I'm not being funny right, but the absolute thick kid from when I was at school has the exact same facial features as her. Like a cross between dopey from Snow White and Plug from the Beano. The woman who served me at the chippy on Monday also had the same features and chippy women tend to have a hint of the mutant gargoyle about them.
Is it a thing that certain facial features mean you're more likely to be thick? I don't mean in the victorian sense that having eyes close together means you're a criminal. I don't think that's what i mean. I mean, if you saw someone who looked like her you'd know she was as thick as two short planks without even having to interact with her.
You could make the argument that as facial expressions are driven by the brain, different levels of brain activity may translate into recognisable expressions or patterns of expressions which over time would also have an impact on facial musculature. This is only a hypothesis and not borne out by any studies that I'm aware of.
>>71749 I think if I saw someone who looked like her without the face tats and the "oh shit, I'm being done for murder" facial expression I wouldn't give her a second glance bust size not withstanding. Maybe properly daft people have a kind of "resting idiot face" or something?
>The 27-year-old, who used information from true crime documentaries to plan her alibi
Yeah, see, taking pointers from all the murderers who've been nicked already is a bad jumping off point. You want to look at what they did and then not do that. Like murder, don't do murder.
>>71751 One of the other articles says she confessed what she did to someone else and didn't properly dispose of unedited video footage she was relying on as part of her defence, which was probably more of an issue.
>IS IT A THING THAT CERTAIN FACIAL FEATURES MEAN YOU'RE MORE LIKELY TO BE THICK?
There's a host of things thickos do (or suffer from) that influence their appearance. Mouth breathing is the classic example where it physically changes your facial appearance over time but I imagine face tattoos is the more obvious.
>The court heard Groves had knives, Viking axes and portraits of serial killers on her bedroom wall.
>Steven Perian KC, prosecuting, told the jury Groves acted out of jealousy on 17 July last year, after she discovered her victim had been messaging a 13-year-old girl on Facebook.
>Following conviction, the jury was told Groves had been dealing cannabis.
>Yeah, see, taking pointers from all the murderers who've been nicked already is a bad jumping off point.
It depends on being switched on enough to realise where they went wrong.
Not saying I'd ever want to become a serial killer, but what has always struck me in those documentaries was that serial killers and other serial criminals seem to keep repeating their MOs. I guess once you've figured out what works, it's just easy to stick with it. But in the end, it's often the similiarities between different crimes that make police connect the dots and then enable them to catch up with you. So I guess one way to keep police and authorities off your trail would be to keep coming up with entirely new ways of committing your crimes that seem to have nothing to do with each other.
>Is it a thing that certain facial features mean you're more likely to be thick?
You aren't really allowed to talk about it these days in relation to humans, but the concept of "genetic load" is well-recognised in genetics. Some organisms just carry more harmful mutations than others - the obvious example would be horrendously inbred dogs. Some of these mutations will cause invisible problems like predisposition to disease, but some will cause visible problems like wonky facial features.
There's no single gene for low intelligence, behavioural problems or ugliness; really stupid people, absolute nutters or absolute munters tend to have lots of mutations that only cause a slight difference individually, but cumulatively add up to a serious deficit. We've only started to identify these genetic differences in the last few years, because they're so subtle - you need a lot of sequencing capacity and sophisticated statistical methods to identify hundreds or thousands of genes that each only have a tiny influence. It's possible to carry lots of genes that make you a munter but very few genes that make you a dunce or a nutter, but it's statistically quite unlikely. It's unfair, but attractive people are on average more intelligent and vice-versa.
In nature, we'd expect organisms with deleterious genes to be less likely to reach adulthood and so be less likely to reproduce. Humans have created an artificial environment in which the overwhelming majority of people do reach adulthood, because of things like universal healthcare and welfare benefits; In the Victorian era we'd expect more than a third of newborns to die before reaching adulthood, but today it's much less than 1%. As a result, we've seen a gradual but significant increase in the genetic load in developed societies.
Assortative mating amplifies these differences through the generations. 200 years ago, you'd probably just marry whoever in your village was willing to have you; today, there's a big difference between the sort of people who go off to university and settle down in their late 30s, versus the sort of people who get knocked up by some random lad off the estate. Increasing choice has increased the extent to which people couple up with people who are similar to themselves.
All of this is established science, but it's extremely politically incorrect because people tend to get quite third-reichy when they learn about it. I'm not entirely sure why, because it's led me (and a lot of my fellow travellers) towards a sort of benevolent paternalistic socialist perspective - if thickos and crims are doomed to lives of misery because of their shit genes, then those of us who aren't fucked have a moral duty to try and look after them. That perspective is also politically incorrect, for reasons I don't fully understand; I suspect that the upper middle class don't like the implications of a world in which their privileged position is the unearned result of genetic inheritance.
>>71755 >I suspect that the upper middle class don't like the implications of a world in which their privileged position is the unearned result of genetic inheritance.
Equal numbers might like the third-reichy view that their privileged position is the result of them being innately superior.
More importantly, wouldn't you give her your genetic load?
>>71749 >I'M NOT BEING FUNNY RIGHT, BUT THE ABSOLUTE THICK KID FROM WHEN I WAS AT SCHOOL HAS THE EXACT SAME FACIAL FEATURES AS HER.
Not really sure if I see the exact things there, but often thickos like that are unfortunate enough to have been born with foetal alcohol syndrome that affects your facial features and leave you with permanently lower IQ
The other thing is mouthbreathing, if you get into the habit of it as a child, or get it due to allergies or asthma, it permanently affects your features as you grow. I've also seen claims that it can lower IQ as the affect it has on your breathing hampers your brain development due to reduced oxygen.
One of the shittiest places on the South coast. So rough, even people from Portsmouth (right next door) think its rough and avoid the place. She actually seems like one of the better dressed residents.
I sent a snippet of this article to a goth lass who is into serial killers and said "I bet you'd have killed more than one before getting caught, what an amateur" and she's invited me over next weekend.
She's from not just Havant, but Leigh Park, and not just Leigh Park, but Botley Drive.
Havant is an awful town, the social housing of which is packed into a suburb called 'Leigh Park' which used to be the biggest council estate in Europe. Interestingly, it was built by Portsmouth City Council to deal with overflow of poor people in the city, but isn't located in Portsmouth.
Botley Drive is a particularly rough road within a rough suburb within a rough town, and a stone's throw from Portsmouth, a pretty rough city.
There used to be a gang associated with Botley Drive called 'The Botley Boys'.
In short, I'm not surprised she comes from this area, it is horrific.
>>71764 Wish I hadn't clicked on this because then I read stuff like >>71775 and I feel bad for how her 3 kids must be doing in all of this when ostensibly they never had a chance. They'll probably even have Gattaca-lad turn up to tell them they have a faulty genetics and should never try like we're all living in a Ken Loach film.
It doesn't look that horrible on Google Street View, tbh. Lower middle class to working class, yes, probably, but not like what you see on some poverty porn programmes on Channel 5.
Believe me, it is. I'm not >>71775 but grew up in Portsmouth and have distant family in Leigh Park. The kind of area you don't want to walk around in daylight, let alone night.
>>71780 I do wonder about that. So many shitholes look alright on Google Street view. I wonder what it is -- could it be the angle, the fact it's a still photo, or what? Even Skem doesn't look anywhere near as bleak as it actually is.
>>71783 In the case of Wythenshawe, Manchester, it was built specifically to have lots of green space and quite nicecouncil houses to replace the slums that were being cleared in the 1960s. So the layout is fine; it's only the residents (and the litter and the dog shit) that make it bad, none of which show up in photos.
The camera is about ten feet in the air, so everything has a slight toytown look. The images aren't especially sharp, which hides a lot of the subtler signs that distinguish ordinary wear-and-tear from total neglect. All the faces are blurred, so you can't see the haggard scowls of people who have been beaten down by life.
It's hard to get a sense of a place when you just randomly drop in. A lot of nice places have a shit bit, but shitholes don't have any nice bits. That's quite hard to tell from Street View - unless you really scour the place, it might not be obvious that somewhere is just an endless council estate with no shops or pubs. The images don't have a time or date stamp, so you can't tell if the high street is empty because it's 7am on Sunday or if there are an abnormally large number of young people wandering the streets at 2pm on a Tuesday.
Anybody who has lived in London knows that Aylesbury Estate has been branded the worst council estate in the country. We all knew growing up in Greater London that it was the worst kind of shithole that you had to avoid at all cost if you could help it. We used to joke that if you drove past it too slow, your wheels would go missing. And yet, on Street View, it looks a bit shit and dilapidated, but you wouldn't think it's really that bad. It's the kind of place where dolescum do their small-time drug deals out in the open in broad daylight, and will probably come and stab you if they spot you watching them.
This thread inspired me to look at the shittiest parts of my home town on street view to see if they'd look nicer on there. The first street I explored had a lad in a tracksuit with a can of strongbow wandering around in the middle of the day.
To my eyes, it definitely looks like a shithole. London has that weird thing where two near-identical brutalist estates can be either warzones or gentrified depending on the ratio of social renters to owner-occupiers.
The giveaway for me is the state of the windows - if anyone gave a shit, they would have been replaced years ago.
>>71788 The street I live on has many fly-tips and front gardens that may as well be fly-tips, four or five semi-permanent RVs, loosely thrown down AstroTurf over dirt and my neighbour pushing a stolen shopping trolley. The algae covered RV flying a tattered flag of St George is my favourite part.
Norris Green has historically been the one of the most notorious parts of Liverpool. The old boot estate used to be horrendous, but it looks quite nice these days because the council have knocked down and rebuilt most of it. If you look closely though, there are a few subtle clues that the area hasn't quite shaken off the past.
I know it's very common these days, but I never understood why they feel they have to put the headteacher's name on the sign. Is anybody actually going to think, "Oh, it's Mrs. Price... must be a good school then"...
