How to remove human rights types from existence?

[Ecks Ridgehead]

Vesuvius 996 said:

Ecks said:

If you are intimidated by children standing outside a shop then I would suggest that the problem is with you, not the children.

Ecks, stop being such a blind fool and try looking outside of your idyllic Enid Blyton world. Kids (note NOT "young people".....) these days don't stand about reading the Beano and supping from a bottle of ginger beer.

It is (again) ironic that in a thread bemoaning bad behaviour you would choose to open discussions with someone by calling them "a blind fool". I find myself wondering: are you a cause of the problems with antisocial behaviour and lack of respect that we see today, or just a symptom?

Vesuvius 996 said:

Come to East London, and I'll take you down to the local shop where a gang of thirty to forty six foot fifteen year olds hang about smoking joints and drinking white lightning, spitting, and screaming foul mouthed abuse at all and sundry. Then I'll leave you there on your own.

You'll cry like a baby.

Are you coming on to me? It doesn't sound like my idea of a good date, but perhaps this kind of offer would be more appropriate in the Valentine's Day thread all the same.

Vesuvius 996 said:

It's about time these scum were dealt with. Boot camps would be a start.

Finally, something constructive. Right. So, you're talking compulsory military service for, what, all people aged 18 or over? One year, two years? To be taken when?

[Ecks Ridgehead]

Don said:

Ecks Ridgehead said:

Don said:

we can assume that groups assembling outside the local shop may be troublesome.

In which case we can assume equally that they may not be troublesome.

If they aren't troublesome it won't be worth the shopkeepers' investment then, will it.

Hardly the point. Is it the shopkeepers who should be policing the streets?

Don said:

Ecks Ridgehead said:

Don said:

They are intimidating to legitimate shoppers.

If you are intimidated by children standing outside a shop then I would suggest that the problem is with you, not the children.

I am not intimated by children. I have been intimidated by groups of ten or more big sixteen and seventeen year olds enjoying themselves being loud, obnoxious, swearing and being rude to adult passers by confident in the knowledge no-one will do anything about it. They are the target of a mosquito. Not kids. And a kid legimately buying sweets and leaving will be largely unaffected.

Really, truly, honestly, intimidation never hurt anyone.

Don said:

Ecks Ridgehead said:

Don said:

Understandably since the scrotes buy nothing and put off money spending respectables shops need a solution for moving them somewhere else.

Are you honestly saying that a person must spend money in a shop in order to have the right to stand on the public footpath outside it?

No. But if you are a shop owner and your shop is suffering because of youth gangs you might want to do something about it. Shouldn't you have the right to do that? They are playing "music" for want of a better word over a loudspeaker. My local department store does that...

Personally I think the device is very clever. It does no harm. It is merely a bit annoying. Sadly it is somewhat indiscriminate. However...if those affected want to make a point they can do it the same way as everyone else does - taking their money elsewhere. If the shopkeepers' lose business they'll soon remove it.

But my money is on that they don't.

Again, I have to ask, are the shopkeepers the people who should be policing the streets?

[Don]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7238873.stm

Unbelievable juxtaposition of stories.

Ecks: In answer yes the shopkeepers should. We all should. All of us. If we all did maybe poor social behaviour wouldn't be acceptable.

[Vesuvius 996]

"Intimidation never hurt anyone?"


Ridiculous.

What about my Dad, before he died, who would get angina attacks when he was subjected to stress?

You're living in a dream world. Ecks. Wake up.

[Ecks Ridgehead]

JagLover said:

Ecks Ridgehead said:

If you are intimidated by children standing outside a shop then I would suggest that the problem is with you, not the children.

Virtually every day a law abiding member of the public is beaten to death, or near to death, by these 'children'.

1. By my calculations your claim would mean that around 40 people will have been beaten to, or near to, death in 2008, and around 350 people in 2007. Can you provide any evidence to back up this claim of yours?

2. Intimidation never killed anyone.

[Vesuvius 996]

Ecks Ridgehead said:

2. Intimidation never killed anyone.

How about the bloke who was playing cricket with his son, who died of a heart attack after being subjected to a pelting with half bricks from a bunch of scumbag kids?

I am sure his widow would disagree with you, Ecks old son.

[nervous]

Vesuvius 996 said:

You're living in a dream world. Ecks. Wake up.

ecks has worked with me in some pretty tough schools- he knows only too well how difficult they can be.

that said, hes taking a pretty strong line here, that Im not 100% on board with*


*mainly because he never writes, he never calls.

[JagLover]

Ecks Ridgehead said:

JagLover said:

Ecks Ridgehead said:

If you are intimidated by children standing outside a shop then I would suggest that the problem is with you, not the children.

Virtually every day a law abiding member of the public is beaten to death, or near to death, by these 'children'.

1. By my calculations your claim would mean that around 40 people will have been beaten to, or near to, death in 2008, and around 350 people in 2007. Can you provide any evidence to back up this claim of yours?

Lets look at yesterday-Father dies in Hospital after being in a coma for a month. He was beaten by a 17 year old youth in a random attack.

Law graduate critical after being set upon by a gang of Eight youths.

And these are merely the stories that reach the papers. How many GBHs go unreported?

[Ecks Ridgehead]

Vesuvius 996 said:

Ecks Ridgehead said:

2. Intimidation never killed anyone.

How about the bloke who was playing cricket with his son, who died of a heart attack after being subjected to a pelting with half bricks from a bunch of scumbag kids?

I am sure his widow would disagree with you, Ecks old son.

What? Throwing half-bricks at people isn't "intimidation", it's a physical attack! Do you even know what "intimidation" means?

[nervous]

Vesuvius 996 said:

Ecks Ridgehead said:

2. Intimidation never killed anyone.

How about the bloke who was playing cricket with his son, who died of a heart attack after being subjected to a pelting with half bricks from a bunch of scumbag kids?

I am sure his widow would disagree with you, Ecks old son.

again, Id argue that it was the bricks that killed him, but I see why youd disagree with Ecks.

[Vesuvius 996]

nervous said:

Vesuvius 996 said:

Ecks Ridgehead said:

2. Intimidation never killed anyone.

How about the bloke who was playing cricket with his son, who died of a heart attack after being subjected to a pelting with half bricks from a bunch of scumbag kids?

I am sure his widow would disagree with you, Ecks old son.

again, Id argue that it was the bricks that killed him, but I see why youd disagree with Ecks.

It wansn't old boy.

He suffered minor lacerations to his head. It was the shock which killed him through a heart attack.

I know the prosecutor.

[Ecks Ridgehead]

JagLover said:

Ecks Ridgehead said:

JagLover said:

Ecks Ridgehead said:

If you are intimidated by children standing outside a shop then I would suggest that the problem is with you, not the children.

Virtually every day a law abiding member of the public is beaten to death, or near to death, by these 'children'.

1. By my calculations your claim would mean that around 40 people will have been beaten to, or near to, death in 2008, and around 350 people in 2007. Can you provide any evidence to back up this claim of yours?

Lets look at yesterday-Father dies in Hospital after being in a coma for a month. He was beaten by a 17 year old youth in a random attack.

Law graduate critical after being set upon by a gang of Eight youths.

And these are merely the stories that reach the papers. How many GBHs go unreported?

So that's two, then.

Don't try to use the "these are just the ones we hear about" line. This type of story is flavour of the month - you can guarantee that the papers are desperate to print anything they can on it.

[Justayellowbadge]

nervous said:

Vesuvius 996 said:

You're living in a dream world. Ecks. Wake up.

ecks has worked with me in some pretty tough schools- he knows only too well how difficult they can be.

that said, hes taking a pretty strong line here, that Im not 100% on board with*


*mainly because he never writes, he never calls.

I remember meeting you 2 after a gig in London and neither of you seemed particularly enamoured of your 'clients' on that one, so it's certainly not rose tinted specs.

I think he's arguing principle over reality though.

[Vesuvius 996]

Ecks Ridgehead said:

JagLover said:

Ecks Ridgehead said:

JagLover said:

Ecks Ridgehead said:

If you are intimidated by children standing outside a shop then I would suggest that the problem is with you, not the children.

Virtually every day a law abiding member of the public is beaten to death, or near to death, by these 'children'.

1. By my calculations your claim would mean that around 40 people will have been beaten to, or near to, death in 2008, and around 350 people in 2007. Can you provide any evidence to back up this claim of yours?

Lets look at yesterday-Father dies in Hospital after being in a coma for a month. He was beaten by a 17 year old youth in a random attack.

Law graduate critical after being set upon by a gang of Eight youths.

And these are merely the stories that reach the papers. How many GBHs go unreported?

So that's two, then.

Don't try to use the "these are just the ones we hear about" line. This type of story is flavour of the month - you can guarantee that the papers are desperate to print anything they can on it.

There are none so blind as those that close their eyes.

[nervous]

Vesuvius 996 said:

It wansn't old boy.

He suffered minor lacerations to his head. It was the shock which killed him through a heart attack.

I know the prosecutor.

but it was the shock of being hit with bricks wasnt it?

id like to level at this point that I dont care either way, Im just avoiding sitting down and writing. feel free to mail me and tell me to get on with it, please.

[nervous]

Justayellowbadge said:

I remember meeting you 2 after a gig in London and neither of you seemed particularly enamoured of your 'clients' on that one, so it's certainly not rose tinted specs.

did I ever apologise for that? if not, sorry. twas a tough time.

[JagLover]

I would also like to take issue with your assertion that intimidation never hurts anyone.

We could only afford to buy an ex-LA house when we bought last year and it makes me uncomfortable when we have to pass these gangs of hooded youths hanging around on street corners. When I think how a pensioner or lone woman must feel passing them I feel a great deal of sympathy.

You might say they are doing no harm, but making most people in the area stressed and reluctant to go outside is harming them, even if they do nothing else.

[Chris71]

shadowninja said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7240180.stm



Scrotes don't deserve rights. Very simple.

Whilst I agree with that if they really are beating up old ladys, I can't help thinking this sort of thing is symptomatic of the way people try and shift the responsibility away from people. Kids aren't quite as stupid as many people give them credit for - even the ones picketting Woolworths in their hoodies:

They're not harrasing passers by because they're kids. They're doing it because they're s.

They don't shoot at eachother because they're kids. They do it because they're s.

17 year olds doing Vmax down the highstreet in their Corsas don't do it because they're 17, they do it because they're s.

[and so on]

You don't suddenly become a better human being when you turn 25! The reason these thugs cause trouble has nothing to do with their age and not even as much as they'd like to make out to do with their background. It's simple - they choose to do it.

Plenty of kids don't. So targetting everyone under a certain age is about as sensible as targetting everyone who has a car because you might be street racing through a 30mph limit whilst on drugs.

[Ecks Ridgehead]

Justayellowbadge said:

I think he's arguing principle over reality though.

Spot on.

[Ecks Ridgehead]

JagLover said:

I would also like to take issue with your assertion that intimidation never hurts anyone.

We could only afford to buy an ex-LA house when we bought last year and it makes me uncomfortable when we have to pass these gangs of hooded youths hanging around on street corners. When I think how a pensioner or lone woman must feel passing them I feel a great deal of sympathy.

You might say they are doing no harm, but making most people in the area stressed and reluctant to go outside is harming them, even if they do nothing else.

I'm amazed that people don't put it in perspective by simply adding up all the days when they haven't been attacked by young people. You can talk about intimidation all you like, but intimidation is all just in your own head - what intimidates some doesn't intimidate others.

What crime is being committed by "hooded youths" if they are simply "hanging around on street corners"?