Following on form Daves harrowing account in the Lounge...
-
I am not suggesting the cane, but the situation today in the UK is untenable, as I am sure you know: When you have under 16s beyond the control of any law then you have the results you see today. Quite clearly the touchy feely approach hasn't worked. If it had, then number crimes committed annulally by this age group would have declined since the abolition of institutions designed to handle them. Here is a sample of what is easilly available infor on youth crime stastics: More under 16s are behind violent crime [^] Whatever the change of tactic there has been since the 1970s is clearly not effective. Actually the reason is quite simple. It is based on th emistaken belief that all people are inherently good and only do bad things when driven to do so because of boredom, or adveertising or some such. What this point of view totally fails to take into account is that some people are actually violent thieving twats and need locking up.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
What this point of view totally fails to take into account is that some people are actually violent thieving twats and need locking up.
They are yes, but by nature they are very much in the minority. It is not only the change of tactic since 70s, but the there is a change in population size, population demographic, community makeup, perception of the nation, of entitlement, of expectation, of share of wealth, education, jobs, and so on and so on and so on. Your argument that the only thing that needs reversing is the way we punish children is simplistic and massively flawed. It may be part of the answer in some way, but it is not in itself the answer.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
What this point of view totally fails to take into account is that some people are actually violent thieving twats and need locking up.
They are yes, but by nature they are very much in the minority. It is not only the change of tactic since 70s, but the there is a change in population size, population demographic, community makeup, perception of the nation, of entitlement, of expectation, of share of wealth, education, jobs, and so on and so on and so on. Your argument that the only thing that needs reversing is the way we punish children is simplistic and massively flawed. It may be part of the answer in some way, but it is not in itself the answer.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
ChrisElston wrote:
They are yes, but by nature they are very much in the minority.
A minority that create havoc in society.
ChrisElston wrote:
It may be part of the answer in some way, but it is not in itself the answer.
There isnt 'an answer', a 'silver bullet'. It was searching for this kind of magic cure that took us down the pointless road we took with child crime. Now, to your points in detail: Population size: This hasnt changed appreciably since the 70s. Population demographic: Again, has there been a significant change that can account for the increase in crime? (Since the crime is not exclusive to racial sub groups any change in this is not going to be relevant). As for age. Well the population has got older, but it is kids we are talking about, so again, how is this relevant? Commuhnity makeup: Same as demographics. Perception of the nation: Percentage of crimes reported and sentenced has reduced over the decades. Yet still they are increasing. Entitlement, expectation, wealth, education: All of this has become more avaiolable over the last 40 years. Jobs: In London, where the rioting took place, there is plenty of work o clearly this isnt a factor. So when your list is analysed in detail it is clear that none of those are factors, and that the reason why these kids are violent criminals is because they chose to be. Therefore treat them as such.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
They are scum. The army should have gone in and shot the lot of them. They dont deserve to live in the same society as the rest of us.
Quite the change-of-tone. What happened to "oh, it'll be good for the economy"? You sound like you want a Russian approach, as in gassing an entire theatre full of hostages and refusing to tell the medical personnel trying to save the innocents what gas you used.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You sound like you want a Russian approach, as in gassing an entire theatre full of hostages and refusing to tell the medical personnel trying to save the innocents what gas you used.
Complete rubbish. Most of the terrorist were wrapped with explosives and nails. If even one has goes off it would have been a massacre. But I’m sure you have a better idea how the Special Forces have to react in such situation. The hesitation and “mild approach” during the other terrorist attack in Beslan’s school resulted in far more causalities. If I was in that fricking theater I would have prefer the Special Forces to do exactly what they did. At least this will gives me some fair chance of survival. And the civilian causalities was result from inability to bring enough ambulances in the narrow area in time, not the attack. And they manage to kill all of the 30 bastards! Every single one of them.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
These are the kind of people he encountered: Man dragged off scooter by mob in Croydon riot [^] I can hear ll the usual shouts fomr the liberals of 'oh, poor them, they are underprivaledged, society is unequal' and all that crap. Here is the proof it is crap: An aspiring ballerina was among a group of girls caught on CCTV standing outside an electrical store deciding what to steal. [^] Underpriviledged is she? Deprived in some way? And those scum terrorising people with impunity in the first link? Underprivaledged are they? To live in one of the worlds richest cities? In one of the worlds most advanced and tolerant countries, where equal oppportunity is the law, and possibilities to improve ones life abound. Disenfranchised are they? They are thieving violent scum. The army should have gone in and shot the lot of them. They dont deserve to live in the same society as the rest of us.
============================== Nothing to say.
If that happened in Chicago that car would've been full of dead punks in seconds. I'm happy our officers use deadly force without a flinch when faced with motorists using cars as weapons. The husband of my friend was actually hit by a criminal, survived fine, unfortunately his partner wasn't as accurate with his shooting as he should have been and the crook survived. This is not the exact case, but it happens all the time: http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/officer-struck-by-a-vehicle-in-south-chicago-neighborhood.html[^]
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson My comedy.
-
I got two, dumbass.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
How in the remotest sense is that in anyway relevant to the first video I posted? Did you even watch it?
Yes, I did. It was directed towards the statement of yours that I quoted.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I got two, dumbass.
Watch the name calling Ravel. Nothing wrong with a good argument but the name calling has to go. gets off soapbox.
Just along for the ride. "the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) -
I always love the argument on phone in programs "They should bring back the cane, I was caned all the time at school, never did me any harm". Well it obviously never did you any good either then did it you daft cunt.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
ChrisElston wrote:
I always love the argument on phone in programs "They should bring back the cane, I was caned all the time at school, never did me any harm".
Every instance of that I've heard of (or experienced myself) was more along the lines of: "I was caned, and holey fuck did I never do that again." There will always be some outliers but a good dose of the cane will make model citizens out of the majority of miscreants. Kids need to know that actions have consequences. Even if that consequence is trouble sitting for a day or two.
Kill some time, play my game Hop Cheops[^]
-
Picking and choosing to suit your argument, that's not like you at all. You cannot solve anything without understanding the cause of it, and trying to simply eradicate it very, very rarely works.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
Does "War on Terrorism" sound familiar. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Well, who doesn't release stuff like that ? Microsoft software is just as bad. Christian Graus That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
What this point of view totally fails to take into account is that some people are actually violent thieving twats and need locking up.
They are yes, but by nature they are very much in the minority. It is not only the change of tactic since 70s, but the there is a change in population size, population demographic, community makeup, perception of the nation, of entitlement, of expectation, of share of wealth, education, jobs, and so on and so on and so on. Your argument that the only thing that needs reversing is the way we punish children is simplistic and massively flawed. It may be part of the answer in some way, but it is not in itself the answer.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
I agree - I am not a parent but living in Cambridge I see lot's of young people around the place - not all of them university students. Many of them are friendly, polite, helpful and kind - this argument that young people are worse nowadays existed back in the 70's when I was a kid. Taking this to its logical conclusion kids must be psychopaths if they have continued to get worse since the 70's and earlier... The looting was about people getting caught in a group frenzie(whatever you want to call it) - it's not so difficult to understand if I try and put myself in their shoes...
Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential.(Winston Churchill)
-
I agree - I am not a parent but living in Cambridge I see lot's of young people around the place - not all of them university students. Many of them are friendly, polite, helpful and kind - this argument that young people are worse nowadays existed back in the 70's when I was a kid. Taking this to its logical conclusion kids must be psychopaths if they have continued to get worse since the 70's and earlier... The looting was about people getting caught in a group frenzie(whatever you want to call it) - it's not so difficult to understand if I try and put myself in their shoes...
Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential.(Winston Churchill)
It wasn't like this when my parents were kids, going off to seaside towns to have running street battles with the Rockers. Or their older brothers the Teddy Boys rioting all over the country. Of course by the time their younger brothers were teenagers in the seventies they were much better behaved with organised football hooliganism.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
ChrisElston wrote:
I always love the argument on phone in programs "They should bring back the cane, I was caned all the time at school, never did me any harm".
Every instance of that I've heard of (or experienced myself) was more along the lines of: "I was caned, and holey fuck did I never do that again." There will always be some outliers but a good dose of the cane will make model citizens out of the majority of miscreants. Kids need to know that actions have consequences. Even if that consequence is trouble sitting for a day or two.
Kill some time, play my game Hop Cheops[^]
My dad was caned time and time again. He said you knew after the first time that the pain was fleeting and it became something of a badge of honor. He was at a grammar school, although raised in a council house by a single parent mother, but he did go on to college and became a teacher (he quit teaching after a couple of years because he didn't like teachers (although he was (and is) married to one)). I'm not sure what this tells us about grammar schools, corporal punishment, low income broken homes, or teachers. But there we go.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
If that happened in Chicago that car would've been full of dead punks in seconds. I'm happy our officers use deadly force without a flinch when faced with motorists using cars as weapons. The husband of my friend was actually hit by a criminal, survived fine, unfortunately his partner wasn't as accurate with his shooting as he should have been and the crook survived. This is not the exact case, but it happens all the time: http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/officer-struck-by-a-vehicle-in-south-chicago-neighborhood.html[^]
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson My comedy.
wizardzz wrote:
This is not the exact case, but it happens all the time:
http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/officer-struck-by-a-vehicle-in-south-chicago-neighborhood.html[^]I love google map's street view, I can see exactly the intersection where it happened. It even has an elevated train, very cool. I've been invited to visit our office in Chicago this year but there seems to always be a reason to keep putting it off.
-
ChrisElston wrote:
They are yes, but by nature they are very much in the minority.
A minority that create havoc in society.
ChrisElston wrote:
It may be part of the answer in some way, but it is not in itself the answer.
There isnt 'an answer', a 'silver bullet'. It was searching for this kind of magic cure that took us down the pointless road we took with child crime. Now, to your points in detail: Population size: This hasnt changed appreciably since the 70s. Population demographic: Again, has there been a significant change that can account for the increase in crime? (Since the crime is not exclusive to racial sub groups any change in this is not going to be relevant). As for age. Well the population has got older, but it is kids we are talking about, so again, how is this relevant? Commuhnity makeup: Same as demographics. Perception of the nation: Percentage of crimes reported and sentenced has reduced over the decades. Yet still they are increasing. Entitlement, expectation, wealth, education: All of this has become more avaiolable over the last 40 years. Jobs: In London, where the rioting took place, there is plenty of work o clearly this isnt a factor. So when your list is analysed in detail it is clear that none of those are factors, and that the reason why these kids are violent criminals is because they chose to be. Therefore treat them as such.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Population size: This hasnt changed appreciably since the 70s.
:omg: You are kidding right? clickety[^] 1970 US population ~ 202 million --> 2009 US population ~ 307 million! According the site India's population has almost trebled in that time...
Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential.(Winston Churchill)
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Population size: This hasnt changed appreciably since the 70s.
:omg: You are kidding right? clickety[^] 1970 US population ~ 202 million --> 2009 US population ~ 307 million! According the site India's population has almost trebled in that time...
Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential.(Winston Churchill)
GuyThiebaut wrote:
You are kidding right?
No, because we are talking about UK population, since that where the riots were, and specifically about unchecked violent behaviour by under 16s in the UK. The UKs white population hasnt changed since the 70s (in some areas it might have declined, due to the loss of traditional heavy industries in those areas). Emigration has increased the population slightly, but this is mostly centered around London and other popular cities for Pakistanis (Bradford, Leeds etc). But even this change isnt that great.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
I agree - I am not a parent but living in Cambridge I see lot's of young people around the place - not all of them university students. Many of them are friendly, polite, helpful and kind - this argument that young people are worse nowadays existed back in the 70's when I was a kid. Taking this to its logical conclusion kids must be psychopaths if they have continued to get worse since the 70's and earlier... The looting was about people getting caught in a group frenzie(whatever you want to call it) - it's not so difficult to understand if I try and put myself in their shoes...
Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential.(Winston Churchill)
-
GuyThiebaut wrote:
You are kidding right?
No, because we are talking about UK population, since that where the riots were, and specifically about unchecked violent behaviour by under 16s in the UK. The UKs white population hasnt changed since the 70s (in some areas it might have declined, due to the loss of traditional heavy industries in those areas). Emigration has increased the population slightly, but this is mostly centered around London and other popular cities for Pakistanis (Bradford, Leeds etc). But even this change isnt that great.
============================== Nothing to say.
clickety[^] UK --> 55.6 million to 61.8 million in 39 years - doing the maths that makes it an 11% increase according to me. My interpretation of that is that we have had a large increase in population in the last 39 years.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
But even this change isn't that great
Also I don't see where nationality comes into this as increase is increase irrespective of nationality...
Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential.(Winston Churchill)
-
clickety[^] UK --> 55.6 million to 61.8 million in 39 years - doing the maths that makes it an 11% increase according to me. My interpretation of that is that we have had a large increase in population in the last 39 years.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
But even this change isn't that great
Also I don't see where nationality comes into this as increase is increase irrespective of nationality...
Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential.(Winston Churchill)
As stated, the population increase is due to imigration (birth and fertility rate in the UK has been falling for a long time: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/research/nordic/ukdemo.PDF[^]) Immigrants tend to gravitate to wards the larger cities, (or areas where there already is a community), therefore it cannot be argued that population increase has caused white, British children to become more violent and more criminal in behaviour, which was what I was arguing against. However it is quite probable that violence and criminality has increased among ethic groups becuse their population has increased, ie, being greater in number. The argument staill stands: The law as it stands today cannot handle efectively under age crime. Crime for which there are no excuses. This situation must change by locking these children away.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
As stated, the population increase is due to imigration (birth and fertility rate in the UK has been falling for a long time: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/research/nordic/ukdemo.PDF[^]) Immigrants tend to gravitate to wards the larger cities, (or areas where there already is a community), therefore it cannot be argued that population increase has caused white, British children to become more violent and more criminal in behaviour, which was what I was arguing against. However it is quite probable that violence and criminality has increased among ethic groups becuse their population has increased, ie, being greater in number. The argument staill stands: The law as it stands today cannot handle efectively under age crime. Crime for which there are no excuses. This situation must change by locking these children away.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
therefore it cannot be argued that population increase has caused white, British children to become more violent and more criminal in behaviour
Of course it can. Do you think it is the kids of the upper middle class, out in the big houses in the country doing this? It is kids already in the areas where mass migration is to that see their prospects diluted, their housing squeezed, as well as being exposed on a daily basis to new criminality in the migrant populations. To say there is no link at all simply does not work. To blame everything on one point and deny all others simply does not work.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
As stated, the population increase is due to imigration (birth and fertility rate in the UK has been falling for a long time: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/research/nordic/ukdemo.PDF[^]) Immigrants tend to gravitate to wards the larger cities, (or areas where there already is a community), therefore it cannot be argued that population increase has caused white, British children to become more violent and more criminal in behaviour, which was what I was arguing against. However it is quite probable that violence and criminality has increased among ethic groups becuse their population has increased, ie, being greater in number. The argument staill stands: The law as it stands today cannot handle efectively under age crime. Crime for which there are no excuses. This situation must change by locking these children away.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
This situation must change by locking these children away.
England already locks up more children than the rest of Europe. The numbers of children in English prisons has more than doubled in the last decade. And re-conviction rates of children leaving prison is something like 85%.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
As stated, the population increase is due to imigration (birth and fertility rate in the UK has been falling for a long time: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/research/nordic/ukdemo.PDF[^]) Immigrants tend to gravitate to wards the larger cities, (or areas where there already is a community), therefore it cannot be argued that population increase has caused white, British children to become more violent and more criminal in behaviour, which was what I was arguing against. However it is quite probable that violence and criminality has increased among ethic groups becuse their population has increased, ie, being greater in number. The argument staill stands: The law as it stands today cannot handle efectively under age crime. Crime for which there are no excuses. This situation must change by locking these children away.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
The law as it stands today cannot handle efectively under age crime.
I am in complete agreement with you on that:thumbsup:
Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential.(Winston Churchill)
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
therefore it cannot be argued that population increase has caused white, British children to become more violent and more criminal in behaviour
Of course it can. Do you think it is the kids of the upper middle class, out in the big houses in the country doing this? It is kids already in the areas where mass migration is to that see their prospects diluted, their housing squeezed, as well as being exposed on a daily basis to new criminality in the migrant populations. To say there is no link at all simply does not work. To blame everything on one point and deny all others simply does not work.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
ChrisElston wrote:
Of course it can.
Of course it cant, since tith the birth rate falling in the UK, and immigrants gravitating towards the larger cities, the kind of criminal behaviour exhibited by kids across the cpuntry cannot be blamed on population increase since it is not increasing across the country. What you are suggesting is that ouit side of the large cities there are only middle class children.
============================== Nothing to say.