Inside London's Most Feared Estate (Milford Towers)

Comments · 780

• DR

  @Drew_PUBLIC · 2 weeks ago · pinned

  PUBLIC SIGNAL on WhatsApp for unfiltered updates...<a href="https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbCyA4XEawdkjVpxHB3o">https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbCyA4XEawdkjVpxHB3o </a><br>🤫

  39

• TH

  @TheLemonyOrange · 13 days ago

  Drew, the doc is crazy good, but you need to take better steps to protect peoples identity and their safety, especially given the circumstances in this documentary style video. Multiple people who said they don&apos;t want to be on camera, but they&apos;re still on camera at points either in frame or in the background. E.g. the cleaner guy you still used him talking, and him in the background of other shots with full face visible. And wellington, you showed his front door! Number and everything. I personally think you should correct what you can in this video with blurs on stuff, and take this thinking going forward into your next videos as well. Regular viewer of yours for over a decade, longer in fact, even met and spoke to you a few times, so I&apos;m not hating, I just think it&apos;s a serious matter to consider especially when making videos like this

  1.4K

• BA

  @bakerbaker4455 · 2 weeks ago

  an antidote to the slop of hatred other content creators are making, this was so good. Drillz is a real one.

  550

• VE

  @velily1 · 12 days ago

  I’m not sure how the laws work in the UK with children being able to give consent, but I would blur all of the children’s faces out anyway

  123

• FR

  @FragSavage · 2 weeks ago

  Big up Drillz, good to see people giving raw experiences of their life and what they go through. Huge respect.

  212

• FA

  @falakshah1949 · 12 days ago

  You need to do better to protect peoples identity when they say no. You can put them on frame and risk their lives innit. Got your peice and got out and leaving door numbers and faces of people right no there. <br><br>your responsibility does not end at delivering content.

  170

• MR

  @MrTannerteaches · 2 weeks ago

  I love Drillz. He&apos;s so open and articulate: clearly a really intelligent, thoughtful guy. You&apos;ve got to wonder about life dealing him a rough hand; if he was brought up with privilege, how successful would he be?

  80

• ST

  @Stonkeh · 12 days ago

  &quot;If money wasn&apos;t an object and you could go anywhere in the world, where would you go?&quot;<br><br>&quot;Croydon&quot;

  114

• LI

  @Lit51 · 2 weeks ago

  Love the authenticity like not a load of staged interviews just showing the real place

  47

• RA

  @Rasmusdud · 11 days ago

  What I find exhausting about documentaries like this is the framing around “finding the truth,” “uncovering the REAL Milford,” and getting beyond “media narratives” or “fearful headlines.” It presents as if the filmmaker is entering the area on a genuine truthseeking mission without preconcieved notions, but it becomes abundantly clear, very quickly, that he already knows what &quot;truth&quot; or &quot;reality&quot; hes looking for i.e that the place isn&apos;t so bad and that its misunderstood. Hes already going in there with a conclusion in mind. <br> <br>The first ten people he talks to tells him straight up that the area is dangerous, bad, that people get stabbed, that there is open drug dealing, and that they don&apos;t even feel comfortable talking to him because they might get into trouble. Instead of treating those accounts as meaningful, he keeps searching for “another perspective” until he eventually, finally, &nbsp;finds someone who says something different. If the method is simply to keep talking to people until somebody provides a reassuring counterpoint, then the filmmaker isn&apos;t really discovering the other side, he&apos;s selecting it. Two different people irrespective of each other refer to it as &quot;Crackford&quot; and one guy literally goes “Yeah, someone was stabbed outside my door and stained it with blood while my mum was visiting, but things aren&apos;t as bad right now.” Then he latches onto that whilst waffling about &quot;seeing hidden positives in Milford &quot; and about &quot;potential&quot; and &quot;opportunity&quot;.<br><br>The problem isn&apos;t that context is irrelevant, or that a neighbourhood can&apos;t be unfairly stereotyped. A place can genuinely have serious problems while also being more complicated than sensationalist headlines suggest. The problem is the asymmetry in that “understanding” is treated as something that should inevitably move you from a negative assessment toward a more positive one. When in reality genuine understanding could just as easily lead you to conclude that the original concerns were justified. Understanding someone&apos;s circumstances doesn&apos;t make the underlying event disappear. <br> <br>I mean at one point Drew goes &quot;My experience of Milford was defined by people who were open, welcoming and curious&quot;, like really? Do you mean after you had to climb onto the roof to get in because every door was locked and the first 10 people you spoke to told you they either cant be on camera for fear of violent reprecussions, or simply didnt want to speak to you at all? The MAIN guy you interviewed got &quot;nicked&quot; for a machete robbery worth 150k and the case was dropped because the witnesses didn&apos;t show up? Then he tells you nearly all &quot;bad boys&quot; are really just lonely and need mental health support to which Drew goes &quot;Yeah 100%&quot; ? <br> <br>That&apos;s what makes the whole “look beyond the narrative” posture feel so frustrating. It can reproduce the same distortion it claims to oppose. A sensationalist documentary might select frightening anecdotes to construct “this place is a hellhole,” while a contrarian documentary selects reassuring anecdotes and contextual explanations to construct “this place is actually fine.” Both can selectively frame reality. <br> <br>And the most revealing question is: what would actually have to happen for Drew to conclude that the place really was bad? If someone had hit him and stole his camera I&apos;d wager he would still have transformed that event into some lesson about understanding in the vein of “we need to understand the socioeconomic circumstances that produced this behaviour&quot;. At that point “understanding” has become unfalsifiable and the word is doing an enormous amount of ideological work. It has become a mechanism for explaining away anything that contradicts the preferred conclusion.<br><br>Understanding is supposed to make your model of reality more accurate. It isn&apos;t supposed to function as a moral solvent that dissolves every unpleasant fact you encounter.

  366

• LE

  @Lewis315 · 2 weeks ago (edited)

  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILC0pzaT-8M&amp;t=135">2:15</a> Water challenge!<br><br>Been waiting for this one!

  56

• SK

  @SkylarkingsCinema · 2 weeks ago

  Drillz point about estates being not a geographic thing but a wider thing is so true. What an unreal video mate this was so &nbsp;well put together. New Drew 1mil LFG

  29