Malnourished children are rather less likely to have the energy to indulge in anti-social behaviour. As for the youth clubs, a lot of them have been closed due to lack of funding. Overall, they have been a great way of allowing young people to channel their energy into something positive.

My 'watering down the punishments' comment was intended to cover that.

 

For example : In the 50's/60's there was far less anti-social behaviour than there is now - society needs to evaluate why that was, and return to what worked to prevent it back then.

 

There was far less REPORTED anti-social behaviour then. Being thorough about every minor theft of a bottle of milk on the doorstep, kids creating noise and everything under the sun doesn't mean there was no anti-social behaviour then. yes there was, and it didn't get reported. I was there in the middle of it. maybe in the leafy suburbs it was pure paradise (just like it is now) but in the urban centers and deprived areas it isn't.

 

Kids arent the problem, being deprived is the problem, that applies worldwide. It's just people like you that enjoy blaming children, say, and not the causes of deprivation when it's bl;atantly clear that rich or well-off people dont cause anti-social behaviour because they have everything they want. They instead bankrupt whole nations with corruption and greed, much more anti-social.

There was far less REPORTED anti-social behaviour then. Being thorough about every minor theft of a bottle of milk on the doorstep, kids creating noise and everything under the sun doesn't mean there was no anti-social behaviour then. yes there was, and it didn't get reported. I was there in the middle of it. maybe in the leafy suburbs it was pure paradise (just like it is now) but in the urban centers and deprived areas it isn't.

 

Kids arent the problem, being deprived is the problem, that applies worldwide. It's just people like you that enjoy blaming children, say, and not the causes of deprivation when it's bl;atantly clear that rich or well-off people dont cause anti-social behaviour because they have everything they want. They instead bankrupt whole nations with corruption and greed, much more anti-social.

Apart from Bullingdon boys such as Cameron and Johnson of course.

I don't think any one age group is more susceptible to political influence than another - they're just susceptible to different kinds of influence.

There was far less REPORTED anti-social behaviour then. Being thorough about every minor theft of a bottle of milk on the doorstep, kids creating noise and everything under the sun doesn't mean there was no anti-social behaviour then. yes there was, and it didn't get reported. I was there in the middle of it. maybe in the leafy suburbs it was pure paradise (just like it is now) but in the urban centers and deprived areas it isn't.

 

There's another factor - back then, if kids misbehaved in the street, they might well get a clip round the ear by *anyone*, not just their parents - and if they complained to anyone, they'd just receive another clip.

 

Kids arent the problem, being deprived is the problem, that applies worldwide. It's just people like you that enjoy blaming children, say, and not the causes of deprivation

when it's bl;atantly clear that rich or well-off people dont cause anti-social behaviour because they have everything they want. They instead bankrupt whole nations with corruption and greed, much more anti-social.

 

You are 'Queef' AICMFP. :P

 

Back to the point - I would counter the above by pointing out that not *all* people from deprived circumstances behave in an anti-social manner - therefore if some of them can avoid acting that way, it cannot be used as a blanket excuse.

 

There's another factor - back then, if kids misbehaved in the street, they might well get a clip round the ear by *anyone*, not just their parents - and if they complained to anyone, they'd just receive another clip.

You are 'Queef' AICMFP. :P

 

Back to the point - I would counter the above by pointing out that not *all* people from deprived circumstances behave in an anti-social manner - therefore if some of them can avoid acting that way, it cannot be used as a blanket excuse.

 

Of course not - I don't. I have moral values. Kids brought up by parents who lack moral guidelines due to circumstances are not evil people who deserve to die. Society owes them a chance to recieve guidance from youth clubs, better social care, a chance at decent jobs. History shows you accept an underclass of poverty you accept a society of crime - because if you have a chance at improving yourself (which you FIRMLY believe in) then you are much less likely to get involved in activities that appear to be your only other option.

 

This is self-evident. Your problem is you choose not to blame society for unfairness but choose to blame desperate people for everything. Some people ARE evil, but most people have fluid moral boundaries which they shift to justify themselves - you only have to look at politicians to see the examples they set for the rest of us.....

Of course not - I don't. I have moral values. Kids brought up by parents who lack moral guidelines due to circumstances are not evil people who deserve to die.

 

I never said they should - I've never advocated eugenics, for example.

 

Society owes them a chance to recieve guidance from youth clubs, better social care, a chance at decent jobs. History shows you accept an underclass of poverty you accept a society of crime - because if you have a chance at improving yourself (which you FIRMLY believe in) then you are much less likely to get involved in activities that appear to be your only other option.

But society gives them that chance whether or not they've committed crimes - if they don't seize that chance, should I be expected to still have sympathy for them?

 

This is self-evident. Your problem is you choose not to blame society for unfairness but choose to blame desperate people for everything. Some people ARE evil, but most people have fluid moral boundaries which they shift to justify themselves

 

I don't consider committing crime for 'kicks' to be part of that, though - e.g. stealing cars for joyriding.

 

I never said they should - I've never advocated eugenics, for example.

 

But society gives them that chance whether or not they've committed crimes - if they don't seize that chance, should I be expected to still have sympathy for them?

I don't consider committing crime for 'kicks' to be part of that, though - e.g. stealing cars for joyriding.

 

The Tories have closed most social support as Local Government is cut beyond the bone, for a huge number of vital services. This is a fact. There is bound to a consequence. Societies that ignore the permanently poor become unstable and prone to violent revolution, quite apart from being just plain wrong and unfair.

 

Or have you forgotten the protest riots in the 60's, the 70's the 80's, the 00's...?

 

You have advocated permission to kill burglars regardless of the consequences or age of the victims, or that many will be innocent dupes of murderers, and calling the attempted murder of a black 14-year-old an "unfortunate accident". It was attempted murder and FAR worse than anyone breaking into a house is guilty of. Saying you're not into Eugenics as if that somehow makes you seem less radical than Hitler and therefore reasonable is not a helpful or relevant comment to make.

 

yes, you should be expected to show sympathy for people who have nothing, and defend the law as it stands, not advocate a gun-toting free-for-all which helps no-one, not the victims (ask the OAP now in hiding), not the murdered (ask his family), nor society (the correct response was that he should have gone to prison and lived to tell his side of the story - if the screwdriver was his, jail for a very long time, if it wasn't and it was a lie, then the OAP also should be charged). Mob rule doesn't pay, it needs clear heads not emotional ones involved in a situation. I know if someone killed one of my family for being on the premises unasked, say one who was living in people's sheds during freezing cold snaps that could have been lethal when he was homeless (we didn't know, and took him in when we found out) then I would feel that the killer should be charged. In your world, my close relative deserves to die because he went into a shed....

 

No he doesn't.

The Tories have closed most social support as Local Government is cut beyond the bone, for a huge number of vital services. This is a fact.

 

Then what *is* the local council doing with my ever-increasing Council Tax?

 

There is bound to a consequence. Societies that ignore the permanently poor become unstable and prone to violent revolution, quite apart from being just plain wrong and unfair.

 

Or have you forgotten the protest riots in the 60's, the 70's the 80's, the 00's...?

Revolutions only succeed when at least a large minority of the population support the cause *and* are denied change by peaceful means - neither of those apply in the UK's case.

 

You have advocated permission to kill burglars regardless of the consequences or age of the victims, or that many will be innocent dupes of murderers, and calling the attempted murder of a black 14-year-old an "unfortunate accident". It was attempted murder and FAR worse than anyone breaking into a house is guilty of. Saying you're not into Eugenics as if that somehow makes you seem less radical than Hitler and therefore reasonable is not a helpful or relevant comment to make.

 

I would call it was an exceptional over-reaction, rather than a normal response, so cannot be used to claim that self-defense laws in their entirety are flawed.

 

yes, you should be expected to show sympathy for people who have nothing, and defend the law as it stands, not advocate a gun-toting free-for-all which helps no-one, not the victims (ask the OAP now in hiding), not the murdered (ask his family), nor society (the correct response was that he should have gone to prison and lived to tell his side of the story - if the screwdriver was his, jail for a very long time, if it wasn't and it was a lie, then the OAP also should be charged). Mob rule doesn't pay, it needs clear heads not emotional ones involved in a situation. I know if someone killed one of my family for being on the premises unasked, say one who was living in people's sheds during freezing cold snaps that could have been lethal when he was homeless (we didn't know, and took him in when we found out) then I would feel that the killer should be charged. In your world, my close relative deserves to die because he went into a shed....

 

No he doesn't.

 

I am quite happy to show sympathy for those in deprived circumstances, as long as they seek relief through *legal* channels. It is those who feel 'entitled' to steal that I have a problem with.

 

Finally, my position has always been that those who make excuses for criminals are part of the *problem*.

Edited April 17, 20187 yr by vidcapper

Then what *is* the local council doing with my ever-increasing Council Tax?

 

Revolutions only succeed when at least a large minority of the population support the cause *and* are denied change by peaceful means - neither of those apply in the UK's case.

I would call it was an exceptional over-reaction, rather than a normal response, so cannot be used to claim that self-defense laws in their entirety are flawed.

I am quite happy to show sympathy for those in deprived circumstances, as long as they seek relief through *legal* channels. It is those who feel 'entitled' to steal that I have a problem with.

 

Finally, my position has always been that those who make excuses for criminals are part of the *problem*.

 

sigh.

 

1. Council tax has been frozen for a decade, more or less, and central government has eliminated almost all national subsidies. Now Councils are in crisis (oh yes they are) they have allowed councils to at long last raise council tax to rpovide crucial services because all the staff are f***ing off to the private sector, and the government gets to blame councils for tax rises to do their job rather than themselves for cuts.

 

2. My point is unfairness causes riots and misery and plagues people in that situation. Your point is irrelevant because people resort to violence when peaceful protests dont produce results. In a decent society peaceful protests would be enough, but when they aren't then the powder keg ignites. You are all about people having guns and access to the right to defend yourself....

 

Then accept the consequences of that and stop making excuses.

 

3. My point is people are nuts, and in this case racist nuts. Shooting at a child is attempted murder there is no excuse for it, they could have murdered him and gotten away with it by making up lies, so your views allow injustice to occur. Someone else dying because you want someone to be able to kill burglars is not an acceptable friendly fire trade.

 

4. Single homeless young men generally have no legal channels. What channels are you talking about?

 

5. Yes, let's talk about making excuses for criminals, such as the 2 racists who attempted to kill a child because he was black? Or "the end justifies the means" in politics, where criminal activity has taken place, and then poo-poohing it because it got the result you want?

 

On the one hand you want people to have the power to do what they want, on the other hand you totally blame "criminals" and see no link between society and crime. If you were starving to death you would LITERALLY do anything to not die, you wouldn't sit quietly and meekly beg a society that doesnt care about you to help and then quietly die and be a good man not to make a fuss about it.

 

Dont know about homelessness in your neck of the posh woods, as I havent been to Cheltenham for decades, but down in this posh neck of the woods people can be found begging on every street corner, and the council does counts of them. They even gave them train fare to go to other towns rather than do something about it. A society where everyone is happy to walk past need is one that needs a f***ing kick up the arse as a reminder.

sigh.

 

1. Council tax has been frozen for a decade, more or less, and central government has eliminated almost all national subsidies. Now Councils are in crisis (oh yes they are) they have allowed councils to at long last raise council tax to rpovide crucial services because all the staff are f***ing off to the private sector, and the government gets to blame councils for tax rises to do their job rather than themselves for cuts.

 

The above is why I phrased it as 'what are the council doing with the money'

 

 

2. My point is unfairness causes riots and misery and plagues people in that situation. Your point is irrelevant because people resort to violence when peaceful protests dont produce results. In a decent society peaceful protests would be enough, but when they aren't then the powder keg ignites. You are all about people having guns and access to the right to defend yourself....

Then you must accept they must be able to defend themselves from rioters? Also, rioting will get you into even more trouble - the courts threw the book at the 2011 rioters, don't forget!

 

Then accept the consequences of that and stop making excuses.

 

The only people I don't make excuses for are criminals.

 

 

3. My point is people are nuts, and in this case racist nuts. Shooting at a child is attempted murder there is no excuse for it, they could have murdered him and gotten away with it by making up lies, so your views allow injustice to occur. Someone else dying because you want someone to be able to kill burglars is not an acceptable friendly fire trade.

Nor is making the burglars job easier.

 

 

5. Yes, let's talk about making excuses for criminals, such as the 2 racists who attempted to kill a child because he was black? Or "the end justifies the means" in politics, where criminal activity has taken place, and then poo-poohing it because it got the result you want?

 

When have I done that?

 

Dont know about homelessness in your neck of the posh woods, as I havent been to Cheltenham for decades, but down in this posh neck of the woods people can be found begging on every street corner, and the council does counts of them. They even gave them train fare to go to other towns rather than do something about it. A society where everyone is happy to walk past need is one that needs a f***ing kick up the arse as a reminder.

 

How do you know the council haven't tried to help them, though? A good many people are homeless through their own actions - addicted to drink/drugs for example, but to qualify for council help, they have to be willing to deal with their own self-destructive behaviour, otherwise it is just throwing good money after bad.

The above is why I phrased it as 'what are the council doing with the money'

Then you must accept they must be able to defend themselves from rioters? Also, rioting will get you into even more trouble - the courts threw the book at the 2011 rioters, don't forget!

The only people I don't make excuses for are criminals.

Nor is making the burglars job easier.

When have I done that?

How do you know the council haven't tried to help them, though? A good many people are homeless through their own actions - addicted to drink/drugs for example, but to qualify for council help, they have to be willing to deal with their own self-destructive behaviour, otherwise it is just throwing good money after bad.

 

Badly phrased then. Still appears to blame councils rather than the government who are slashing councils funding and all social care schemes.

 

Rioting is against the law. I'm not in favour of rioting. I'm saying it's a predictable outcome to injustice and that not everyone who refuses to lie down and quietly die like a good boy is a criminal. If your own survival is at stake (as you perceive it, rightly or wrongly) then society takes the blame for allowing it to spiral down to that, not the individual.

 

Not making burglars jobs easy? Burglar alarms, Much cheaper than having to leave your own home as friends and family of someone you have killed get pissed off....

Insurance - claim the money back, all you end up with is a bit of paperwork hassle and the police are left to chase the criminals, which is how it should be. What part of that is a mystery to you?

 

Err, in the comment about the racist attempted murderer. In comments about the under-investigation cambridge anal lickita and their hand in Brexit (they claim they won the Leave vote by illegally targeting people using illegally obtained data, and the Farage campaign overspent by illegally funneling it into the bank account of a student in the last crucial 4 days. If you truly believed in criminals getting prosecuted you would be welcoming the investigation and happy to see them prosecuted for offences against the law. At this point you can say "I condemn the attempted racist murder of a black boy with no reservations (just imagine he was white girl with pigtails in Cheltenham and the shooter was a Muslim racist)" and "I approve of th3 invesitagtion into illegla activity and hope that all culprits, if proven, get theuir just dessert and the truth is made clear about what is going in".

 

Or you can just make excuses and avoid the issues.....

Not making burglars jobs easy? Burglar alarms, Much cheaper than having to leave your own home as friends and family of someone you have killed get pissed off....

Insurance - claim the money back, all you end up with is a bit of paperwork hassle and the police are left to chase the criminals, which is how it should be. What part of that is a mystery to you?

 

That's not all - claiming on your insurance makes your subsequent premiums go up, plus there is the little matter of the excess so you cannot claim back the full amount you've lost. And you can certainly never reclaim the peace of mind you used to have!

 

At this point you can say "I condemn the attempted racist murder of a black boy with no reservations (just imagine he was white girl with pigtails in Cheltenham and the shooter was a Muslim racist)" and "I approve of th3 invesitagtion into illegla activity and hope that all culprits, if proven, get theuir just dessert and the truth is made clear about what is going in".

 

Or you can just make excuses and avoid the issues.....

 

Every single time you demand I make a specific condemnation - and every time *I do*. Therefore in future you can take it as read that I condemn such things as strongly as you do, so please stop wasting both our times by asking. :mellow:

Edited April 17, 20187 yr by vidcapper

That's not all - claiming on your insurance makes your subsequent premiums go up, plus there is the little matter of the excess so you cannot claim back the full amount you've lost. And you can certainly never reclaim the peace of mind you used to have!

Every single time you demand I make a specific condemnation - and every time *I do*. Therefore in future you can take it as read that I condemn such things as strongly as you do, so please stop wasting both our times by asking. :mellow:

 

1. Oh saving that 100 pounds is totally worth somebody's innocent life then!

 

2.How tedious for you having to write one sentence condemning something to make sure that we don't get the wrong impression that you appear to be supporting via your comments, when as we all know you barely ever comment on anything on here at all and don't have the time to write a single sentence. OK so I now will assume you agree with everything I say, and there is no need for further comment. From you. So you look forward to seeing the racist shooter in jail, and Farage and his corrupt friends in prison. There I've said it for you, now we can both agree that breaking the law should always be punished. Just not by death sentences.

 

PS that whole paragraph and your final paragraph could have been avoided with a simple

 

"yes you made a good point about that, it hadn't occurred to me that I appeared to be contradicting myself. Thanks!"

 

That's how grown-up people have conversations, willing to agree or admit a mistake (I've done it many times on here), not get defensive about it...

1. Oh saving that 100 pounds is totally worth somebody's innocent life then!

 

Innocent?! Henry Vincent & his family are about as innocent as Hitler!

 

2.How tedious for you having to write one sentence condemning something to make sure that we don't get the wrong impression

You miss my point as usual - which is that I shouldn't *have to* - after all, you don't demand that of anyone else here, so why single me out?

 

Just because I don't wear a hairshirt every time shit happens to innocent people, doesn't mean I have no feelings about them - I am simply not someone who is comfortable expressing such feelings in a public place.

 

That's how grown-up people have conversations, willing to agree or admit a mistake (I've done it many times on here), not get defensive about it...

 

I've sometimes admitted making factual errors, but I don't see why I should on matters of opinion?

Innocent?! Henry Vincent & his family are about as innocent as Hitler!

 

You miss my point as usual - which is that I shouldn't *have to* - after all, you don't demand that of anyone else here, so why single me out?

 

Just because I don't wear a hairshirt every time shit happens to innocent people, doesn't mean I have no feelings about them - I am simply not someone who is comfortable expressing such feelings in a public place.

I've sometimes admitted making factual errors, but I don't see why I should on matters of opinion?

 

1. Nobody knows the backgrounds of anybody they choose to kill unless they are personmally acquainted

2. Because other people justify their opinions or agree and say so. You don't.

3. Comfortable expressing feelings of rage and criticism and supporting people who's views you agree with...but not victims of crime unless they suit your aims (eg burglar-killer). Pulleaze! It's like you don't know how to say you have sympathy? Pull the other one. It's your choice not an affliction.

4. I'm not asking you to admit error on your opinions. It's when you try to justify them by making blanket statements. I'm saying a normal person would recognise they have fluid and contradictory statements because of their opinions and say so. I have and I thank people for pointing it out, I dont slag them off or their viewpoint. It's easy to admit error and is good for the soul to challenge one's own viewpoints. If one can't logically defend a statement then one needs to revisit it and think it over.

1. Nobody knows the backgrounds of anybody they choose to kill unless they are personmally acquainted

 

2. Because other people justify their opinions or agree and say so. You don't.

 

3. Comfortable expressing feelings of rage and criticism and supporting people who's views you agree with...but not victims of crime unless they suit your aims (eg burglar-killer). Pulleaze! It's like you don't know how to say you have sympathy? Pull the other one. It's your choice not an affliction.

 

4. I'm not asking you to admit error on your opinions. It's when you try to justify them by making blanket statements. I'm saying a normal person would recognise they have fluid and contradictory statements because of their opinions and say so. I have and I thank people for pointing it out, I dont slag them off or their viewpoint. It's easy to admit error and is good for the soul to challenge one's own viewpoints. If one can't logically defend a statement then one needs to revisit it and think it over.

 

1. Generally speaking, at least in cases of self-defence, people do not *choose* to kill at all - they act to protect themselves, and if the assailant dies in the process it is an accident.

 

2. Opinion : a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. In short, factual claims have to be supported, opinions do not.

 

3. Your above comment is itself an expression of opinion. ;) My sympathies lie with those whom I consider victims of injustice, which is not necessarily the same thing as victims of circumstance. I see nothing wrong with expressing outrage where injustices are concerned.

 

4. You think I've never examined my opinions over the years in a critical manner? That's how opinions are *formed* in the first place! As for any contradictions - I consider them minor, and therefore unimportant to my overall philosophy of life.

Edited April 18, 20187 yr by vidcapper

1. Generally speaking, at least in cases of self-defence, people do not *choose* to kill at all - they act to protect themselves, and if the assailant dies in the process it is an accident.

 

2. Opinion : a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. In short, factual claims have to be supported, opinions do not.

 

3. Your above comment is itself an expression of opinion. ;) My sympathies lie with those whom I consider victims of injustice, which is not necessarily the same thing as victims of circumstance. I see nothing wrong with expressing outrage where injustices are concerned.

 

4. You think I've never examined my opinions over the years in a critical manner? That's how opinions are *formed* in the first place! As for any contradictions - I consider them minor, and therefore unimportant to my overall philosophy of life.

 

1. It's a choice unless they are being attacked (as george harrison was) by someone trying to kill them. The choice is to ring the Police and let them deal with it, or get involved in an attack that might end up getting you killed.

 

2. Opinions like "all criminals deserve punishment" deserve comment when exceptions appear to made for some criminals. Had the comment been "SOME criminals deserve punishment" then that is an opinion anyone can disagree with without evidence on moral grounds, or agree with. What constitutes a criminal depends on the situation, of course, you just seem to approach everything in black and white as if there is a magic criminal wand that can instantly tell who deserves death and who doesn't - or else yuo don't care if innocent people die as a result.

 

3. Splitting hairs much. You only comment on those that support your views, you don't choose not to comment on victims of circumstance - you also choose not comment on victims of circumstance that are a topic of discussion, except in a shoulder-shruggy way that says nothing much. Frinstance the blcack boy who was nearly murdered wasnt a victim of circumstance, he was a victim, full stop.

 

4. I also consider your contradictions unimportant, so we agree on something, hooray! I do however enjoy pointing them out while accepting that you are free to say anything you like and I'm free to give it the weight it deserves because you contradict yourself all the time and seem blissfully unaware of it....

4. I also consider your contradictions unimportant, so we agree on something, hooray! I do however enjoy pointing them out while accepting that you are free to say anything you like and I'm free to give it the weight it deserves because you contradict yourself all the time and seem blissfully unaware of it....

 

I am aware of them, but I consider them unimportant, as I said in my previous post.

I am aware of them, but I consider them unimportant, as I said in my previous post.

 

and I still enjoy pointing them out, so I'm glad you feel they are unimportant :)