Frankie Fraser robbed and killed and now chats about it without a trace of remorse, trading off the overly romanticised image of East End mythology. This is like justifying the murderous Krays by saying they were nice to their mum - which is something Fraser also gives himself a pat on the back for. Despite the fact that he has done his time, why on earth do we continue to give such contemptible thugs airtime and treat them as worthy of such reverence?
Don't get me wrong - I have deep misgivings about the way he talks about what he did - like people say - with no remorse. I went to his talk & by the end was pretty bored. He has his 'patter' & whilst appearing to be open, is in fact very guarded. Anyone who asked questions which were outside said 'patter' were brought back into his comfort zone.
He came out with a load of crap about his sons still 'flying the flag' i.e by going into criminal activity & going in & out of jail. Flying what flag? He professed bemusement that his son growing up in Brighton is 'straight' & put this down to him being brought up outside London. I wanted to say 'Don't you think it's because he wasn't brought up by you ?'.
I found what he said about growing up in S. London interesting, but what really interests me are people who step outside the confines of their 'background' or whatever you want to call it.
I have mixed feelings about all of this stuff, that's why what I am saying is somewhat contadictory to what I said earlier !!
I do however feel that people should be able to hear what he has to say. As Descartes said 'I may not agree with what you say, however I will defend unto the death your right to say it' or something like that !! I think it's important to understand why a lot of people in S. London have genuine affection for the Richardsons as well, as I mentioned in my previous message. Also, their 'victims' were other villains who thrive on violence - getting bumped off is an occupational hazard that they were well aware of. The Krays were a different kettle of fish, especially one of them in particular. I won't go into reasons for this here, but there are differences in the way they operated.
I think you'll find that some of the "victims" weren't all consenting adults, the idea that criminal gangs just went around being nasty to one another, while the ordinary citizen went unmolested is an enduring myth that doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.
Yes, he has a right to speak and be heard, after all we're a pretty tolerant bunch aren't we? He also has a right to sell his dubious memoirs to as many vicarious thrill seekers, mug enough to part with their money as possible. And I'd rather not hear any garbage about old fashioned courtesy, respect, or streets safe for old ladies to walk in, or how they never had muggers in their day.
That's a shame -I thought we could have a good old row about it !!
Only joking !
I'm certainly not an apologist for these people (even tho' I seem to have done a good impression of one in some parts - WOOPS !)
Yeah I know what you mean about ranting - I can relate to that !
p.s. every one...I try to stay away from the books, films d.v.d's etc., theres enough horror and sadness in everyday life, and despite what I may have given people the impression of, I really hate violence. violence is acceptable in self defence only I think, and thats only in the heat of the moment!