrance Sunday. All English handmade suits have them. It's one of the little things the establishment adds to snag you."

Suits are malevolent magicians' sleeves for socialists, full of patrician loops and tricks, small, embroidered, cryptic messages of deference and privilege. They are ever the uniform of the enemy. They are also the greatest British invention ever. That's not hyperbole or jingotastic boasting. It's the plain, double-breasted truth. Nothing else that comes from this pathetically stunted island has had anything like the universal acceptance, reach or influence of the suit.

Look at it as if you'd never seen one before. Nothing about it makes sense. It's not practical; it's not particularly comfortable; it doesn't work; it's not decorative; and it doesn't make us look good, rather like the establishment it represents. And, like most things in this place, it arrived through a series of accidents, mistakes, misinterpretations, good intentions, conventions and slovenliness, all of it growing out of radicalism.

The suit is the polite taming, the socialising, the neutering, of riding and military kit. Those pointless buttons on the cuff were moved from lateral to vertical. You used to be able to fold the end of your sleeve over and forward and button it like a mitten, for riding in the cold. Incidentally, the buttons on the cuff should correspond to the number of buttons on the front, not for any practical reason, but just because that's what they should do. The vents at the back are made for sitting on a horse. The slanting pockets are for easy access when mounted. The suit that we wear was, in essence, invented by Beau Brummell - an obsessive, highly strung, socially insecure, thin-skinned aesthete, snob and genius. And, of course, an Etonian. He wanted to simplify the extraordinarily otiose decorative court dress to give men an elegant line. When the bailiffs finally broke into his rooms, they found only a simple deal table with a note that said, archly, "Starch is everything." Beau escaped to France, where people said he looked like an Englishman and he died in an asylum.

We have to thank the members of the Romantic movement for the sober colours of suits. It was their love of the Gothic that put us in grey and black but the suit stuck. It said something and it meant something to men around the world; it said and meant so much that they would discard their local dress, the costumes of millennia, their culture and their link to their ancestors, to dress up like English insurance brokers. There is not a corner of the world where the suit is not the default clobber of power, authority, knowledge, judgement, trust and, most importantly, continuity. The curtained changing rooms of Savile Row welcome the naked knees of the most despotic and murderous, immoral and venal dictators and kleptocrats, who are turned out looking benignly conservative, their sins carefully and expertly hidden, like the little hangman's loops under their lapels.

Radicals have always had a problem with the suit, always underestimated it. They tried to co-opt it as the Sunday best of Methodism, the Saturday night of working-class lads released from overalls, muck and sweat. They wanted the suit to signify the working-class respect for achievement, the rite of passage to grammar and university, wedding and funeral. But the suit is not simply an empty sack, not just a few yards of worsted with some silly buttons. It has an innate opinion. It comes with the power.

Every man imagines that he will turn his suit like a double agent, that it can be twisted to his will with irony or comedy, that the man can undermine its origins. Every chap thinks he's a match for his suit and, every year, clever and witty designers offer a twist, a take, a rejig; but for over 200 years, the suit has remained impervious, maintained its bland menace, kept its implacable secrets uncreased. You think you wear the suit: the suit wears you. It is woven magic, necromancy, the black art that hides in plain sight. No one knows or can say what the spell of the suit is, or how it works, but still it exudes its inoffensive writ.

It is the naivety of young men to believe that it's what they think that is important; that surface and show and fashion are what the established order uses to maintain itself. But just look at those group photographs of powerful men, of left and right, outside conferences and meetings, and see the power of the suit. It's not in the singular but the collective. If there were only one in the world, it would be a mad thing, but its strength comes from the massed ranks, the united power, the union of flannel.

A A Gill's latest book, "A A Gill Is Further Away", is published by Phoenix (£8.99)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A A Gill: Why the suit is the greatest British invention ever

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I came upon Mr Miliband in a corridor. It was at a party: smart, glittery, arty, movey-shakey peeps and me. He was pressed against the wall. I was sidling. Normally, I wouldn't write about this. It wasn't public, it wasn't professional, he wasn't "on".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At first, the term "Savior Complex" may have a positive connotation. However, when you learn more about it and the underlying motivations and impact on others-it is clear that this behavior pattern can be problematic. According to the blog PeopleSkillsDecoded.com, the savior complex can be best defined as "A psychological construct which makes a person feel the need to save other people. This person has a strong tendency to seek people who desperately need help and to assist them, often sacrificing their own needs for these people." Many individuals in who enter into caring professions such as mental health care, health care and even those who have loved ones with addictions may have some of these personality characteristics. They are drawn to those who need "saving" for a variety of reasons. However, their efforts to help others may be of an extreme nature that both deplete them and over-function and possibly enable the other individual. The underlying belief system of these individuals is that "It is the noble thing to do. They believe they are somehow better than others because they help people all the time without getting anything back." While motives may or may not be pure, their actions are not helpful to all involved. The problem is that trying to "save" someone does not allow the other individual to take responsibility for his or her own actions and to develop internal motivation. Therefore, the positive (or negative) changes may only be temporary.

The Second of The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz is "Don't Take Anything Personally." This book chapter and following quotes teach key concepts that may provide helpful guidance for those struggling with savior complex tendencies:
"You are never responsible for the actions of others; you are only responsible for you." "Whatever you think, whatever you feel, I know is your problem and not my problem. It is the way you see the world. It is nothing personal, because you are dealing with yourself, not with me." "Humans are addicted to suffering at different levels and to different degrees, and we support each other in maintaining these addictions" So what are solutions for avoiding falling into the "savior" trap with relationships and clients?

Process emotions with friends, family and/or other staff members

Set boundaries with the other individual or client that allow you to balance caring for them with trying to "save" them

Say "maybe" or "no" before saying yes in order to give yourself time to weigh options

Slow down enough to be mindful of choices

Reach out for support from a therapist or coach in order to receive an objective assessment of your interpersonal issue

Let your loved one, friend and/or client take responsibility for their actions

Do not over-functioning or work harder than your friend, loved one and/or client

Do the best that you can do to support the individual and then "let go" of the results

Redefining "helping" and "caring"

What does "helping" mean to you and for this individual?

Ask questions

Backing off

Simply listening

Offer action steps and coping skills instead of doing the work for them

Ask yourself:

Am I helping this person by avoiding natural consequences?

Am I giving them what they want or what they need?

Is this decision made to keep them "happy" or for their overall health?

Is my action helping them to get better or me to feel better?

Am I being invited to help?

Do I "want" to or have to do this?

What are your fears about not helping and can you challenge them as "False Evidence Appearing Real"?:

The family or others will not like me

People may complain, not be happy or my job may be in jeopardy

I will feel like I am not being effective as a loved one or at my job

I feel like I am not able to help

I am not doing the best that I can?

I am missing something obvious?

For more information or resources on high-functioning alcoholics, please visit www.highfunctioningalcoholic.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At first, the term "Savior Complex" may have a positive connotation. However, when you learn more about it and the underlying motivations and impact on others-it is clear that this behavior pattern can be problematic. According to the blog PeopleSkillsDecoded.com, the savior complex can be best defined as "A psychological construct which makes a person feel the need to save other people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cannibal Lyrics

[Intro]
Rrah
Rrah

[Verse 1]
I have a heart, I swear I do
But just not, baby, when it comes to you
I get so hungry when you say you love me
(Hush) If you know what's good for you
I think you're hot, I think you're cool
You're the kinda guy I'd stalk in school
But now that I'm famous, you're up my anus
Now I'm gonna eat you fool

[Pre-Chorus]
I eat boys up, breakfast and lunch
Then when I'm thirsty, I drink their blood
Carnivore, animal, I am a cannibal
I eat boys up, you better run

[Chorus]
I am cannibal (Cannibal, cannibal, I am)
I am cannibal (Cannibal, I'll eat you up, I am)
I am cannibal (Cannibal, cannibal, I am)
I am cannibal (Cannibal, I'll eat you up)

[Verse 2]
Whenever you tell me I'm pretty
That's when the hunger really hits me
Your little heart goes pitter-patter
I want your liver on a platter
Use your finger to stir my tea
And for dessert, I'll suck your teeth
Be too sweet, and you'll be a goner (Yep)
I'll pull a Jeffrey Dahmer

[Pre-Chorus]
I eat boys up, breakfast and lunch
Then when I'm thirsty, I drink their blood
Carnivore, animal, I am a cannibal
I eat boys up, you better run

[Chorus]
I am cannibal (Cannibal, cannibal, I am)
I am cannibal (Cannibal, I'll eat you up, I am)
I am cannibal (Cannibal, cannibal, I am)
I am cannibal (Cannibal, I'll eat you up)

[Bridge]
Oh-woah-woah-oh-oh
Oh-woah-woah-oh-oh-oh, oh
Oh-woah-woah-oh-oh
Oh-woah-woah-oh-oh-oh, oh
Oh-woah-woah-oh-oh
Oh-woah-woah-oh-oh-oh, oh
Oh-woah-woah-oh-oh
Oh-woah-woah-oh-oh-oh, oh

[Chorus]
I am cannibal (Cannibal, cannibal, I am)
I am cannibal (Cannibal, I'll eat you up, I am)
I am cannibal (Cannibal, cannibal, I am)
I am cannibal (Cannibal, I'll eat you up)

[Outro]
I love you
I warned you
Rrah

An ode to crazy, metaphorical sex talk, the content of "Cannibal" details Kesha's extreme attraction to somebody.

The song possibly draws inspiration from Sylvia Plath's "Lady Lazarus," a feminist poem sharing the themes of her last line with "Cannibal":

Out of the ash
I rise with my red hair
And I eat men like air.

Ask us a question about this song

Ask a question *‌

What have the artists said about the song?

When I really like somebody, it totally flips. But before I give two shits about a guy, I tend to treat him as my plaything, like a cat playing with her food before she eats it. It's kinda fucked up.

-via Spin (2010)

Is there an official lyric video for the song?

Yes! Kesha released a lyric video in March 2020, almost 10 years after the song's initial release, likely due to the TikTok dance challenge.

Songs That Interpolate Cannibal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cannibal Lyrics: Rrah / Rrah / I have a heart, I swear I do / But just not, baby, when it comes to you / I get so hungry when you say you love me / (Hush) If you know what's good for you / I think

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
-- Download 22 Ways Religion Promotes Crime as PDF --

22 Ways Religion Promotes Crime

by Kalin Ringkvist

-----

75% of America is Christian.

75% of prisoners are Christian.

10% of America is Atheist.

00.2% of prisoners are Atheist.

- Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1997

-----

In "The New Criminology", Max D. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith say that two generations of statisticians found that the ratio of convicts without religious training is about 1/10 of 1%. W. T. Root, professor of psychology at the Univ. of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said "Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character," adding that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers are absent from penitentiaries or nearly so.

----

Steiner and Swancara surveyed Canadian prisons and found 1,294 Catholics, 435 Anglicans, 241 Methodists, 135 Baptists, and 1 Unitarian.

-----

1. Religions often teach the concept of hell, where there is eternal suffering of an unimaginable degree. This concept is taught to very young children, and in order for them to accept the idea that some of the people they care about will burn in hell for all eternity, they must turn off their compassion for those people. Even in religions that teach that hell is only for people who have done really horrible things, it still forces people to turn off their compassion for other human beings. Once a person, especially a child, learns to turn off their compassion and shrug their shoulders at eternal suffering, then being able to do the same thing for real-world, short-term suffering is much easier.

2. Religious individuals often feel as though God is guiding them in some way. This may be through prayer or just simple emotions, but it allows individuals the ability to decide that their emotions and desires are sanctioned by God, so when they gain the urge to do harm, they are more likely to convince themselves that they are justified because they have such strong emotions that they feel are given to them, not by the neurons firing in their brain, but by God.

3. If there is something morally wrong in society, or with an individual, the religious person has the ability to chalk it up to God's "Mysterious Ways". This can diminish a person's desire to make a difference because they believe it's all part of some great plan.

4. Religions often teach that it's not easy for a person to have morality without the concept of heaven and hell to motivate them. This teaches people that they do not have the mental capacity to be good without an outside motivator.

5. If people are taught that heaven and hell are necessary for a moral society, then this implies that there is no inherent logic to being moral, and implies that there's nothing to be gained here on earth by being good, and implies that there won't be immediate emotional consequences for wrongdoing.

6. Religions often teach belief in God and prayer as a moral issue, so a criminal can believe that they can atone for anything simply by worshipping harder.

7. Religions often try to establish arguably irrelevant things as moral issues, such as masturbation, homosexuality, or blasphemous thoughts. This fills a religious person's mind with a whole list of things they can't do, and wastes precious moral willpower that could otherwise be used to resist the urge to lie or commit crime.

8. When things like masturbation, homosexuality, or blasphemous thoughts are given such attention as moral issues, a religious person may gain the idea that they are on par morally with other things such as burglary or rape, and they see a world that is full of masturbation, homosexuality and blasphemous thoughts, and they are able to think, "well, what's one more sin in a world of sin?"

9. The concept of hell teaches eternal suffering, essentially a punishment, or an act of vengeance against anyone who is either a bad person or somehow angers God. This can set a precedent for people that states that it's morally acceptable to make people suffer in order to get what you want.

10. Religions teach people to believe in a very specific set of spiritual concepts, and believe that these concepts are absolute truth. However, they see other people all around them who do not share their beliefs, and often have other belief systems that are equally beautiful. So the only way for many religious individuals to maintain such an absolute belief in their own concepts and to resist the potential joy found in other belief systems, is to turn off their empathy for anyone who does not see things the way they do, and refuse to imagine things from other people's perspectives. When you are less able to see things from other people's perspectives, you are less likely to feel compassion for them, and therefore more capable of doing things that harm them.

11. People are often told that religion will "draw them toward goodness", and some people take this to believe that it happens automatically so they never come to realize that it takes real willpower, and they don't learn to work with their own emotions, because they keep expecting it to happen simply by worshiping or reading a holy text.

12. If a person already believes they're going to hell, and if they think that there is already no way to redeem themselves, then there is nothing left to stop them from committing whatever wrongdoing they might want.

13. The concept of original sin reinforces the idea that we are helpless to stop our criminal urges.

14. Religions teach people to follow, whether that be the church, preacher, the holy text, etc. and can leave individuals with an inherent desire to allow others to tell them right from wrong, which makes them more susceptible to propaganda and pressure from peers.

15. People learn from what they see and imitate others around them, especially people who are built up as being greater than they are, such as God. This reaction frequently can be entirely subconscious. So when they see God causing suffering in this world, and doing some of the horrible things that He does in religious texts, it may instill an individual with a subtle, subconscious desire to commit similar actions.

16. When individuals are taught to submit to and put their faith in a God as their guide, this can make them feel helpless to make their own decisions and reduce their confidence in their ability to resist criminal urges.

17. If a person is harmed by an accident purely by chance, it is usually less traumatic than if another person purposely causes the injury. So if a person has had a particularly difficult life, as the majority of criminals have, then they have a much higher likelihood of being emotionally traumatized by the unfortunate things that have happened to them because they believe that it was done to them on purpose by a God instead of by an act of simple chance. The extra trauma simply adds to any potentially unstable personalities.

18. The concept of evil can often be used as an identifier for individual human beings. It's easy and convenient to believe serial killers are possessed with an intense and unbreakable evil brought forth from a higher power. The problem is when this concept of evil is placed on people who are not so horrible. When you accept the idea that a supernatural evil is at work on this planet, it is easy for you to believe, for example, that your wife who cheated on you and broke your heart is in fact, evil, and this can lay the foundation for a person's justification for revenge. When we believe that people are evil it reduces our confidence in being able to affect a change in that person, because we believe their bad deeds come from an all-powerful, supernatural source.

19. Sometimes when a person is feeling emotions that may lead them toward crime, they will talk about it with someone, and even attempt to receive professional help. A religious person is more likely to seek out or be directed towards religious help and are more likely to wind up discussing their problems with individuals who do not have psychological training in crime prevention.

20. There are numerous logical arguments not to commit crime or other harmful acts. This is not to discredit the emotional and spiritual arguments against crime and wrongdoing, but if you look at the long term personal effects of committing a crime, and analyze it based on pure, "cold-hearted", even selfish logic, you will still find that committing most crimes just doesn't make sense. However, sometimes, our short term emotions or spirituality tell us otherwise and we may have a desire to, for example, take vengeance on someone or steal something we really, really want. A religious person is less likely to be devoted to "cold-hearted" logic, and therefore less likely to have thought about the real-world, long-term consequences of their actions.

21. It's clear in our society that violence and crime interests people. It's no wonder our movies are full of violence, and violent news gets significantly more air-time than peaceful news. This is because violence interests us and fascinates us. If we are made in the image of God, then doesn't God also have the same fascination and interest in violence? Wouldn't that make it acceptable to commit violence, since it is entertainment for our Lord? Some will claim that nobody thinks this way, but when you think about it from a blindly devotional standpoint, it makes perfect sense, and even if only one out of every thousand religious individuals feels this way, the consequences for society could be devastating.

22. When people are taught that the afterlife is eternal and is so much more important than the earthly realm, or that our world has no purpose without it, this devalues our world and it's people, and makes it easier for a criminal to justify his actions, because when compared to eternity, it's pretty easy to argue that a simple crime is insignificant.

----------

Here's a blog post I made about this article to clarify some of my thinking.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Download 22 Ways Religion Promotes Crime as PDF -- 22 Ways Religion Promotes Crime by Kalin Ringkvist ----- 75% of America is Christian. 75% of prisoners are Christian. 10% of America is Atheist. 00.2% of prisoners are Atheist. - Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1997 ----- In "The New Criminology", Max D.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'They're evil losers!': US President Trump on terrorists behind Manchester Attack

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WATCH: President Trump addresses deadly Las Vegas shooting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On Tuesday, ABC premiered its latest dark drama, "Wicked City." Set in LA in the 1980s, the series chronicles a seemingly "normal" couple's reign of bloody terror on the Sunset Strip. It's loosely based on the true story of serial killers Doug Clark and Carol M. Bundy, who together murdered seven women during the summer of 1980.

The show joins a long line of TV series (and movies, but that's for another piece) that romanticize crime and violence. Think "The Sopranos," "Breaking Bad," "Sons of Anarchy," Dexter, "Fargo," "Boardwalk Empire," and "House of Cards." All of these shows are critically-acclaimed, received accolades during awards seasons, and commanded high ratings -- or at least a devoted fanbase.

They also all center on white, male protagonists.

For the past decade (or more), there has been a trend of glorifying and romanticizing white crime through popular culture. Television fans root for characters who would normally be the "bad guy" -- corrupt politicians like Frank Underwood on "House of Cards" or ruthless mob bosses like Tony Soprano. We root for them because, even in their wrongdoing, they are afforded a certain level of complexity and nuance. They may be criminals, but first and foremost, they are (interesting) human beings.

It's a trend that finds its direct opposite when it comes to characters of color, who, overwhelmingly, are often depicted as thugs and deviants, without complication. There are obvious exceptions -- shows like "The Wire," "Empire" and "Power" have provided a counterbalance to this trend. But, for the most part, when you see a person of color committing crime on a TV show, he or she is painted one-dimensionally as the villain.

As Tumblr user daughterofmilan wrote in a blog about white crime on TV: "Viewers of these characters see past the atrocious crimes and into their humanity, a luxury that white characters always have while characters of color rarely do."

The fact that so many of the shows whose plots are built around white male rage and criminality find deep fanbases isn't necessarily the problem, but it's just yet another example of white privilege. White criminality on TV is far more likely to be glamorized and given a sense of complexity, simply because across the television landscape, white characters are the majority of characters who receive three-dimensional characterizations.

That privilege and nuance we give to white criminals on-screen extends to the real world, where mass shooters like Dylan Roof are first described as "quiet" and "polite" by the media, while the behavior of the young girl at the center of the incident at Spring Valley High is questioned, despite the fact that she was needlessly assaulted.

It's not a bad thing that shows like "Breaking Bad" and "Fargo" exist and are beloved. The real problem is an industry that still perpetuates damaging stereotypes about black people and black criminality. These stereotypes have dangerous, real-world consequences. Perhaps if there were as many shows that humanized young black men in hoodies as there are that humanize white serial killers, the attitude towards black life these days would be different.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Problem With Romanticizing White Male Criminals On TV

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Tuesday, ABC premiered its latest dark drama, "Wicked City." Set in LA in the 1980s, the series chronicles a seemingly "normal" couple's reign of bloody terror on the Sunset Strip. It's loosely based on the true story of serial killers Doug Clark and Carol M.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From Academy Award winner Brian Helgeland (L.A. Confidential, Mystic River) and Working Title (The Theory of Everything) comes the true story of the rise and fall of London’s most notorious gangsters, Reggie and Ronnie Kray, both portrayed by Tom Hardy in a powerhouse double performance. Together, t…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Full print version, including charts and tables
During the first two decades of the 20th century the police in England and Wales recorded an average of 90,000 indictable offences each year, a figure which increased to over 500,000 during the 1950s.

The crime rate consequently quadrupled from 250 crimes per 100,000 people in 1901 to 1,000 by 1950.

But the history of crime in the 20th century is dominated by the even sharper rise in offences recorded by the police since the late 1950s. During the 1960s there was acceleration in recorded crime: it was the only decade in the century where crime doubled. Crime continued to rise according to this measure for much of the remainder of the 20th century, with an average of over one million crimes recorded each year in the 1960s, increasing to two million during the 1970s, and 3.5m in the 1980s.

There is no simple answer as to why crime rates increased so markedly in the second half of the century. Over the period, there were significant changes to the types of offences recorded as crime, and how they are counted, making it difficult to accurately assess underlying trends in 'real' crime. Recorded crime levels have also been affected by the behaviour of the public in reporting crimes to the police. An increase in the number of burglaries reported, for example, may partly be due to the relatively recent need to inform the police in order to make an insurance claim, rather than an indication of any real increase in the level of burglary.

New inventions, creating new opportunities for misdemeanour, a growth in the value of ordinary people's personal property, and the criminalisation of drug use have had real effects on crime levels during the 20th century. The most obvious example of an invention that has spurred crime is the motorcar: by 1991, a car was being reported stolen on average once every minute across England and Wales. Aeroplanes made international transport and smuggling easier, while the growing use of computers has created new kinds of offences.

The puzzle for today's criminologists is to explain falling crime. Recorded offences reached 6m in 2003, and a steady decline has since been seen in most kinds of recorded crime, with particularly steep falls in some offences such as burglary. Some argue that improvements in security, particularly modern systems to prevent vehicle intrusion, have significantly reduced the opportunities for committing crime. Others contend that imprisonment, policing or demographic factors play the most important role.

Getting offensive
The chart shows recorded offences per 100,000 people in England and Wales during the 20th century.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Full print version, including charts and tables During the first two decades of the 20th century the police in England and Wales recorded an average of 90,000 indictable offences each year, a figure which increased to over 500,000 during the 1950s. The crime rate consequently quadrupled from 250 crimes per 100,000 people in 1901 to 1,000 by 1950.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
They may look like fresh-faced teenagers, but closer examination reveals an unmistakable air of menace that helps identify the Kray twins in their first ever police mugshots.

The black-and-white stills show Ronnie and Reggie after they were arrested for desertion from National Service in 1952.

With their hair in quiffs, they stare menacingly at the camera and also pose side-on. The pair, aged about 19, were then locked away in the Tower of London, giving them their first taste of punishment in criminal careers which spanned two decades.

Enlarge

Enlarge

Richard Westwood-Brookes, of auctioneer Mullock's, said today: 'They are fine examples of the burgeoning interest in the history of crime - especially the fascination surrounding the Kray twins.

'Although we can't be exact as to the date of the photographs they are believed to have been taken some time during or just before 1952.

'That was roughly the time when Ron and Reg were away on National Service.

'But they quickly got bored of the military lifestyle - I think it's fair to say they probably didn't have a great deal of time for authority. So they deserted from the army but were recaptured shortly after.

'That's when we think this photograph was taken - you can see from the photos that their hair is very short at the sides, a characteristic of the army-style cuts.'

The photographs - being sold anonymously by a former Scotland Yard detective - are expected to fetch £200 at auction on June 25.

A signed letter from Reggie Kray to a female admirer while he was locked up in Maidstone prison in 1996 will also go under the hammer for £60.

Frustratingly for anyone wanting an insight into the mind of the mobster, the handwritten letter - which has Reggie's picture in the top right - is almost entirely illegible.

Mr Westwood-Brookes added: 'It is a bizarre letter - the handwriting is all over the place.

'All you can make out is a few random words like "peace", "watch" and "project".

'Both the twins had strange handwriting - they had no formal education so it's probably no surprise.

'But taken together they are fascinating items which chronicle the lives of arguably the most infamous criminals to have ever lived in Britain.'

Earlier this year a cache of guns, jewellery and even the twins' trademark black suits went under the hammer.

The twins' gangland reign spanned the 1950s and 60s when rival gangsters such as 'Mad' Frankie Fraser, now 85, also operated in London.

Ronnie died in jail in 1995, aged 61, and Reggie was freed on compassionate grounds before he died in 2000, at 66.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fresh-faced gangsters: First ever police mugshots of Krays as tearaway teenagers to go under the hammer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
They may look like fresh-faced teenagers, but closer examination reveals an unmistakable air of menace that helps identify the Kray twins in their first ever police mugshots. The black-and-white stills show Ronnie and Reggie after they were arrested for desertion from National Service in 1952.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Synopsis

As a youth, Ronnie Kray showed some talent as a boxer. He eventually graduated to crime with his twin brother Reggie Kray. The pair became legendary crime bosses in London during the 1960s. Ronnie was only stopped by his 1968 arrest for murder. The following year, he was convicted and spent the rest of his life in prison. Ronnie died in 1995.

Early Life

Born on October 24, 1933, in East London, Ronnie Kray founded the infamous criminal gang known as "The Firm" with his identical twin brother Reggie. The twins, along with their older brother Charles, grew up in London's East End. Their father, Charles, was a second-hand clothes dealer. He was in and out of the boys' lives while they were growing up because he went on the run to avoid military service. But the boys were especially devoted to their mother Violet.

Their maternal grandfather, Jimmy "Cannonball" Lee, was a fighter. Following in his footsteps, Ronnie and Reggie became boxers. Ronnie had some success in the sport, but his brother was considered the real contender. Outside of the ring, Ronnie was later known for his temper and willingness to fight anyone that slighted him. In 1951, the Kray brothers began their national service, but the pair was truly too unruly for the military. They each earned a dishonorable discharge in 1954.

Dangerous Crime Boss

As the 1950s progressed, Ronnie had taken up a broad range of criminal activities, ranging from extortion to arson. He and his brother had their own gang known as "The Firm." His hands-on approach to taking care of business landed him some time behind bars--he was convicted of grievous bodily harm in the late 1950s. While in prison, he was labelled insane (and later diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia). Ronnie and Reggie had another brush with the law in 1965. Both brothers were arrested in connection with their efforts to shake down a Soho club owner, but they were later acquitted in this case.

In the East End, Ronnie and Reggie Kray were known for being generous to their community. The pair were also famous for their sharply tailored suits and celebrity connections. One of their clubs, Esmeralda's Barn, attracted a glittering clientele that included actors George Raft and Joan Collins. Ronnie also made an influential friend in Lord Robert Boothby, a British Conservative politician with whom he may have had a sexual relationship.

Fall From Power

Ronnie's temper contributed to his final clash with the law. With no regard for the consequences, he walked into a pub called the Blind Beggar and shot his adversary George Cornell in the head in 1966. Ronnie reportedly was enraged over a gay slur that Cornell had said about him. The following year, Ronnie reportedly egged on his brother Reggie to kill a wayward member of their own gang, Jack "the Hat" McVitie. The East End's code of silence on the Krays' activities eventually cracked, and the pair were arrested in 1968 for these murders.

Scotland Yard's Inspector Leonard "Nipper" Read spent years working to bring the Kray twins to justice. When they were convicted in 1969, the judge told them: "In my view, society has earned a rest from your activities," according to the Telegraph newspaper. Because of his mental illness, Ronnie was sent to Broadmoor, a hospital for the criminally insane. He later shared the details of his life in his shared memoir with Reggie called Our Story (1988) and in his own autobiography My Story (1994). Ronnie considered himself to be bisexual and married twice while behind bars.

Death and Legacy

Ronnie died of a heart attack in 1995 while still a prisoner at Broadmoor. Onlookers crowded the streets to catch a glimpse of the famed gangster's coffin as it was taken through the East End. His brother Reggie was allowed to leave prison to say his goodbye to his twin. Reggie died five years later. While both Kray twins are now gone, their lives and crimes remain the subject of endless fascination. Books, documentaries and feature films have explored these two notorious figures. Most recently, actor Tom Hardy portrayed both brothers in the 2015 movie Legend.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a youth, Ronnie Kray showed some talent as a boxer. He eventually graduated to crime with his twin brother Reggie Kray. The pair became legendary crime bosses in London during the 1960s. Ronnie was only stopped by his 1968 arrest for murder.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find out more about Reggie Kray, who teamed up with his twin brother Ronnie to become two of England's most notorious gangsters of all time, at Biography.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Krays were the most notorious criminals of the 1960s, heading an organised underworld empire of protection rackets, violence and murder.

Ronnie and Reggie Kray were identical twins, born and raised in the East End of London - Charlie was born seven years earlier.

The family moved from Hoxton to Bethnal Green when they were small, and the twins were soon involved in juvenile crime.

Both were promising amateur boxers, but the sport - and National Service in the Army - did little to instil discipline or control the violence which was to become a hallmark of their lives.

In the 1950s they set up an East End protection racket and in 1960 moved into the West End to open a gambling club, Esmerelda's Barn, in Knightsbridge.

They even persuaded a peer to join them on the board to give the club an appearance of respectability.

With Charlie providing the business brainpower behind the operations the twins became the public face of The Firm.

Obsessed with celebrities, they entertained actors, pop stars and sportsmen and anyone else with a claim to fame in the club.

Homosexual scandal

They were not well known to the public until July 1964, when the Sunday Mirror ran a story that Scotland Yard had been investigating a homosexual relationship between a prominent peer and a leading thug in the London underworld.

They were not named, but it soon became clear that they were Ronnie Kray and Lord 'Bob' Boothby, a media personality and former Conservative.

Boothby denied any impropriety, explaining away a photograph of them together as simply Ronnie's wish to be pictured with a celebrity.

The Mirror backed down, sacked its editor, apologised, and paid Boothby 40,000 in an out-of-court settlement.

Over the next four years the Krays imposed a reign of violence in the London underworld, before being arrested for murdering two other gangsters.

Murderers jailed

Ronnie shot George Cornell in the Blind Beggar public house in Whitechapel in 1966 for calling him a "fat poof".

A year later Reggie stabbed Jack 'The Hat' McVitie in a flat in North London. His body was never found.

Scotland Yard had been on the trail of the Krays for years, and in 1968 they were arrested by Detective Superintendent 'Nipper' Read and charged with murder.

They appeared at the Old Bailey in 1969, along with members of their gang, including Charlie, who got seven years for other crimes.

The twins were jailed for life with a recommendation that they serve 30 years.

Kray legend

The twins started serving their sentences in various jails, until Ronnie was committed to Broadmoor as criminally insane.

But their incarceration did little to suppress the Kray legend.

Both wrote books. Reggie claimed to have become a born-again Christian, and Ronnie got married in Broadmoor to a twice-divorced former topless kissogram girl.

The marriage lasted four years until their divorce in 1994.

In 1990 a full-length film, The Krays, earned 255,000 for the twins and Charlie.

Over the years a campaign for the twins' release built up. Their supporters claimed that they were guilty only of crimes against other criminals, and that the streets of the East End had been safe for women and children in their time.

Copies of the family photo album, T-shirts and records were sold to back the campaign, and in 1993 several hundred people held a rally in Hyde Park, before marching to Downing Street to hand in a 10,000-signature petition.

Reggie: The survivor

Ronnie died of a heart attack aged 62 in Broadmoor in 1995. Charlie cried on Reggie's shoulder at Ronnie's funeral.

In June 1997 Charlie was found guilty of masterminding a 39m cocaine plot and jailed for 12 years.

He was convicted of offering to supply the drug to undercover police officers and also of supplying 2kg of the drug worth 63,500.

Charlie's death leaves Reggie still dreaming of release after serving more than 30 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
bbc news world uk international foreign british online service

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC News | UK | The Krays: A history of violence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Krays were the most notorious criminals of the 1960s, heading an organised underworld empire of protection rackets, violence and murder. Ronnie and Reggie Kray were identical twins, born and raised in the East End of London - Charlie was born seven years earlier.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 1956, assisted by his brother Eddie, Charles Richardson had set up the Peckford Scrap Metal Company, with a staff of 30, but in reality it was a front for the brothers' underworld activities, fraud, theft and stolen goods.

Richardson became an expert in "long firm fraud", a company being set up by an acquaintance which he and his brother would operate legitimately, building a good credit rating, before placing a huge order on credit and selling the goods. The brothers would pocket the money and the company would vanish.

Twice, in 1957 and again in 1959, Richardson was arrested for receiving stolen goods, only to be acquitted for lack of evidence.

Had it not been for his betrayal in Johannesburg, Richardson would have fallen foul of London's other great criminal brotherhood, the Krays. Like them, the Richardsons were working-class brothers with little formal education. They fell out at Christmas 1965 when George Cornell, a member of the Richardson gang, called Ronnie Kray a "fat poof"; the following March, a Kray associate was shot in Mr Smith's Club in Catford, and another Richardson cohort, Jimmy Andrews, was injured. Shortly after Cornell had visited Andrews in hospital, he was murdered by Ronnie Kray, who fired a bullet into Cornell's head at point blank range as he sat drinking in the Blind Beggar pub on the Whitechapel Road.

Meanwhile Charles Richardson, now operating from an office in Park Lane, was becoming engulfed by his troubles in South Africa. It seems clear that Richardson had ordered one of his henchmen, Johnny Bradbury, to fly to Johannesburg to murder an Afrikaner business "associate" named Tom Waldeck, who had double-crossed Richardson in a mining enterprise. When Bradbury was tried for the murder and sentenced to hang, he offered to "grass up" the Richardson brothers in return for a pardon and immunity.

Because officers of the Metropolitan Police were on the Richardsons' payroll (and indeed took money from several other London gangs of the 1960s), the Bradbury deal was arranged by a special squad of detectives led by Gerald McArthur, the assistant chief constable of Hertfordshire.

Other victims of the Richardsons were granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for turning Queen's Evidence at the series of "Torture Trials" that began in April 1967. With Home Office help, several witnesses fled the country immediately the trials were over.

At the Old Bailey, the jury (vetted by Special Branch) heard the horrific accounts of people who had crossed the Richardson brothers being subjected to mock trials, followed by a range of sadistic punishments, from beatings to more severe forms of torture. One man claimed that his teeth had been pulled out with pliers; another had been nailed to the floor by the foot; a third had been forced to mop up his own blood with his underpants; while still others had had toes torn off with bolt cutters and rendered unconscious by electric shock.

The shocks were inflicted by a notorious "Black Box", an old Army field telephone which served as a generator (now displayed in Scotland Yard's crime museum). The contraption had a handle which, when cranked, delivered an electric shock. The victims had the terminals attached to their nipples and genitalia and were doused in orange squash or placed in a bath of cold water to boost the electrical charge.

The process of trial by torture became known as "taking a shirt from Charlie" because of Richardson's habit of giving each victim a clean shirt in which to return home.

After being convicted of fraud, extortion, assault and grievous bodily harm, Charles Richardson received 58 years on nine counts which meant, with concurrent terms, that he was sentenced to 25 years in jail. He was also ordered to pay the maximum contribution to the prosecution costs of £20,000.

In 1980, after eight failed attempts to obtain parole, Richardson escaped from an open prison and went on the run for almost a year, even dressing as Father Christmas and distributing presents to children in order to publicise his campaign to be released. He openly drank with old friends and cronies at pubs in the Old Kent Road before fleeing to Paris, where he gave an interview to a journalist; he later gave himself up.

In 1983 he was allowed out on day release to help handicapped people, and was allowed to spend a weekend with his family - leaving prison in a hired Rolls-Royce - before finally being freed in July 1984.

Charles William Richardson was born on January 18 1934 at Twickenham, but when war came the family moved to Camberwell, south London, where, with his younger brother Eddie, he lived with his maternal grandparents in a flat above their sweet shop. His father was a merchant seaman and serial womaniser who spent prolonged periods in prison; his mother worked as a waitress at a Lyons tea shop. Richardson's uncle was a Baptist minister and his grandparents, too, were strict, law-abiding people . When the family was bombed out in the Blitz, the Richardson boys were evacuated to a farm in Dorset where Charles claimed he was abused by the sadistic owner.

Back in London after the war, he attended a local school but spent much of his time looting scrap metal and fittings from bombed-out houses, profiting from a thriving local black market in sugar, chocolate and cigarettes, and developing a racket of overcharging customers on his two-shillings-a-week newspaper round.

His first brush with the law was for stealing lead from the roof of the post office at Camberwell Green, when the man to whom he had "fenced" it made a deal with the police; Richardson was placed on probation. By the time he was 14, he understood the workings of the court system and had learned to drive by stealing cars. Sent to Ardale approved school at Upminster, where he quickly became room corporal, Richardson escaped by knotting bed sheets together and shinning down a wall where an accomplice - his father - was waiting with a change of clothes.

By the age of 16 he owned his first scrapyard. Two years on, Richardson, although still a teenager, was a practised perjurer and experienced jury nobbler "with professional standards to maintain", as he would boast in his memoirs, My Manor (1991).

With money from dealing scrap and from small burglaries, Richardson could afford flash clothes, and while still a teenager set the course of his criminal career by turning his back on street crime in favour of what he called the "big wide world of business" .

"Robbery and violence were the acts of desperate men," he reflected. "Fraud and deception and almost-honest business practices were cleaner, nearly respectable and very profitable."

Richardson's abbreviated National Service in the Army ended with his feigning madness, a dishonourable discharge and six months in the glasshouse at Shepton Mallet for assaulting his medical officer; it was there that he first encountered the Kray twins.

In prison during the 1970s, Richardson passed two A-levels (one in Geology) and took an Open University Sociology degree. After his release in 1984 he again dealt in scrap and in second-hand cars before pursuing further mining interests in the City, claiming that the practices there were more dishonest than any he had previously been involved in.

Charles Richardson married, in 1955, Margaret Chaney, with whom he had five children; the marriage was dissolved. He also had a son from another relationship in the mid-1980s. His second wife, Veronica ("Ron"), survives him .

Charles Richardson, born January 18 1934, died September 19 2012

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Charles Richardson, who has died aged 78, was a criminal businessman and unrepentant gangster who, with his younger brother Eddie, corrupted detectives and terrorised the south London underworld of the 1960s; after a series of so-called “Torture Trials” - which, for the first time, shed light on the inner workings of British organised crime - he served a 25-year prison sentence before being released in 1984.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Known as the Clerkenwell crime syndicate, the Adams Family were involved in various high profile crimes. Remember to like and subscribe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fifty years ago, there was a very British comedy film called Carlton-Browne of the F.O., which starred Peter Sellers and Terry-Thomas. In one scene, a character is ejected from a nightclub, despite a staff member pointing out that he is a member of the royal family. "I don't care if he's Billy Hill!" says the manager of the club.

Hill was one of Britain's best-known gangsters. His ghosted autobiography, Boss of Britain's Underworld, had already appeared, and he also liked to be known as the Bandit King. He was thrilled to be mentioned in the film and never tired of talking about it. This month, a new biography, Billy Hill: Godfather of London, by journalist Wensley Clarkson, is published. It describes just how much he relished his notoriety.

"I guess I looked like a gangster," he said. "They say Humphrey Bogart could go for my twin brother, and he looks like what a gangster's supposed to look like." Hill died in 1984 and the book is an epitaph, in a way, for an era when criminals actually courted the limelight.

"Organised crime has changed beyond recognition since the days of the Krays," said Gordon Brown in last month's speech on liberty and security. And how. Where once professional criminals were tickled to be recognised and known as a "face", now they tick the box marked "No publicity". A modern-day professional criminal would reach for his lawyer or his passport if he found his name featured so casually in a comedy film.

Hill, born in London almost 100 years ago, was already cutting a swath, almost literally, through the capital in his 30s. Here is how he recalled an altercation in a pub, when someone foolishly shoved a glass into his face: "It stuck there like a dart in a dartboard. I pulled the glass out of my face with one hand and my chiv out of my pocket with the other. Then I got to work doing a bit of hacking and carving. I don't know how many blokes I cut that night. I didn't care ... "

Hill liked to carve a "V for victory" sign on his victims' faces, but insisted that the chivving was only used as a last resort. "I was always careful to draw my knife down on the face, never across or upwards. Always down. So that if the knife slips you don't cut an artery. After all, chivving is chivving, but cutting an artery is usually murder. Only mugs do murder."

The Krays also sought publicity, amazingly allowing journalist John Pearson into their lives so that he could write the excellent biography The Profession of Violence. They loved to be photographed rubbing shoulders with singers and actors. During his trial for murder, Ronnie Kray offhandedly informed the judge that if he hadn't been in court he would have been "having tea with Judy Garland".

Loonyology, the autobiography of Charles Bronson, reputedly "the most violent prisoner in Britain", was published last month. Coming shortly is Blaggers Inc, by Terry Smith, a well-known former bank robber, and a film about "Mad" Frankie Fraser is in the pipeline.

All of this publicity would be anathema to the new breed of professional criminal. But in the days of Hill and others, notoriety was a useful part of the portfolio: it meant that you were feared and your demands were more easily met. But it eventually made you a target for the authorities. The higher the profile, as the Krays eventually discovered, the heavier the fall.

Professional criminals now choose to keep a low profile. In his recent book, McMafia, Misha Glenny describes the new protagonists: "They were criminals, organised and disorganised, but they were also good capitalists and entrepreneurs, intent on obeying the laws of supply and demand." And, like good capitalists, they saw no reason to court publicity.

That is why we continue to know more about Hill - who died almost a quarter of a century ago - than about the current gang leaders. Maxim Jakubowski, the owner of crime bookshop Murder One, in central London, says: "The modern criminal would rather stay in the shadows. A lot of them are still active, so what you mainly get [in published books] are the Krays' old associates. Soon it will be the Krays' hairdresser, I expect."

Paul Boon, who handles the True Crime imprint for Pennant books, publisher of Billy Hill: Godfather of London, agrees that the current book market is for criminals of the past rather than the present. "To be a criminal now, you have to be the unseen man," he says.

What must seem astonishing to modern multinational criminals, whether they make their money through drug trafficking or cyberfraud, is the desire of their predecessors to court publicity and to offer access to people who wanted to write about them.

As the new Hill biography shows, there will never be a shortage of panic in the headlines, fuelling an interest in the more comprehensible forms of crime. In 1945, at the end of the war, as Wensley Clarkson describes, the Daily Express was reporting, "Crime is on the march in Britain today, boldly and violently. It is double what it was in 1939 and the evil grows by 10,000 cases each month." One of the Express reporters noted that "within shouting distance of a spot where Eros may soon stand again, I have seen men pull out fistfuls of pound notes. Guns, revolvers and tommy guns sold well over the weekend. There are more guns at the moment than there is ammunition to fit them ... furtive clubs are springing up."

The tommy guns have gone, and these days the clubs are anything but furtive, but no one these days is aspiring to the title of Boss of Britain's Underworld.

· Billy Hill: Godfather of London, by Wensley Clarkson, is published by Pennant Books (£15.99). To order a copy for £14.99 with free UK p&p, go to theguardian.com/bookshop
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Billy Hill biography remembers one of Britian's best known gangsters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fifty years ago, there was a very British comedy film called Carlton-Browne of the F.O., which starred Peter Sellers and Terry-Thomas. In one scene, a character is ejected from a nightclub, despite a staff member pointing out that he is a member of the royal family. "I don't care if he's Billy Hill!"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Real London of Peaky Blinders Walking Tour

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Real London of Peaky Blinders Walking Tour - find out the real story of the London gangsters Darby Sabini and Alfie Solomons on a guided walk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
According to popular belief, Britain's gangster scene was overshadowed by the US Mafia until the Kray brothers and Richardson clan exploded on to the scene in the Sixties, brutally carving up London into separate empires, flaunting their wealth and society contacts.

But now a forgotten cache of photographs and diaries has been discovered in a suburban cellar, revealing a first-hand account of pre- and inter-war gang conflict in London as vicious and exhilarating as any played out on the streets of Chicago or New York. 'It's always amazed me that these stories have been left untold,' said Brian McDonald, whose uncle, Charles 'Wag' McDonald, ruled south London for more than 30 years and whose diaries form the core of his nephew's book, Elephant Boys, due to be published in October.

'These gory tales have been hidden in Sidcup for decades,' he said. 'As kids, we'd all have these incredible stories told to us by various relatives about the amazing goings-on at that time but there was virtually no evidence around that could separate the folklore from reality. Until now.'

McDonald's uncle was the youngest of 13 children, born to a poverty-stricken family in the slums of Lambeth in 1878. His family moved around Lambeth and Southwark, enabling their children to form a network of connections, before settling in the Elephant and Castle area.

South London was a tough place in which to grow up in the pre-war era. Family factions fought frequent battles for prominence and small-scale gang warfare was an everyday part of life. But with the help of Billy Kimber, a local boy who was quick to see the opportunities opened up by the pre-war explosion in nightclubs and dog and horse racing, the young McDonald exploited his network of connections and demonstrated his talent for leadership by transforming these skirmishing factions into a single, tightly organised gang.

Named the Elephant Boys after the area where most of its members lived, McDonald's empire rose to prominence in the years leading up to the First World War.

'They were the prime source of London's hard men,' said his nephew. 'To lose the goodwill of the Elephant Boys was to be in serious trouble.'

McDonald was forced to cede control of the Elephant Boys when he joined up to fight in the war. But when he returned he lost no time seizing back power in a violent battle with George Hatfield, the leading south London bookie of his time. McDonald cemented his position by leading a series of bloody raids on his rivals, the Titanic gang of Hoxton. By 1921, he was the undisputed master of south, east and north London.

Kimber, who had moved to Birmingham during the war as a deserter, returned to London and set up headquarters in Warren Street, off Tottenham Court Road, and McDonald took control south of the river Thames, a pitch which included popular race courses of the day including Hurst Park, Sandown, Kempton Park, Ascot, and Lingfield.

By the early Twenties, a series of gang fights saw Kimber knocked from his perch by Charles Sabini, a ruthless operator from Little Italy, the area around Clerkenwell Green, who won favours from the police with heavy bribes.

Pitched battles between McDonald's and Sabini's gangs broke out across the city, reaching a climax in 1927 when at least eight people were killed in the 'battle of Waterloo', a riot outside the Duke of Wellington pub in the Waterloo Road. Concern was so great that the Home Secretary introduced a raft of new police powers.

McDonald and Kimber left England together and crossed the Atlantic, determined to make their mark in the glamorous world of Hollywood.

McDonald soon fell in with a boxer called Tony Carroll and Jack Dragna, a gangster who ran Los Angeles' biggest speakeasys. The three soon inveigled their way into Hollywood, winning bit parts in films and seducing some of the era's greatest actresses.

McDonald met Douglas Fairbanks and Charlie Chaplin, another Lambeth boy, becoming bodyguard to first one star and then the other.

Within a couple of years, McDonald had established himself in the LA underworld, and saved enough to buy a car business, but was forced to flee the US when a series of bloody battles culminated in the murder of his business partner.

So McDonald returned to England in 1932 and moved in with his sister Ada at Bedford Street, Walworth. He bought a clutch of new tricks back with him and, after falling in with Jake Factor, Al Capone's former barber, began amassing a fortune by selling worthless shares.

Wal, McDonald's brother, had managed to forge a brittle peace with the Sabini gang in his brother's absence, but McDonald needed to reassert himself and decided that a battle between the old enemies was the best way.

Vicious brawls spread throughout London as the Elephant Boys fought the Sabinis. The struggles continued until 1936, when a second battle at the Wellington pub, followed by an equally vicious fight at Lewes Racecourse, devastated the Sabinis and left the Elephant Boys the undisputed kings of London.

But McDonald's life was almost over. By now he was 58, prematurely aged by a lifetime of solid drinking and hard living, and in 1943, he died from a stroke on the steps of the Deep shelter in the Borough High Street. New men took over.

'When people say it's sad that gangsters are no longer around they're not thinking about the reality,' said McDonald. 'The vicious violence that was the hallmark of the Krays' era began in my uncle's time. I saw enough of it to know how exciting it was, but I'm glad my son grew up after it was all over.'
amelia.hill@observer.co.uk Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to popular belief, Britain's gangster scene was overshadowed by the US Mafia until the Kray brothers and Richardson clan exploded on to the scene in the Sixties, brutally carving up London into separate empires, flaunting their wealth and society contacts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
London's Most Notorious Gangsters
With gangsters like the Krays, Charles Sabini and Billy Hill wreaking havoc and causing terror, 20th century London was a dangerous place to be...
Charles Sabini: the one off Peaky Blinders

Brought up in London's 'Little Italy' in Clerkenwell, Charles Charles 'Derby' Sabini grew to prominence after toppling Billy Kimber from his position of reign over Tottenham Court Road and Warren Street. Kimber's rival, Charles McDonald, now became Sabini's - their two gangs fought throughout the 1920s.

Sabini's 'finest hour' came in 1927, when his gang defeated McDonald's Elephant Boys at the 'battle of Waterloo' in which eight people died, and was so-called because it took place outside the Duke of Wellington pub in the Waterloo Road. Sabini now reigned over south London.

But he was to meet his own Waterloo.

In 1936, the Elephant Boys devastated the Sabinis in another brawl in front of the Duke of Wellington, and at the Lewes Racecourse, the Sabinis fell from their reign of terror.

Sabini's story has been explored in the BBC's Peaky Blinders, where he's played by Noah Taylor.

Billy Hill: "Only mugs do murder"

Billy Hill's reputation as 'the boss of London's underworld' is cemented in the film Carlton Brown of the F.O, starring Peter Sellers. In one scene, a character is thrown out of a nightclub. A staff member points out that the throw-ee is a member of the royal family. "I don't care if he's Billy Hill!" the nightclub manager replies.

It's fair to say that the nightclub manager would have cared. Born in Fitzrovia, Hill committed his first stabbing aged 14.

But he was never done for murder. Hill famously once said, "I was always careful to draw my knife down on the face, never across or upwards. Always down. So that if the knife slips you don't cut an artery. After all, chivving is chivving, but cutting an artery is usually murder. Only mugs do murder."

His 'signature' move was to carve a 'V' for victory on his victims' faces.

Hill, though, is best remembered for helping to swindle high society types out of millions of pounds, at The Clermont Club n Mayfair.

Well into his 50s, Hill continued to finance robberies and find ways to get in on London's growing casino scene.

As for the wisecrack made about Hill in that film; it was something he never tired of talking about.

Charlie and Eddie Richardson: "You can't prove to me that anybody got hurt"

The Richardson Gang, or the 'Torture Gang' (nice) was founded and run by the Richardson brothers, Charlie and Eddie. They set up the Peckford Scrap Metal Company in 1956, which acted as a front for their underworld activities.

They were - unsurprisingly - notorious for their torture methods, which included pulling teeth, electric shocks and whipping, usually carried out by 'Mad' Frankie Fraser.

In the end they were all brought to justice for their crimes. Charlie served 25 years in prison for torture, being released in 1984 and Eddie also served a sentence for his crimes. Fraser spent more than 40 years behind bars for his crimes.

Giving an interview on his long jail sentence, and his activities during his gang years, Charlie said, "You can't prove to me that anybody got hurt, did anybody have any stitches or anything like that, or go to hospital? Nobody." Hmm.

Terry Adams: "Worse than the Krays"

Nicknamed the 'Godfather', Terry Adams ran the Clerkenwell Crime Syndicate its heyday. Owing to his nickname it was also known at the A-Team and Adams Family.

His most notorious moment was when he was dubbed by the police as "worse than the Krays".

Despite being connected to at least 25 murders, torture and drug-dealing amongst other things, Islington-born Adams avoided being brought to justice... that is, until 2007 when he was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment. For money laundering, of all things.

Apparently these days Adams likes to call himself a 'former gangster'. According to the Express he indulges in "an almost genteel persona, buying clothes in expensive fabrics and indulging his love of art and antiques."

Ronnie and Reggie Kray: David Bailey pin-ups

Ronnie and Reggie Kray are by far the best documented of London's gangsters. Visit an old East Boozer/caff/laundrette/boxing gym and you'll probably meet someone who 'knew them'.

The Krays didn't shy from the camera; they posed for photographer David Bailey in 1965 for his Box of Pin Ups, which also included the likes of Mick Jagger and John Lennon.

The twins gave an interview in the late 60s, about how costly some of their legal trials had been. Reggie said "I don't suppose anyone likes the idea of spending that money for no reason at all."

Ronnie chimed in, saying "It doesn't leave us broke, but at the same time, it's a lot of money to have to pay up when one is innocent."

Innocent, of course, the twins were not. They got their comeuppance in 1969. It was a result of the brutal murder of Jack 'The Hat' McVitie. The brothers were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, and never trod the London streets again.

Despite their wicked ways, there's often a strange nostalgia for these two - their image often appearing in London street art.

The Pink Panthers: the one who are still going

The Pink Panthers, though technically not Londoners, made their mark in the city. Their nickname comes from a 1993 heist, when they stole a diamond from a London jeweller, hiding it in a jar of face cream. Their average heist time is 90 seconds.

International crime-fighting agency Interpol believes that between 1999 and 2015, this international crime syndicate has stolen over $369.57m worth of jewellery across the world.

Through Interpol's Pink Panther project there have been several arrests of alleged Pink Panther members, as well as five arrests of alleged members in Spain in August 2016.

Linked with various London jewellery shop raids, the Pink Panthers remain at large.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
London's Most Notorious Gangsters With gangsters like the Krays, Charles Sabini and Billy Hill wreaking havoc and causing terror, 20th century London was a dangerous place to be... Brought up in London's 'Little Italy' in Clerkenwell, Charles Charles 'Derby' Sabini grew to prominence after toppling Billy Kimber from his position of reign over Tottenham Court Road and Warren Street.

# data[].attributes.headline
Difference between a gangster and a thug

# data[].attributes.subject
Difference between a gangster and a thug

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Browse > Home / The difference between a Thug and a Gangster‏ * Hall of The Black Dragon

I've been meaning to write this article for some time but held off on it due to my not wanting to step on toes etc. I have a married friend who has not spent any time in prison, has a beautiful family and has no street gang or organized crime affiliation. Yet without hesitation I can say he is the most "gangster" individual I know. How is this? Well the term originated with organized crime, it was something that outsiders would call the wiseguys and the clubs of fellas that were doing their gang thing on the streets back in the day. As time passed and Hollywood became involved, the dangerous wiseguy of the slums became idealized into a street knight who chooses illicit ventures to profit while sticking to a harsh code of discipline. When musicians started claiming to be gangsters, they would reference street legends and movie stars, the latter being the majority of what a gangster is to them. Not only did this dilute the meaning of gangster but it actually changed it. Lots of these guys are not even in gangs - so my point is this, the term gangster is a fantasy.

Where gangsters were gentleman criminals, a thug was a negative term used for murderers, rapists and thieves. To be a thug meant you carried the stigma of being shady, ruthless and dangerously criminal. A gang of thugs are not gangsters, they are a gang. Unlike gangster, thug is not romanticized in the English language no matter how much these rappers try to tell you different. Some women have adapted the word as almost a term of endearment for the "bad boys" that they pursue. I guess being referred to as a thug feels a bit better than being called a "bad boy" but let's be real here, it's the exact same thing. Thugs are not gangsters, thugs are bad boys - ie: they are guys playing "dress-up" to look the part of a thug. Real thugs will shoot you, rob you, rape you and they do get locked up. Turn on the show Gangland, or Gang Nation and you will see true thugs. Most of these women claiming to "like thugs" could not handle a real thug. They like bad boys, so let's stop with the facade.

What is the true definition of Gangster?
Gangster mentality is doing what you have to in order to earn and be comfortable. Gangsters are as macho as they come, they can pull a lady with ease but you won't find them dressing like one (should I repeat this?) Gangsters take care of their loved ones, they scoff at wheel spinning, being in the rat race and are ambitious to a fault. Gangsters don't get into screaming matches in confrontations, it is seen as effeminate. A Gangster says his piece and you either follow it or face the repercussions. Gangsters don't dress up to look like thugs, they are generally clean shaven, void of tattoos and dress nicely. A Gangster can blend into any social atmosphere, as opposed to a thug who makes women clutch their purses.

So do you understand the difference now? Gangsters are rare, when I see a random dread-locked rapper claim to be gangster it makes me laugh. To me he looks more like the "thugs" I watch on the daily news shooting innocent children and old women. But the truth is I don't know that rapper personally, maybe he is a gangster and chooses to wear the outfit of a thug... one never knows. I will now list off real Gangsters and Thugs (oft times mistaken as Gangsters due to dress and affiliation) from some of the more popular movies as an illustration of the difference between the two. See if you can pick up on the pattern...

Movie Gangsters (mentality/actions)

Vito & Michael Corleone - The Godfather

Frank Lucas - American Gangster

Danny Ocean - Ocean's Eleven

Frank White - The King of New York

Carlito - Carlito's Way

Chili Palmer - Get Shorty

Tony Montana - Scarface

Arthur 'Cody' Jarrett - White Heat

The Joker - The Dark Knight

Tony Soprano - HBO's The Sopranos

Nino Brown - New Jack City

Tommy DeVito - Goodfellas

So you see ladies with the "bad boy" boyfriends and husbands, there's a huge difference so don't get it twisted. Playing "dress up" does not one a Thug make. I hope this helps to clear up the confusion that studio gangster rappers and skinny jean wearing "bad boys" have caused in using this terminology in their raps.

See some words or phrases that you don't understand? Check out The Dragon's Lexicon.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The difference between a Thug and a Gangster‏ * Hall of The Black Dragon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I've been meaning to write this article for some time but held off on it due to my not wanting to step on toes etc. I have a married friend who has not spent any time in prison, has a beautiful family and has no street gang or organized crime affiliation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Politics now, and the Office for National Statistics has today published the latest crime statistics for England and Wales, which show a marked decrease in the number of crime estimates. The home secretary welcomed the latest figures, saying: 'These statistics prove that while there is some crime in England and Wales there is definitely less crime now than there would have been had there been more crime. It just goes to show that we have had great success in ensuring the underlying trends on crime remain in keeping with changes that have definitely happened since this government came to power.' Now here's Tom with the weather."

It was always easy to make fun of crime statistics, even before the UK Statistics Authority announced this week that it was formally dropping police recorded crime figures as a gold standard measurement, citing repeated allegations that some of the quarterly published figures have been subject to "a degree of fiddling".

The decision is long overdue. Even if it were not the case that police use a variety of tricks to keep recorded crime figures low, this data would still represent an almost meaningless measure of the extent of crime in society, for the simple reason that a huge proportion of crimes (of almost all sorts) have always gone unreported.

The better measure of crime trends is the Crime Survey of England and Wales (CSEW), formerly the British Crime Survey. This public survey, of about 50,000 households, asks people whether they have experienced various types of behaviour over the past year, including violent assault, theft, burglary and other crimes.

Importantly, it counts offences even when they have not been reported to police and/or even if the victim didn't really think of them as crimes.

As has been widely noted, the CSEW has been showing significant declines in most forms of crime since the mid-1990s. Violent crime in particular would appear to have tumbled back to the rates of the early 1980s.

Unlike the police-reported crime figures, the CSEW is a serious and worthwhile data set. It provides useful information for policymakers and social scientists as to trends in certain behaviours. Ironically, however, the one thing it does not do is tell us how much crime is happening.

The sad truth is that most crime happens away from the prying eyes of the crime survey pollsters.

It happens to those living on the margins, the homeless, the mentally ill, those who are themselves in the criminal justice system. The crime survey does not address drugs crimes, so called vice crimes, financial fraud including benefit and tax crimes, crimes of negligence or financial exploitation. Other crimes happen online. The criminologist Marian Fitzgerald has pointed out the extent of online and plastic fraud, most of which goes unreported - to the police or surveys. When our computers are hacked and our financial details compromised, most of us tell our banks or credit card companies, or even internet provider, but rarely the police and few such crimes would be mentioned to CSEW researchers.

At the heart of this is a large and difficult question: what do we actually mean by crime? The reality is that crime is everywhere, and always has been. Few of us would question that a crime has been committed when a teenager walks out of HMV with a stolen CD in his or her bag, but what if the same teenager illegally downloads the same album from the internet? Are we calling the police?

Not many people rob banks at gunpoint these days, but how many rob them with a mouse and a spreadsheet? As a general rule, the poor have criminal records, the middle classes have skeletons in the closet and the rich have excellent accountants. Functional definitions of crime often fall back on social harm rather than mechanistic tallies of lawbreaking. By any such definition, those who skirt the rims of legality while playing roulette with the world's economy for personal gain have more blood and human misery on their hands than the entire population of Wormwood Scrubs put together. One of the great ironies of modern times is that the period of history characterised by Steven Pinker as demonstrating the better angels of our nature has coincided with a veritable wild west of grand larceny around corporate boardrooms of the world.

There is no such thing as a definitive measure of crime, because there is no such thing as a single definition of crime. It is important to know if interpersonal violence, muggings, burglary and so on are on the decline, because those are real crimes that have real impacts upon real people.

It is equally important to remember that those are not the only crimes that devastate lives.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is crime? We can't measure it because we haven't defined it | Ally Fogg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Politics now, and the Office for National Statistics has today published the latest crime statistics for England and Wales, which show a marked decrease in the number of crime estimates. The home secretary welcomed the latest figures, saying: 'These statistics prove that while there is some crime in England and Wales there is definitely less crime now than there would have been had there been more crime.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The incidence of crime in every London Borough