How to remove human rights types from existence?
Discussion
JagLover said:
Chris71 said:
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.
.
I disagree .
The problem with these 'yoofs' is that they have the bodies of men (or near to it) but still the minds of adolescents. For most of them with age comes wisdom, or at least more caution. They may not become any better morally, but at least they realise that beating people up for the 'fun of it' is not much fun if they are locked up for a long time afterwards.
In terms of criminal demographics, for a given population of likely youths they have a peak offending rate in their late teens, early twenties then it drops sharply.
Admittedly it's a few weeks before I'm 25 so I've just about got time to fit in a small killing spree, but currently my total stands at zero. I suspect the people who start trouble on the streets at 18 'grow up' to be the middle aged men starting fights in pubs or on the terraces at football games.
Either way, I know plenty of people under 25 who haven't done anything wrong. That's because they're responsible sentient beings, not a bunch of little scrotes. I'm not convinced age has that much to do with it.
Bing o said:
Hoodies are the creation of our society - no kid is born bad IMHO.
If we are turning out a generation of Hoodies, thugs and chavs, we should try and fix what is wrong with society instead of treating all young people as potential murderers.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's because we longer instil in them a sense of "cross the line and really bad things will happen to you" when they are young enough to learn that without questioning it. You have to program that into them when they are young enough.If we are turning out a generation of Hoodies, thugs and chavs, we should try and fix what is wrong with society instead of treating all young people as potential murderers.
I am not some weird Victorian dad, it tears me up inside when I have to punish my young kids but I know in my heart kids need to be punished, because they are themselves programmed to try and push past boundaries, no matter how intelligent they are and how well they understand the boundaries. It's what drives us to explore and achieve. But if you don't train them to fell that doing wrong is wrong, and they will regret it - then all is lost. As we are now learning.
My how the guardian readers have infiltrated this forum.
I don't know what you do Ecks but I would say you have a somewhat sheltered life.
Are you married ? have you a partner? mother? sister? grandfather ?
Would you have them walk past a group of youths at night (or any other time) who are loitering, smoking drinking and tell them not to be intimidated ?
Vesuvius is 100 % correct, the UK is breeding an underclass who want something for nothing. The law does not deter them neither does the threat of those who attempt to enforce it.
The sooner the population (tax paying, law abiding, educated)of the UK realise this the better.
I don't know what you do Ecks but I would say you have a somewhat sheltered life.
Are you married ? have you a partner? mother? sister? grandfather ?
Would you have them walk past a group of youths at night (or any other time) who are loitering, smoking drinking and tell them not to be intimidated ?
Vesuvius is 100 % correct, the UK is breeding an underclass who want something for nothing. The law does not deter them neither does the threat of those who attempt to enforce it.
The sooner the population (tax paying, law abiding, educated)of the UK realise this the better.
drfrank said:
My how the guardian readers have infiltrated this forum.
I don't know what you do Ecks but I would say you have a somewhat sheltered life.
Are you married ? have you a partner? mother? sister? grandfather ?
Would you have them walk past a group of youths at night (or any other time) who are loitering, smoking drinking and tell them not to be intimidated ?
Vesuvius is 100 % correct, the UK is breeding an underclass who want something for nothing. The law does not deter them neither does the threat of those who attempt to enforce it.
The sooner the population (tax paying, law abiding, educated)of the UK realise this the better.
We do realise it - it's just that some would rather deal with the resultant underclass by punishment, others would rather we dealt with the underlying societal causes of the behaviour. I don't know what you do Ecks but I would say you have a somewhat sheltered life.
Are you married ? have you a partner? mother? sister? grandfather ?
Would you have them walk past a group of youths at night (or any other time) who are loitering, smoking drinking and tell them not to be intimidated ?
Vesuvius is 100 % correct, the UK is breeding an underclass who want something for nothing. The law does not deter them neither does the threat of those who attempt to enforce it.
The sooner the population (tax paying, law abiding, educated)of the UK realise this the better.
And then Ecks is just in denial.
drfrank said:
My how the guardian readers have infiltrated this forum.
drfrank said:
I don't know what you do Ecks but I would say you have a somewhat sheltered life.
Are you married ? have you a partner? mother? sister? grandfather ?
Who I am, what I do and what relatives I have has nothing to do with the discussion, really.Are you married ? have you a partner? mother? sister? grandfather ?
drfrank said:
Would you have them walk past a group of youths at night (or any other time) who are loitering, smoking drinking and tell them not to be intimidated ?
My girlfriend grew up in Tottenham, one of the more "spicy" parts of London. She spent her life up to the age of about 25 walking past groups of youths and was never attacked or killed. We go back up there fairly regularly to visit her parents, we walk past groups of youths and we have never been attacked or killed. As you'll have read earlier in the thread, I've helped Nervy out in some less-than-savoury places and - you've guessed it - have never been attacked or killed. So, if they're not doing anything to me, and not breaking any law, where's the problem?I said the following to JagLover but he hasn't responded:
Ecks Ridgehead said:
If no crime is being committed, then why should anything be done? You say you feel intimidated; well I'm sorry that you feel bad, but really, so what? Why should other people - who have broken no law - be forced to do things differently just because you have a personal fear that something might happen? Would we all have to cut down trees if you read a story about a tree falling over and killing someone?
...do you have any comment on this?drfrank said:
Vesuvius is 100 % correct, the UK is breeding an underclass who want something for nothing. The law does not deter them neither does the threat of those who attempt to enforce it.
The sooner the population (tax paying, law abiding, educated)of the UK realise this the better.
This comment has nothing to do with loitering, intimidation or being attacked, which is what we're talking about. The sooner the population (tax paying, law abiding, educated)of the UK realise this the better.
Bing o said:
We do realise it - it's just that some would rather deal with the resultant underclass by punishment, others would rather we dealt with the underlying societal causes of the behaviour.
And then Ecks is just in denial.
But we're not talking about "the underclass", we're talking about the issue of people loitering on streets and whether some people being "intimidated" is good enough reason to move them on when they have committed no crime. And then Ecks is just in denial.
You might call it denial, but I can't help it if people aren't capable of separating the principles of the issue from the tabloid headlines.
drfrank said:
My how the guardian readers have infiltrated this forum.
I don't know what you do Ecks but I would say you have a somewhat sheltered life.
Are you married ? have you a partner? mother? sister? grandfather ?
Would you have them walk past a group of youths at night (or any other time) who are loitering, smoking drinking and tell them not to be intimidated ?
Vesuvius is 100 % correct, the UK is breeding an underclass who want something for nothing. The law does not deter them neither does the threat of those who attempt to enforce it.
The sooner the population (tax paying, law abiding, educated)of the UK realise this the better.
I don't know what you do Ecks but I would say you have a somewhat sheltered life.
Are you married ? have you a partner? mother? sister? grandfather ?
Would you have them walk past a group of youths at night (or any other time) who are loitering, smoking drinking and tell them not to be intimidated ?
Vesuvius is 100 % correct, the UK is breeding an underclass who want something for nothing. The law does not deter them neither does the threat of those who attempt to enforce it.
The sooner the population (tax paying, law abiding, educated)of the UK realise this the better.
Again the "rights" of ordinary people going about their business, are being compromised by those who think all the rabble hanging round shop doors are there for the good of the community. THEY ARE A BLOODY NUSIENCE, and yes they do intimidate folk. Imagine an old 80 year old lady being intimidated by these "kids" take a swing at their head with her handbag, it doesnt take imagine to see who would come off worse.Not a chance the scrots would. This country is going down the tubes FAST, too many bloody people with nothing else to do you look after the rights of the perps, just wait until they are on the receiving end for a change.
The thing about "intimidation" is interesting though. Often from these gangs - even if they don't actually do anything - there is a slightly menacing air to them, particularly if you make eye contact with them and they make some comment and then laugh or snigger. It can feel like there is something going on, even if they don't actually touch you.
Of course some groups of youths do not mean to cause any harm, but there is unquestionably something intimidating about a group of youths who "Look at you in a funny way" to paraphrase someone from "Not the 9 o'clock news".
Perhaps they simply don't realise how intimidating they are being?
Let's do some tests. Pretend to fall over in front of them and see whether they laugh, or run over to help..... Hmmm?
Of course some groups of youths do not mean to cause any harm, but there is unquestionably something intimidating about a group of youths who "Look at you in a funny way" to paraphrase someone from "Not the 9 o'clock news".
Perhaps they simply don't realise how intimidating they are being?
Let's do some tests. Pretend to fall over in front of them and see whether they laugh, or run over to help..... Hmmm?
Ecks Ridgehead said:
I said the following to JagLover but he hasn't responded:
I thought I already had, but perhaps you would like a longer response.Ecks Ridgehead said:
If no crime is being committed, then why should anything be done? You say you feel intimidated; well I'm sorry that you feel bad, but really, so what? Why should other people - who have broken no law - be forced to do things differently just because you have a personal fear that something might happen? Would we all have to cut down trees if you read a story about a tree falling over and killing someone?
It would of course be a nonsense to say that these kids couldn't use the streets. They have the same rights to walk on them as anyone else. However pavements were built as a means of aiding pedestrian to walk to their destinations, not as a place to 'hang out'. Given the distress such behaviour causes others prohibiting such an activity would not hinder the youth's ability to use them for their intended purpose, walking, but would minimise the distress to others. A fair balancing of the rights of the youths and the rights of the general public.
Fittster said:
derestrictor said:
Good old Shami: "what sort of society?" The sort which produces teenage scum, fuelled on booze and capable of kicking cancer battling parents who defend their property to death, that's what sort.
I really don't understand the stick Shami Chakrabarti gets on this site. She is one of the few people who stands up to the authoritarian tendencies of this government. The opposition certainly don'tI respect dear Shami C quite a bit but here, she's defending yobbery, in practice and many folk inhabiting the urban environs of Planet UK are sick of the prinicples of the intelligentsia which amount to pathetic, hand wringing weakness in the face of said plebwalking.
As a committed liberal, I agree society needs to address the 'why' in uncovering the probs facing antisocial activity but that shouldn't preclude wanton vigilantism and the licencing of personal firearms for right minded individuals with the vision to liberate Albion from the commie hoardes.
The root caouse of this 'epidemic' as the mass media love to portray it lies with both the parents who lack either the time, inclination or desire to invest in their children and society in general that seems to take great delight in demonising children as 'feral' 'defective' 'damaged' or what ever words the odious redtop tabloids like to scream out on a regular and persistent basis.
Children are not born 'bad' there is no bad gene that says a child of X and Y growing up in this place must by default exhibit these qualities or that behaviour patterns...they must be 'Chav' because they grow up on a sink estate. Rubbish. Children need hope and dreams and aspirations and positive motivation and support and a host of other things besides. We, our society are collectively seeing the results of not doing these things.
We choose to blame the children because it's easier than blaming ourselves..It must be them....after all, it can't be anything we've not done ...can it? We would rather blame them than take positive action, it's easier and cheaper and satisfies in us the need for 'justice'.
Perhaps these children get from a gang, what they are missing at home and in great chunks of their lives. It is no doubt challenging to change behaviours and ingrained patterns of belief but unless we as a society collectively start to tackle these issues head on we're going to get no where. Blaming and demonsing children is not the answer. Perhaps nurturing and supporting them is.
Children are not born 'bad' there is no bad gene that says a child of X and Y growing up in this place must by default exhibit these qualities or that behaviour patterns...they must be 'Chav' because they grow up on a sink estate. Rubbish. Children need hope and dreams and aspirations and positive motivation and support and a host of other things besides. We, our society are collectively seeing the results of not doing these things.
We choose to blame the children because it's easier than blaming ourselves..It must be them....after all, it can't be anything we've not done ...can it? We would rather blame them than take positive action, it's easier and cheaper and satisfies in us the need for 'justice'.
Perhaps these children get from a gang, what they are missing at home and in great chunks of their lives. It is no doubt challenging to change behaviours and ingrained patterns of belief but unless we as a society collectively start to tackle these issues head on we're going to get no where. Blaming and demonsing children is not the answer. Perhaps nurturing and supporting them is.
JagLover said:
Ecks Ridgehead said:
I said the following to JagLover but he hasn't responded:
I thought I already had, but perhaps you would like a longer response.Ecks Ridgehead said:
If no crime is being committed, then why should anything be done? You say you feel intimidated; well I'm sorry that you feel bad, but really, so what? Why should other people - who have broken no law - be forced to do things differently just because you have a personal fear that something might happen? Would we all have to cut down trees if you read a story about a tree falling over and killing someone?
It would of course be a nonsense to say that these kids couldn't use the streets. They have the same rights to walk on them as anyone else. However pavements were built as a means of aiding pedestrian to walk to their destinations, not as a place to 'hang out'. Given the distress such behaviour causes others prohibiting such an activity would not hinder the youth's ability to use them for their intended purpose, walking, but would minimise the distress to others. A fair balancing of the rights of the youths and the rights of the general public.
OK, jaw up now. Ahem. Right.
OK, first the assertion that pavements are for walking, not a place to "hang out". I've seen people of all ages, classes and races stopping and talking on pavements, or using them as places to meet. How is that any different to youths "hanging out" somewhere?
(Furthermore, if we want to get really philosophical (which no-one ever does, unfortunately), then unless a youth actually lives at where this "hanging out" is going on, then he is by definition on his way to a destination...which is exactly as the JL Pavement Act 2008 says it should be).
Secondly, you will find it hard to "balance the rights of youths and the rights of the general public" when youths are, by definition, part of the general public...
Vipers said:
Again the "rights" of ordinary people going about their business, are being compromised by those who think all the rabble hanging round shop doors are there for the good of the community. THEY ARE A BLOODY NUSIENCE, and yes they do intimidate folk. Imagine an old 80 year old lady being intimidated by these "kids" take a swing at their head with her handbag, it doesnt take imagine to see who would come off worse.Not a chance the scrots would. This country is going down the tubes FAST, too many bloody people with nothing else to do you look after the rights of the perps, just wait until they are on the receiving end for a change.
Ecks Ridgehead said:
(Furthermore, if we want to get really philosophical (which no-one ever does, unfortunately), then unless a youth actually lives at where this "hanging out" is going on, then he is by definition on his way to a destination...which is exactly as the JL Pavement Act 2008 says it should be).
There are already measures being used against this problem that are nearly as perscriptive or even more so.For example dispersal orders and curfews.
JagLover said:
Chris71 said:
How many old ladies did you mug in your teens or early twenties?
You will note I said 'likely youths', Ie the usual suspects for crime and disorder. By all means hang them, imprision them, stick them in the village stocks or whatever, but bare in mind that a deterrent aimed at people of a certain age group makes very little sense. Most violence is perpetrated by men - that doesn't mean we should all be kept out of city centres at night and only women allowed in.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff