Why do these attacks usually seem to happen in North England?

[OwlHoot]

Boys arrested over vicious attack

I blame Viking genes, seriously, as most settled in Yorkshire and Lancashire under the Danelaw

Thousands of years struggling and competing for small tracts of viable land in all those steep-sided Norwegian fiords must have been what gave the Vikings (and their descendents the Normans) a mean streak as well as an obsession with land and property ownership which we British share to this day.

Strange that the Scandinavians don't seem that cruel or grasping these days, as their forebears were. Or if they are one doesn't hear about it.

(and if the above sounds Northist or Racist or something, I don't give a flip. Apart from anything else my ancestors are mostly from Lancashire and via the Kay-Shuttleworth family we're descended from Bill Conk)

[minestrone]

Boys arrested over vicious attack

I blame Viking genes, seriously, as most settled in Yorkshire and Lancashire under the Danelaw

Thousands of years struggling and competing for small tracts of viable land in all those steep-sided Norwegian fiords must have been what gave the Vikings (and their descendents the Normans) a mean streak as well as an obsession with land and property ownership which we British share to this day.

Strange that the Scandinavians don't seem that cruel or grasping these days, as their forebears were. Or if they are one doesn't hear about it.

(and if the above sounds Northist or Racist or something, I don't give a flip. Apart from anything else my ancestors are mostly from Lancashire and via the Kay-Shuttleworth family we're descended from Bill Conk)

Nice fishing but your post is largely wrong.

Normans settled in the south of England and pretty much gentrified the place.

[Doggy Styles]

Nice fishing but your post is largely wrong.

Normans settled in the south of England and pretty much gentrified the place.

Norman Tebbit in Chingford was a case in point.

[minestrone]

Norman Tebbit in Chingford was a case in point.

[OwlHoot]

Nice fishing but your post is largely wrong.

Normans settled in the south of England and pretty much gentrified the place.

Huh?! Firstly I wasn't fishing, and second the Normans conquered the whole of England and Southern Wales, long after the Vikings had occupied north England which is what I was referring to.

[Sysman]

Huh?! Firstly I wasn't fishing, and second the Normans conquered the whole of England and Southern Wales, long after the Vikings had occupied north England which is what I was referring to.

For your information, the Normans were the branch of Norsemen who had settled in France.

If you dig into the historical records, the Vikings were not the rape and pillage lot as commonly thought; they tended to settle where they went and adopt the local customs.

[threaded]

When I was young I had, now looking back with the eyes of experience, the most dangerous job I have ever had: I was a newspaper boy with a round that went into Edlington.

Collecting the money from customers on a Friday was the dangerous time, and almost certainly helped make me so good at cross country on a bicycle, and gave me a few other useful life skills too.

I LOLed on reading the comments from the councillor: 'close knit community'. Obviously they haven't got a clue about their own constituency.

[snaw]

For your information, the Normans were the branch of Norsemen who had settled in France.

If you dig into the historical records, the Vikings were not the rape and pillage lot as commonly thought; they tended to settle where they went and adopt the local customs.

That's one of the 'modern' trends in History at the moment, to rewrite the vikings as good guys - but many historians think that's utter bollocks. I kind of agree.

They only ever settled once they'd bled the lands they invaded of most of their wealth for a few years. They left a trail of destruction in their wake, while most of the historical records form those times show quite clearly what the 'natives' (i.e. germans) thought of them.

BTW This argument would make sense if kids all over Scandinavia and Iceland were doing the same thing ... somehow I think not ...

[EternalOptimist]

That's one of the 'modern' trends in History at the moment, to rewrite the vikings as good guys - but many historians think that's utter bollocks. I kind of agree.

They only ever settled once they'd bled the lands they invaded of most of their wealth for a few years. They left a trail of destruction in their wake, while most of the historical records form those times show quite clearly what the 'natives' (i.e. germans) thought of them.

BTW This argument would make sense if kids all over Scandinavia and Iceland were doing the same thing ... somehow I think not ...

The vikings were a bit like locusts. They were peaceful traders and neighbours one minute, then they would 'swarm' and become dangerous predators and raiders the next. One theory is that they used peaceful trading expeditions as spying missions, looking for victims.

I am pretty sure that the two lads who are being questioned at the moment, presumably under the anti-terrorism laws, will finger Olaf the Red and Sven Bluetooth as the people who egged them on to do this.

[threaded]

IIRC the majority of the Edlington population are descended from families imported from Wales to work down t'pit.

So that kinda blows that Viking thing nonsense out of the water, what what?