Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Recommended Posts

I rarely go to musicals but it seems audience behaviour at these shows is so bad that it is becoming necessary to employ bouncers to control them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...0CB709D01CD3B5C

Drunkenness in the UK has in recent years taken on Hogarthian proportions, though the worst excesses that I've seen personally have been outside of London.

I’d like to reassure everyone that the things described in this article go far beyond the worst things I've experienced at the ballet.

Link to comment

"Hogarthian" indeed. :lol: It's wierd to learn from this article that performances as relatively genteel as "A Little Night Music" and "Waiting for Godot" are being affected too. (Maybe the audience member who relieved himself at the side of the stage during the Sondheim was so entranced by "Send in the Clowns" that he could not bear the thought of having to leave the auditorium even for an instant.)

Ticket prices reduced to as little as £10 to attract younger audiences and a liberal attitude to alcohol in the auditorium have served to fuel the vulgar antics.
Lower ticket prices may contribute, but the real culprit seems to be the acceptance (which many will read as "encouragement") of alcohol in the theaters.

At what point will this sort of thing drive other people -- the traditional audience -- AWAY FROM theaters? Maybe it will take that kind of public reaction to make the theater owners wake up.

Link to comment

Maybe I'm a stick in the mud, but I find alcohol abuse ruins a lot of activities these days: sporting events, going to a movie, popular music concerts, walking around the city after work, even taking the train home at night (from Thursday-Saturday).

Link to comment
During another performance of the same play, Miss Scacchi recalled someone falling asleep in the front row and snoring loudly.

In the context of the rest of the article, snoring seems positively genteel! There's plenty of snoring going on in NYC theaters and concert halls, of course. I never know if I should give the snorer a gentle nudge and risk startling them into a loud "Huh! What!" or just let them sleep on in peace. If they're sleeping, chances are they won't cough ...

Link to comment

I think an element of moderacy should be taken in relation to this article. Firstly it's the Daily Mail, (for US members think Fox News, without the left-wing bias and sober reporting).

This is a typical scare-mongering tactic that the Mail is famous for. The theatres hiring bouncers are ones producing pop-music shows which are becoming increasingly popular in London. It's basically a karaoke night strung together with set pieces and a flimsy storyline and as the theatre owners did say it's a boozed up night out, nothing more a great deal of the time.

I think the reaction to this story stems more from the outdated notion that a theatre is some kind of hallowed or sacresanct place where great art is created. Having been to that Patrick Stewart Waiting for Godot, I can't say I blame the man for texting, it was boring as hell.

The "piece" in the Mail also made those wonderful leaps of hyperbole and scandal it's famous for, the theatre manager assaulted by a drunk man who came into the theatre foyer didn't actually say whether or not the man was going to see the show - on a night out in London the streets are indeed full of drunken revellers. It's par for the course.

Also the one off tale of a man urinating, the texting etc while bad behaviour aren't the norm. (Though texting increasingly is, but so what? It happens everywhere, it's not great sure, but it hardly merits 1000 words in a newspaper but is strung as a tag on the bouncer story to give it extra oomph.

It really, really really isn't that bad in London, believe me, must have been a very slow day in the newsroom.

Link to comment
I think an element of moderacy should be taken in relation to this article. Firstly it's the Daily Mail, (for US members think Fox News, without the left-wing bias and sober reporting).

Simon G takes a snobbish attitude to one of the largest selling papers in the UK. Sadly all British newspapers are politically biased however most of them don’t make these things up, as you can tell from the quotes.

This is a typical scare-mongering tactic that the Mail is famous for. The theatres hiring bouncers are ones producing pop-music shows which are becoming increasingly popular in London. It's basically a karaoke night strung together with set pieces and a flimsy storyline and as the theatre owners did say it's a boozed up night out, nothing more a great deal of the time.

I admitted that I rarely watch musicals so I cannot say from personal experience just how great the problem actually is, but I know from film going that hooliganism is now an out of control problem in cinemas throughout the UK so it is hardly surprising that that phenomena is now spreading to live theatre. By the way, the production where the ‘patron’ peed against the stage was ‘A Little Night Music’, hardly ‘karaoke night’

Here is more evidence of what goes on; perhaps as it is reported by the BBC rather than the Daily Mail, Simon G. will give the story some credence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yo...ire/8181052.stm

I think the reaction to this story stems more from the outdated notion that a theatre is some kind of hallowed or sacresanct place where great art is created. Having been to that Patrick Stewart Waiting for Godot, I can't say I blame the man for texting, it was boring as hell.

At one time great art was regularly created in the theatre, if you didn’t enjoy Waiting for Godot, why did you simply not leave? Something the texter should by rights have been asked to do.

The "piece" in the Mail also made those wonderful leaps of hyperbole and scandal it's famous for, the theatre manager assaulted by a drunk man who came into the theatre foyer didn't actually say whether or not the man was going to see the show - on a night out in London the streets are indeed full of drunken revellers. It's par for the course.

I see this as a very sad sign of the times as I can remember when pubs didn’t have bouncers nor did shops have security guards

Also the one off tale of a man urinating, the texting etc while bad behaviour aren't the norm. (Though texting increasingly is, but so what? It happens everywhere, it's not great sure, but it hardly merits 1000 words in a newspaper but is strung as a tag on the bouncer story to give it extra oomph.

So What? That is a very casual attitude towards an act of anti social behaviour that may well have ruined someone’s night out. If these things happen they merit reporting.

It really, really really isn't that bad in London, believe me, must have been a very slow day in the newsroom.

Actually it is that bad in London and it is terrifying to think that one of the last bastions of normality, the theatre, is also falling victim to the tidal wave of crime that is ruining a once great city.

Link to comment
I think the reaction to this story stems more from the outdated notion that a theatre is some kind of hallowed or sacrosanct place where great art is created.

I've heard this point expressed with increasing frequency in recent years.

The idea seems to be that expecting respect towards one's fellow members of the audience is somehow elitist and sadly old-fashioned.

Perhaps there were ticket--purchasers in the audience who DID think that Patrick Stewart, if not actually "creating art," was participating in a serious artistic event. Perhaps they wanted to experience the language of Waiting for Godot. Perhaps they were just looking for a quiet, non-smelly place to have a little snooze.

The point is, these people had expectations too. And rights, I should think.

Link to comment
Actually it is that bad in London and it is terrifying to think that one of the last bastions of normality, the theatre, is also falling victim to the tidal wave of crime that is ruining a once great city.

And you have the temerity to call me a snob after a statement like that? The Daily Mail is a filthy, scaremongering, right wing tabloid which loves tales of depravity, youth yobbism, to sell papers. It's well known for making up facts to fit the story they wish to portray. So in fact it's not snobbism on my part, if anything it's inverse snobbism, but do forgive me, I'm a Guardian reader. (The Guardian is a left wing, scaremongering broad sheet which makes up facts to fit its stories BTW).

The story was NOT about high art, it's about a growing trend for theatre productions which are nothing more than frameworks for pop songs and the type of boozed up clientele those productions attract. Which is what I meant by the misguided notion that theatre is sacrosanct - these are basically X Factor, American Idol events it's not art. Which is where the bouncers come in on these shows and nowhere else. Of course that's not much of a story, so it had to be expanded to feature length.

The guy with the weak bladder - it's third hand heresay from cast members, not saying it isn't true, I'm sure it is, and I do think a guy peeing in A Little Night Music is gross, but would it have been less gross in Mamma Mia? Or just a rather honest comment on the production? If he'd done it in Cats he might have just been marking his territory?

Yes, texting is annoying, but no one's calling in bouncers for that, and they do ask you to switch off your phone and if you don't they do, yes they really do intervene if you annoy others in the audience - and it's not just yobs off their faces on crystal meth and alco pops who text - it's upper middle class people too! The kind of people who read the Daily Mail, even.

And I do have to say, give me a texter any day of the week over the two very proper, upper middle class men who were in my row at the Royal Opera House in La Bayadere, who during the shades act started giving each other hand relief.

And I don't see what my dislike of the Godot production has to do with your telling me to leave? I paid my money, a lot of it, and since box office rarely takes "I think this stinks" as a valid excuse for a refund, I decided to stick it out. If they guy was silently texting, so what? If not then yes, he's an inconsiderate idiot, but it's hardly a sign of the decline of western civilisation and once again do you think someone who buys a ticket for Beckett is going to buy a ticket for Thriller or We Will Rock you? The places employing bouncers.

I'd like to know Mashinka exactly when London was this great crime free utopia you seem to imagine? Well we no longer have the plague, hangings for children stealing bread, rampant syphilis or bands of rogues knifing you for groats, it's illegal to pee, poo have sex in the streets now, the Royal Opera House is no longer a knocking shop, the floor of the Globe has hazlenut shells for decoration, not to soak up the urine, vomit, faeces. There's ample police presence, a woman can walk the streets without fear of being raped, touted, mugged etc

Indeed the only place where London is still going to hell in a handbag is in nasty, right ring scaremongering tabloids like the Daily Mail.

Mashinka you want to be outraged and disgusted that's your prerogative, but please give London a break, it's a great city and anyone wishing to visit, I promise you won't be going back to your respective countries in an air ambulance.

Link to comment

Well, this is getting interesting. Take an even strain, everyone. :lol:

Thanks for starting the topic, Mashinka. Not having been to London I can't comment from that angle, but from what I've read here and elsewhere my thoughts fall between the two stools.

The story was NOT about high art, it's about a growing trend for theatre productions which are nothing more than frameworks for pop songs and the type of boozed up clientele those productions attract.

The article is really comparing apples and oranges - there's a clear difference between a drunken yobbo making a nuisance of himself at one of these shows and audience members using their cell phones during performances of Beckett, not that the latter are any less annoying.

The guy with the weak bladder - it's third hand heresay from cast members, not saying it isn't true, I'm sure it is, and I do think a guy peeing in A Little Night Music is gross, but would it have been less gross in Mamma Mia? Or just a rather honest comment on the production? If he'd done it in Cats he might have just been marking his territory?

The point is that people going to see Sondheim are generally respectable folk who purchase their tickets with the reasonable expectation of having a respectable evening at the theater, an expectation that doesn't usually include public urination. So yes, context does matter. And even if it's a horrible show, there are certain baselines for behavior which should be respected. (I agree in principle that some kinds of theater lose something with the Frozen Chosen etiquette that's now customary but on the other hand it's nice to know you'll be able to watch the perfomance in peace, if you want to.)

One does read these stories of hooliganism at football games and bars, though. Troubling.

Thanks for this historical context, Simon G. Those were the days, all right.

Link to comment

I had a German friend who used to complain that American audiences just slept! He was all for booing, catcalling (at local modern dance performances in D.C. where this is ABSOLUTELY NOT DONE!!!!!) He felt that audience participation was half the fun. He had a different standard of behavior in an opera house, which I thought was unfair. If you can boo Cindy Dancer and Friends, then surely the big ballet companies should deserve the same treatment. (I am NOT suggesting this, just relating a past discussion :helpsmilie: )

As dirac noted, the hooliganism at football games -- and on airplanes! -- is disturbing. It sounds like the 18th century, when all London was, one reads, drowning in gin. Tea saved them then.

Link to comment

Interesting discussion. Informed "booing" is one thing, and I can understand it. It can of course go too far, as with the paid claques at La Scala and elsewhere. But the impassioned boo-er at least has a point of view, one based in a certain amount of knowledge, even if wrong-headed. I can see a place for honest political protest inside a theater as well, even when I don't agree with the protester.

The bored texter (a distraction), the self-righteous cellphone user (an annoyance), and especially the drunken lout (a form of intimidation), are less easy to excuse, it seems to me.

I am one of those who does continue to think of the theater as a special place, though no longer having the religious significance of its Greek origins. I also think of mannerly public behavior -- which shows awareness of other people's expectations and needs -- as having a useful (in the sense of "utilitarian") function. The "greatest good for the greatest number" in theaters requires a certain amount of social self-control by all. Even when a show is one of those

theatre productions which are nothing more than frameworks for pop songs,
most ticket-buyers have come with the legitimate expectation of being be able to focus on the show itself.

Those who are want an audience experience that is wildlly unpredictable, thrilling, and possibly dangerous already have plenty of other venues for that sort of thing.

Maybe it's time for an audience -- and artist -- boycott of those theaters who allow and possibly encourage this sort of behavior.

Link to comment
And I do have to say, give me a texter any day of the week over the two very proper, upper middle class men who were in my row at the Royal Opera House in La Bayadere, who during the shades act started giving each other hand relief.

These are my choices? Maybe it is getting bad out there. :helpsmilie:

Link to comment

Wow! and I thought what occurred at the Met Opera this season was gross. It was the night of Osipova's La Sylphide. I was sitting in the Dress Circle and during the first ballet (Taylor's Airs) there was a slight commotion two seats away from me in my row. After the ballet a young couple rose to question the elderly man and his wife sitting behind them. He was apparently kicking the back of their seats and claimed they were leaning back and pushing their seats on to his legs. (a surprise to me, these seats do not move back with any pressure). The young woman was trying to reason with him, whereupon he called her a bitch. The young husband demanded an apology, but the older man repeated his charge again. At this point the young man reached up with one strong arm and pulled the man down to his seat---but quickly thought better and shoved him back up. At this point the ushers finally woke up and security was called. All four were escorted out---and for the rest of the intermission the many onlookers were taking bets on which couple would be back. (it was the older couple--- we guessed the young couple were given better seats.)

Link to comment

Not to mention during the opening night Romeo and Juliet, a woman's phone went off, not ONCE, but TWICE, and she answered both times, and had CONVERSATIONS, both times! The ushers were called but they couldn't get her to stop yapping. This was right behind me.

I will say though that as for audience behavior, nothing is more annoying than the "loud conscientious objector" who cannot refrain from making negative coments throughout the performance, under the breath, but audibly. This happened during the Kirov's run at City Center -- I was sitting next to a woman who certainly seemed to know a lot about ballet. So she tore every performance to shreds -- during the performances. When Diana Vishneva and Andrian Fadeev had a shaky moment during the Don Q pdd she spit, "See! Awful! They should never be allowed onstage!" She'd follow the pirouettes of dancers with the turns of her finger and if a dancer's pirouette was not perfectly vertical or clean her nose would crinkle and she would say, "Messed up! Ruined!"

Link to comment
I hope they were in the amphi. Given the price of tickets in the stalls and grand tier a hotel room would have been the more cost-effective choice.

No Leigh it was NOT. We were in the back rows of the ground stalls where tickets at that time were £70 and I'd decided to treat myself, as did they.

The thing is because we were in a "respectable" environment everyone around these two including me, just pretended nothing was going on and when lights went up these two were just so pleased with themselves as if they'd pulled off the crime of the century.

Link to comment
The thing is because we were in a "respectable" environment everyone around these two including me, just pretended nothing was going on and when lights went up these two were just so pleased with themselves as if they'd pulled off the crime of the century.

It’s like many of those Sacha Baron Cohen routines, which play off the determination of everyone else in the room to be as polite and impervious to outrage as possible. I’m surprised Baron Cohen hasn’t thought of it.

And audiences used to be even rowdier. Think of the "gods" in the gallery in Les Enfants du Paradis.

Link to comment
And audiences used to be even rowdier. Think of the "gods" in the gallery in Les Enfants du Paradis.
My memory may be off, but isn't one of the points that this audience of mostly young, mostly poor Parisians are rowdy because they are focused on the performance and are fully involved with with it and the actors? This audience is SO involved, it joins in quite naturally with its own responses and rejoinders.

It's the same with the Italian opera audience whose noise so upsets the uptight middle-class English character (Judy Davis, I believe) in the film of Forster's Where Angels Fear to Tread. They identify deeply with what they see, as she cannot.

Both films side with those those noisy precisely because they really do care about what is happening on stage.

The people described in the Daily Mail story (and in the other threads we've had on this topic) are operating quite differently. They seem to be bored, distracted, alienated, and/or out of control. All of them are engaged in what are essentially private rituals, very few of which have to do with engaging with the performance or the performers.

They're about dis-engagement with the performance, if anything.

Link to comment
The people described in the Daily Mail story (and in the other threads we've had on this topic) are operating quite differently. They seem to be bored, distracted, and/or out of control, all of them engaged in what are essentially private rituals, very few of which have to do with engaging with the performance or the performers.

Bart,

That's the crux of the issue in a nutshell. The fact is certain shows, which attract a certain clientele will be having bouncers at Certain performances in order to keep the peace should trouble arise. It says nothing about the state of the UK only about these shows, certain members of the audience who could potentially cause a problem.

Much the same way that security is present at rock concerts - that's what these shows are, pop music concerts and this is why it's vital to maintain a level head in assessing the Daily Mail article.

Yes, peeing in the auditorium is nasty but it's the action of one rather strange man, he hastn't started a pandemic of audience members urinating in the aisles of British theatres.

Yes Mashinka there will always be the odd wrong un who takes matters to extremes, but they are the minority, there are very few truly evil people knocking around and the vast majority of audience members in theatres, cinemas and performances throughout the world are there because they want to be, and because they want to enjoy the show.

Alexandra talking about the vociferous nature of the US audiences being a case in point, the first time I watched dance in NY I was quite taken aback by how loud they were in showing their appreciation.

I think that's why I hate the Daily Mail so much, it fosters this awful sense of apocolyptic doom, a sense that the UK is falling apart due to loose morals, bad parenting and Satanic excess. It's really not, London is safe as houses.

Link to comment
I think that's why I hate the Daily Mail so much, it fosters this awful sense of apocolyptic doom, a sense that the UK is falling apart due to loose morals, bad parenting and Satanic excess.
I see your point. It's one thing to read a single article out of context, and quite another to have the identical point pushed in your face day after day, regardless of the ostensible story.

We in the U.S. have our own media who do pretty much the same thing -- at least when their political party is out of power. :helpsmilie:

Link to comment
All of them are engaged in what are essentially private rituals, very few of which have to do with engaging with the performance or the performers.

They're about dis-engagement with the performance, if anything.

Excellent point and quite right, but my reference to the gallery gods was intended not so much in relation to the texters and the drunks but to theater etiquette in general – that is to say, it wasn’t always the custom for everyone to sit down and shut up at the theater or opera – the house lights did not go down and there was no sacral hush, for the ‘upper’ orders as well as the lower. The obstreperousness of the gods is related to their involvement in the performance, but they are also vocal because at that time and in that place it was okay to be. No matter how young and engagé you are, you can’t behave as they did at the theater today unless the circumstances are special ones. Not that it would be desirable for them to do so, and of course, the theater is no longer the popular art it was.

Link to comment

Getting back to London specific theatre-going, :) I was surprised to note on a recent visit to London that food and drink is still sold in the theatre auditorium itself during interval. I enjoyed my choc ice-cream, not least because air conditioning is still a scarce commodity in London. However since alcohol is indeed so prevalent in UK public spaces, I am sure some theatre-goers don't really comprehend the difference between drinking water and drinking wine in the theatre or why they shouldn't be clinking their beer bottles in time (or otherwise) to the music.

Link to comment
And you have the temerity to call me a snob after a statement like that? The Daily Mail is a filthy, scaremongering, right wing tabloid which loves tales of depravity, youth yobbism, to sell papers. It's well known for making up facts to fit the story they wish to portray. So in fact it's not snobbism on my part, if anything it's inverse snobbism, but do forgive me, I'm a Guardian reader. (The Guardian is a left wing, scaremongering broad sheet which makes up facts to fit its stories BTW).

Calm down. I am not a Daily Mail reader nor am I a Guardian reader for that matter, however part of my work is with a press office and although we employ a professional press cutting agency, they are less efficient at digging out articles on the web. When things are quiet, such as now when parliament is in recess, I trawl the sites for relevant articles and sometimes come across interesting pieces such as the one I posted.

On line the Daily Mail seems to specialize in celebrity gossip (definitely not my thing) whereas The Guardian on line has a section called Comment is Free where the readers post their thoughts on issues of the day. I’ve read a few and have to say it doesn’t say much for the papers readership.

The story was NOT about high art, it's about a growing trend for theatre productions which are nothing more than frameworks for pop songs and the type of boozed up clientele those productions attract. Which is what I meant by the misguided notion that theatre is sacrosanct - these are basically X Factor, American Idol events it's not art. Which is where the bouncers come in on these shows and nowhere else. Of course that's not much of a story, so it had to be expanded to feature length.

Again you miss the point, people have paid good money for a night out regardless of the fact their personal taste in entertainment is far removed from your own, they still have the right to enjoy their night out

The guy with the weak bladder - it's third hand heresay from cast members, not saying it isn't true, I'm sure it is, and I do think a guy peeing in A Little Night Music is gross, but would it have been less gross in Mamma Mia? Or just a rather honest comment on the production? If he'd done it in Cats he might have just been marking his territory?

Surely the point of this anecdote is that it illustrates the levels certain audience members have sunk to.

Yes, texting is annoying, but no one's calling in bouncers for that, and they do ask you to switch off your phone and if you don't they do, yes they really do intervene if you annoy others in the audience - and it's not just yobs off their faces on crystal meth and alco pops who text - it's upper middle class people too! The kind of people who read the Daily Mail, even.

And I do have to say, give me a texter any day of the week over the two very proper, upper middle class men who were in my row at the Royal Opera House in La Bayadere, who during the shades act started giving each other hand relief.

I imagine a lot of people must have witnessed that and were too embarrassed to do anything. Ideally someone should have alerted an usher, it is technically an act of gross indecency and a criminal offence. The Opera House would have been within its rights to press charges and a spot of name and shaming in the press (whether Mail or Guardian is irrelevant) would have put an end to their particular fetish. It’s clearly not that uncommon as he evening paper, unlike the Mail, referred to a show (unnamed) being stopped after a couple began having sex in the stalls.

And I don't see what my dislike of the Godot production has to do with your telling me to leave? I paid my money, a lot of it, and since box office rarely takes "I think this stinks" as a valid excuse for a refund, I decided to stick it out. If they guy was silently texting, so what? If not then yes, he's an inconsiderate idiot, but it's hardly a sign of the decline of western civilisation and once again do you think someone who buys a ticket for Beckett is going to buy a ticket for Thriller or We Will Rock you? The places employing bouncers.

Well I’ve seen Godot at the National in the past and was planning on taking a friend who sobbed his heart out when Michael Jackson died to see Thriller. Having read the article though, I’ve changed my mind about that.

I'd like to know Mashinka exactly when London was this great crime free utopia you seem to imagine? Well we no longer have the plague, hangings for children stealing bread, rampant syphilis or bands of rogues knifing you for groats, it's illegal to pee, poo have sex in the streets now, the Royal Opera House is no longer a knocking shop, the floor of the Globe has hazlenut shells for decoration, not to soak up the urine, vomit, faeces. There's ample police presence, a woman can walk the streets without fear of being raped, touted, mugged etc

Well this woman has been mugged by two youths just yards from her front door. It may be illegal to ‘pee, poo have sex in the streets’ but that doesn’t stop people doing it. I imagine there has never been what you describe as a crime free Utopia, but there was a time in the 1950’s, 60’s and part of the 70’s when it was unusual to find anyone who had been a victim of crime now it is highly unusual to find anyone who has not been a victim of crime.

Indeed the only place where London is still going to hell in a handbag is in nasty, right ring scaremongering tabloids like the Daily Mail
.

Simon, you do appear to have a serious hang up about the Daily Mail don’t you? A former colleague of mine is married to a ‘Father of the Chapel’ who has a rabid hatred of Rupert Murdoch and all his works. That I can understand, but what is your excuse?

Mashinka you want to be outraged and disgusted that's your prerogative, but please give London a break, it's a great city and anyone wishing to visit, I promise you won't be going back to your respective countries in an air ambulance.

My prerogative? Well perhaps it is. Seriously off topic as this might be I’m going to tell you about my own little corner of London.

I live in a fairly ordinary street in South London that is adjacent to a railway station, it is also a main road, noisy perhaps but I liked the convenience when I first moved in. That station has been targeted twice by armed robbers; an elderly woman was beaten almost to death on one of the platforms and last year a woman was badly stabbed outside the station after refusing to give a gang of children a cigarette. Lone commuters are regularly targeted for their laptops and mobiles. That is what happened to me when I was attacked. Over the years the number of people travelling on that line at night has plummeted and most nights I am in a virtually empty carriage. Coming home from the opera a couple of weeks ago a young woman leaving the station with me commented on how brave she thought I was to travel alone, she didn’t say it, but I think she saw me as reckless.

That is just the station: in my road there was an armed siege, a woman seriously sexually assaulted by six men and in the house next door a man was found dead in mysterious circumstances. A feud between two neighbours in my house led to an arson attack and I woke in the early hours to huge sheets of flame outside my window. This is the serious stuff but burglaries, casual violence and anti social behaviour are a daily occurrence. Police sirens and helicopters punctuate my sleep and one of my sisters jokingly describes me as living in a war zone as she has never called me on the phone without hearing the sound of sirens. Perhaps you will agree that when I described a tidal wave of crime, in my personal circumstances I wasn’t exaggerating.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...