Society's problems all down to a 'Godless' society
17 May 2006, 02:24 PM
#91
BANNED
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Jasey@Work
Posts: 2,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by OllyK
LOL
On numerous occasions I've left the scoob parked on the road at home overnight unlocked. Thought it had locked when it hadn't, or maybe while carrying keys and bags I accidently caught the zapper again, who knows. So far, nothing has happened to it, stereo left with removable face in place, road angel on the dash, still there in the morning
On numerous occasions I've left the scoob parked on the road at home overnight unlocked. Thought it had locked when it hadn't, or maybe while carrying keys and bags I accidently caught the zapper again, who knows. So far, nothing has happened to it, stereo left with removable face in place, road angel on the dash, still there in the morning
He used to leave all his doors unlocked and opened with two shotguns with ammo leaning against them.
Never had any trouble.
Not sure you'd get away with that today
.
17 May 2006, 02:28 PM
#92
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Leslie
Geezer,
I can only speak from personal experience since I don't have access to those statistics, which are usually manipulated to the advantage of the one who produces them for us all to marvel at anyway!
When I was a lad it was safe to walk the streets at any time of the day or night. There was no fear of attack by muggers who are prepared to do anything including knifing to get their way. We did not have to endure the sort of verbal abuse or threats of violence that we are likely to get from today's drunken or stoned yobs, including their charming young lady? companions, often throwing up all over the road!
It was safe for me to go fishing in the local countryside by myself with no fear of attack from yobs or paedophiles. I was taught to respect authority by my parents and at school. I had no inclination to go around wrecking other people's property or stealing. All my schoolfriends (state schools) thought the same way. Of course we occasionally got into mischief, but nothing destructive. We did not have skate parks etc but were quite able to think of something interesting to do in the local recreation ground or in the countryside near us. We were taught to be self sufficient and to recognise danger, and learned how to look after ourselves without expecting that the State owed us a living for nothing.
My point is that children are not taught the necessity of discipline and respect for others if we want to maintain a civilised society. So many parents seem to abrogate their responsibilty to their children and just give them cash to get out of their hair and let them do just what they want and stay out at all hours. If a teacher needs to discipline a child, he is likely to be verbally or even physically abused by the child and/or the parents and the child gets away with murder so to speak. The child knows his rights of course and will use that to enable himself to abuse any form of authority and to be unpleasantly rude towards the teacher or to any figure of authority.
This sort of situation did not arise when this was a religious country. if you are anti religion then you are likely to be biased and likely to run religion down unfairly and incorrectly both because you dont understand it or you may even be looking for an excuse to yourself for not accepting it.
Whether you accept religious teachings or not, you should understand that they give people a good way to conduct their lives which does not mess up other people. There is nothing wrong in that.
Don't talk to me about "rose tinted" spectacles, I am relating true facts as I saw them. And don't mention that we must all modernise and catch up with the real world. With the atrocious behaviour which is commonplace these days, what has that got to recommend it?
I personally am not a "Godbotherer" but I am prepared to accept the good influences of a Christian society as we used to have, or any other religion for that matter as long as it does not force itself onto others.
Les
I can only speak from personal experience since I don't have access to those statistics, which are usually manipulated to the advantage of the one who produces them for us all to marvel at anyway!
When I was a lad it was safe to walk the streets at any time of the day or night. There was no fear of attack by muggers who are prepared to do anything including knifing to get their way. We did not have to endure the sort of verbal abuse or threats of violence that we are likely to get from today's drunken or stoned yobs, including their charming young lady? companions, often throwing up all over the road!
It was safe for me to go fishing in the local countryside by myself with no fear of attack from yobs or paedophiles. I was taught to respect authority by my parents and at school. I had no inclination to go around wrecking other people's property or stealing. All my schoolfriends (state schools) thought the same way. Of course we occasionally got into mischief, but nothing destructive. We did not have skate parks etc but were quite able to think of something interesting to do in the local recreation ground or in the countryside near us. We were taught to be self sufficient and to recognise danger, and learned how to look after ourselves without expecting that the State owed us a living for nothing.
My point is that children are not taught the necessity of discipline and respect for others if we want to maintain a civilised society. So many parents seem to abrogate their responsibilty to their children and just give them cash to get out of their hair and let them do just what they want and stay out at all hours. If a teacher needs to discipline a child, he is likely to be verbally or even physically abused by the child and/or the parents and the child gets away with murder so to speak. The child knows his rights of course and will use that to enable himself to abuse any form of authority and to be unpleasantly rude towards the teacher or to any figure of authority.
This sort of situation did not arise when this was a religious country. if you are anti religion then you are likely to be biased and likely to run religion down unfairly and incorrectly both because you dont understand it or you may even be looking for an excuse to yourself for not accepting it.
Whether you accept religious teachings or not, you should understand that they give people a good way to conduct their lives which does not mess up other people. There is nothing wrong in that.
Don't talk to me about "rose tinted" spectacles, I am relating true facts as I saw them. And don't mention that we must all modernise and catch up with the real world. With the atrocious behaviour which is commonplace these days, what has that got to recommend it?
I personally am not a "Godbotherer" but I am prepared to accept the good influences of a Christian society as we used to have, or any other religion for that matter as long as it does not force itself onto others.
Les
17 May 2006, 02:31 PM
#93
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Leslie
It was safe for me to go fishing in the local countryside by myself with no fear of attack from yobs or paedophiles.
My point is that children are not taught the necessity of discipline and respect for others if we want to maintain a civilised society.
Les
My point is that children are not taught the necessity of discipline and respect for others if we want to maintain a civilised society.
Les
You say you don't pander to rose tinted spectacles thinking, but a brief look into your comments suggests otherwise.
Much crime nowadays is due to the pursuit of hard drugs, something not readily available to the general population until the last few decades. And to hark back to a time when doors could be left unlocked etc probably says more to the lack of anything valuable to be stolen then compared to the masses of times more prosperious society we now live in.
I think people are being taken in by the hysteria driven media who benefit from such claims.
17 May 2006, 02:32 PM
#94
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Reality
My Grandad used to live in a small village in Norfolk.
He used to leave all his doors unlocked and opened with two shotguns with ammo leaning against them.
Never had any trouble.
Not sure you'd get away with that today.
He used to leave all his doors unlocked and opened with two shotguns with ammo leaning against them.
Never had any trouble.
Not sure you'd get away with that today
.Maybe that's another factor? We don't seem to have the communities that we used to when I was younger. You'd know everybody on the street or in the village, people would notice stranger hanging about. These days people seem to be more private and with all the couriers and other tradesmen around people don't seem to bat an eyelid if a stanger is about.
17 May 2006, 07:12 PM
#95
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under your bonnet
Posts: 9,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This sort of situation did not arise when this was a religious country. if you are anti religion then you are likely to be biased and likely to run religion down unfairly and incorrectly both because you dont understand it or you may even be looking for an excuse to yourself for not accepting it.
Whether you accept religious teachings or not, you should understand that they give people a good way to conduct their lives which does not mess up other people. There is nothing wrong in that.
Whether you accept religious teachings or not, you should understand that they give people a good way to conduct their lives which does not mess up other people. There is nothing wrong in that.
adj 1: of or pertaining to a philosophy asserting human dignity and man's capacity for fulfillment through reason and scientific method
2: pertaining to or concerned with the humanities; "humanistic studies"; "a humane education" [syn: humanistic, humane]
3: marked by humanistic values and devotion to human welfare; "respect and humanistic regard for all members of our species"
Who needs a God...
Andy
17 May 2006, 08:55 PM
#96
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps religion isn't exactly necessary but what is a requirement for a good society is a set of moral standards and a high level of responsibility for your own actions.
Religion imposes these through a supernatural being who enforces moral laws and who makes you comply and demonstrate responsibility for your actions; those who fail to comply are punished.
In a society where the individual has no moral standards there should be punishment but when immorality becomes the accepted state then there can be no punishment and so a lower level of morality becomes the normal state.
Of course there will always be individuals who do not respond to the threat of punishment and who will, therefore, ignore the necessary standards and responsibilities and for society to continue it may be necessary to remove these individuals. This is exactly the aim of law enforcement but it must work within a context.
When we look at the society in which we live it is clear that those who would wish to lead us tend to have a very low moral standard, their only god is power and so their only punishment is not to achieve this power. As these individuals claim to represent us they create the laws which determine who is removed from our society and what is acceptable.
This explains the seemingly tricky position Les got into when he said he had nothing to fear from paedophiles. In the past such people were more likely to be removed from society at an early stage rather than be allowed to hone their "skills" until they committed a most extreme act. Today such crimes are seen as being a product of "society" rather than a result of the actions of an evil and immoral individual. In such circumstances society takes the blame while in a more religious society the individual is responsible, in the eyes of God, for his actions and so the blame will lie with him and him only. If law enforcement is based upon such a religious ethos then the individual will be removed from society. As I've said it is possible for a high level of moral standard to be achieved without a supernatural being looking down on us but this still requires a set of laws, such as those attributed to such a being, and the production of such laws can be tricky in a democratic society as everyone has a say and so the laws can be tainted with low morality from the outset. I'm not at all sure that a set of laws reflecting a high moral position and a suitable punishment for offenders can be Politically Correct and still be effective in maintaining a generally law abiding, polite, pleasant and well regulated society.
Religion imposes these through a supernatural being who enforces moral laws and who makes you comply and demonstrate responsibility for your actions; those who fail to comply are punished.
In a society where the individual has no moral standards there should be punishment but when immorality becomes the accepted state then there can be no punishment and so a lower level of morality becomes the normal state.
Of course there will always be individuals who do not respond to the threat of punishment and who will, therefore, ignore the necessary standards and responsibilities and for society to continue it may be necessary to remove these individuals. This is exactly the aim of law enforcement but it must work within a context.
When we look at the society in which we live it is clear that those who would wish to lead us tend to have a very low moral standard, their only god is power and so their only punishment is not to achieve this power. As these individuals claim to represent us they create the laws which determine who is removed from our society and what is acceptable.
This explains the seemingly tricky position Les got into when he said he had nothing to fear from paedophiles. In the past such people were more likely to be removed from society at an early stage rather than be allowed to hone their "skills" until they committed a most extreme act. Today such crimes are seen as being a product of "society" rather than a result of the actions of an evil and immoral individual. In such circumstances society takes the blame while in a more religious society the individual is responsible, in the eyes of God, for his actions and so the blame will lie with him and him only. If law enforcement is based upon such a religious ethos then the individual will be removed from society. As I've said it is possible for a high level of moral standard to be achieved without a supernatural being looking down on us but this still requires a set of laws, such as those attributed to such a being, and the production of such laws can be tricky in a democratic society as everyone has a say and so the laws can be tainted with low morality from the outset. I'm not at all sure that a set of laws reflecting a high moral position and a suitable punishment for offenders can be Politically Correct and still be effective in maintaining a generally law abiding, polite, pleasant and well regulated society.
18 May 2006, 12:50 PM
#97
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scoobynutta555,
Just what is your definition of "rose timted spectacles" please!
I did not say that there were no paedophiles around, just that they too respected the law and the problems that getting caught would pile upon them, and so they did not go chasing children as they are obviously likely to do now. I was approached by one once who thought he might try it on, but he disappeared at high speed when threatened with being reported. These days I would have been more likely to have been kidnapped and done away with!
Also what Hedgehog says is true in that they were often removed from society early on. Homosexual behaviour was illegal then as well. As Hedgehog says, today's PC attitudes do nothing to discourage such people
but have instead caused such an enormous drop in standards and people's sense of values.
If you don't subscribe to the effect of religious principals, then you can substitute the edicts of Natural Law. Not a lot of difference when related to a guide to the way you conduct your life.
I believe that the Carrot and Stick methods do work well when applied to human nature. It is well demonstrated these days that we cannot rely on so many people's better nature. Instead of applying wet and useless PC attitudes to bad behaviour, it is time that proper and effective punishments were applied to those who trangress the law and cause pain and damage to innocent people. There used to be prison places available to all who broke the law SN555, these days they just get half of their sentences knocked off and they have a life of comparative luxury in prison anyway. It really used to mean something when "Hard Labour" was thrown in as well, slopping out was in vogue, and generally prison was something that no one looked forward to. Made people think twice before indulging in criminal behaviour. These days the liberal attitudes shown towards criminals makes them only too ready to try it on again! There were far fewer criminals and therefore plenty of prison places for those who misbehaved.
The other big factor was that people had a strong sense of shame if they were exposed as criminals and /or "kiddyfiddlers". They knew the difference between right and wrong, just as they do now, except that these days the liberal PC Plonkers tend to blame it all on the bloke's previous life and that it is not really his fault at all. Full terms of imprisonment without the privileges and comparative luxuries which they now get, such as Nasem going to some kind of "Hotel" type accommodation,having ruined a man's life, with some physical hard work thrown in, and significant punishment for violent and abusive youths, such as the birch, would soon serve to focus their minds.
How you go about re-creating a decent society to live in after it has been thrown away by Billy and his cronies, is a difficult question. It can only be instilled in children by the example of their peers.
If all this is too difficult for you to assimilate SN555, I suggest that you listen to some of the elderly people who are prepared to tell you how society used to be. Instead of regarding them as semi demented, just listen to their experience of life, they know far more than you do and what they say is worth paying attention to, and you might even learn something!
How would you go about creating a safe and good society again SN555?
Les
Just what is your definition of "rose timted spectacles" please!
I did not say that there were no paedophiles around, just that they too respected the law and the problems that getting caught would pile upon them, and so they did not go chasing children as they are obviously likely to do now. I was approached by one once who thought he might try it on, but he disappeared at high speed when threatened with being reported. These days I would have been more likely to have been kidnapped and done away with!
Also what Hedgehog says is true in that they were often removed from society early on. Homosexual behaviour was illegal then as well. As Hedgehog says, today's PC attitudes do nothing to discourage such people
but have instead caused such an enormous drop in standards and people's sense of values.
If you don't subscribe to the effect of religious principals, then you can substitute the edicts of Natural Law. Not a lot of difference when related to a guide to the way you conduct your life.
I believe that the Carrot and Stick methods do work well when applied to human nature. It is well demonstrated these days that we cannot rely on so many people's better nature. Instead of applying wet and useless PC attitudes to bad behaviour, it is time that proper and effective punishments were applied to those who trangress the law and cause pain and damage to innocent people. There used to be prison places available to all who broke the law SN555, these days they just get half of their sentences knocked off and they have a life of comparative luxury in prison anyway. It really used to mean something when "Hard Labour" was thrown in as well, slopping out was in vogue, and generally prison was something that no one looked forward to. Made people think twice before indulging in criminal behaviour. These days the liberal attitudes shown towards criminals makes them only too ready to try it on again! There were far fewer criminals and therefore plenty of prison places for those who misbehaved.
The other big factor was that people had a strong sense of shame if they were exposed as criminals and /or "kiddyfiddlers". They knew the difference between right and wrong, just as they do now, except that these days the liberal PC Plonkers tend to blame it all on the bloke's previous life and that it is not really his fault at all. Full terms of imprisonment without the privileges and comparative luxuries which they now get, such as Nasem going to some kind of "Hotel" type accommodation,having ruined a man's life, with some physical hard work thrown in, and significant punishment for violent and abusive youths, such as the birch, would soon serve to focus their minds.
How you go about re-creating a decent society to live in after it has been thrown away by Billy and his cronies, is a difficult question. It can only be instilled in children by the example of their peers.
If all this is too difficult for you to assimilate SN555, I suggest that you listen to some of the elderly people who are prepared to tell you how society used to be. Instead of regarding them as semi demented, just listen to their experience of life, they know far more than you do and what they say is worth paying attention to, and you might even learn something!
How would you go about creating a safe and good society again SN555?
Les
Last edited by Leslie; 18 May 2006 at 12:53 PM.
18 May 2006, 12:58 PM
#98
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said I haven't the time nor the inclination to enter any discussion with you. Believe what you want but I'm not going to waste time giving you an education since you missed it the first time around.
And if you're going to quote me don't misspell it as I'd look as silly as you do.
Just what is your definition of "rose timted spectacles" please!
And if you're going to quote me don't misspell it as I'd look as silly as you do.
Just what is your definition of "rose timted spectacles" please!
Last edited by scoobynutta555; 18 May 2006 at 01:01 PM.
18 May 2006, 01:50 PM
#99
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by scoobynutta555
As I said I haven't the time nor the inclination to enter any discussion with you. Believe what you want but I'm not going to waste time giving you an education since you missed it the first time around.
And if you're going to quote me don't misspell it as I'd look as silly as you do.
And if you're going to quote me don't misspell it as I'd look as silly as you do.
I have some doubts about the "carrot and stick" approach that Les suggests and I would suggest that anyone with an interest in such things should read "The House of the Dead" (sometimes the name is translated as a slight variation of this) by Dostoyevsky. This book gives a fascinating insight into crime and punishment and the effect it has upon the criminal. it is also worth reading "Crime and Punishment" by the same author as there is also a lot of insight to be gained from this book. Now I realise that many will come on and announce that reading novels could not possibly increase your awareness of how society treats criminals and, also, of how society needs to treat criminals but I suspect that those same people will not have read either of the books. Art can offer a very insightful and revealing reflection of life and society.
My view is that the committed criminal, rather than the unfortunate citizen who "accidentally" engages in an act which is against the law, is more often than not totally beyond the reach of either the carrot or the stick and in many cases the only way to protect society from such a person is to remove them totally from society. I don't mean that we kill them, though some may care to consider that option, but I do think that there are many individuals from which society must be protected.
Of course such a statement raises many moral questions which are, largely, unresolved in my mind. The first, and most important, is the implications of getting the wrong man or of attributing the wrong mental state to the person who did commit a criminal act. We would not be the first to discuss such situations and we are not likely to get much further than any previous discussion that I have seen. However, my position is that those for whom the carrot and stick will not work should be removed from society and, I suppose, the US "three strikes and you are out" system seeks to do just that.
18 May 2006, 05:03 PM
#100
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London Town
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by OllyK
While I don't disagree with your perception, I do think a lot of it is perception, fuelled mainly by the media. I don't think things are nationally as bad as the media would have you believe, but by focussing on trouble spots and odd localised incidents, that they would have ignored due to lack of resources 30 years ago, they put accross this image that EVERY street is end to end junkies, drunk, muggers, rapists and paedophiles.
Unfortunately people like Les will believe that things are worse, no amount of discussion will change his opinion. Its a very sad situation because the more people that get sucked in to this perception like Les will mean more people living with unrealistic fear, and that is not going to help society.
18 May 2006, 08:18 PM
#101
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hedgehog
Why is it that when someone can't present their side of any discussion they choose to spend their time correcting spelling mistakes? Unfortunately such an approach just undermines your position and it only makes one person look silly, despite what you may care to think.
18 May 2006, 09:05 PM
#102
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick aside to this argument.........
Britain is becomnig a more Godless society, thank goodness, though I don't believe that has anything to do with a real or perceived rise in crime.
So, can you please explain how the US, a culture deeply inshrined in christianity, has much worse crime rates than the Godless UK?
Geezer
Britain is becomnig a more Godless society, thank goodness, though I don't believe that has anything to do with a real or perceived rise in crime.
So, can you please explain how the US, a culture deeply inshrined in christianity, has much worse crime rates than the Godless UK?
Geezer
19 May 2006, 03:48 PM
#103
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real answer Hedgehog is that SN555 can't find a reply to what was said. As you say he finds it more important to correct my typo. His lack of ability to fashion a reply also shows in his rude and ignorant reply to you!
Les
Les
19 May 2006, 09:10 PM
#104
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Leslie
The real answer Hedgehog is that SN555 can't find a reply to what was said. As you say he finds it more important to correct my typo. His lack of ability to fashion a reply also shows in his rude and ignorant reply to you!
Les
Les
There's actually a report out today that says kids today at better behaved than 20 years ago, from todays telegraph:
"The good news and, perhaps, unexpected is that the 2005 youngsters we studied have less problematic behaviour than those in a 1985 cohort and even with the problematic behaviour, drugs, drink and sex, this is still a minority activity," said Prof Colin Pritchard of Bournemouth University.
Prof Pritchard and Richard Williams, social inclusion co-ordinator for the university, published their findings in a new book, Breaking the Cycle of Educational Alienation.
They repeated a survey along the south coast that was conducted in 1985 involving Year 10 and 11 secondary students. The results were used to contrast today's behaviour with that of their parents 20 years ago."
Prof Pritchard and Richard Williams, social inclusion co-ordinator for the university, published their findings in a new book, Breaking the Cycle of Educational Alienation.
They repeated a survey along the south coast that was conducted in 1985 involving Year 10 and 11 secondary students. The results were used to contrast today's behaviour with that of their parents 20 years ago."
Would love to see studies going back a few decades further, doubtless there would be more surprising findings.
Climb back on Stannah and have some dreams about some perfect bygone era that never existed. I've wasted enough time on this. End of.
20 May 2006, 11:18 AM
#105
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SN555,
I did not mention a year if you take another look, and 1985 was well into the decline of good manners and society in general. You should read the posts more carefully.
Your specious insults merely weaken any attempt you make at an argument.
Les
I did not mention a year if you take another look, and 1985 was well into the decline of good manners and society in general. You should read the posts more carefully.
Your specious insults merely weaken any attempt you make at an argument.
Les
20 May 2006, 03:52 PM
#106
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Leslie
SN555,
I did not mention a year if you take another look, and 1985 was well into the decline of good manners and society in general. You should read the posts more carefully.
Your specious insults merely weaken any attempt you make at an argument.
Les
I did not mention a year if you take another look, and 1985 was well into the decline of good manners and society in general. You should read the posts more carefully.
Your specious insults merely weaken any attempt you make at an argument.
Les
I have not mentioned 1985 as part of your golden era, nor has it been hinted at. It's just a study printed yesterday that slays a myth about perceived crime and behaviour in the present day vis a vis a time when things were supposed to be better. Even if it was
well into the decline of good manners and society in general
21 May 2006, 11:47 AM
#108
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SN555,
Well 1985 was better than the present situation in which we see that young teenagers are now prepared to inflict violent injury or even death on someone who either disagrees with them or attempts to prevent them from carrying out a crime etc. The general attitude to authority and the need to accept discipline in a civilised society was deteriorating however in 1985. Good manners seems in so many cases to have now disappeared completely, and that goes for adults too.
You would have to go back before 1985 to reach the times that I was discussing however.
Les
Well 1985 was better than the present situation in which we see that young teenagers are now prepared to inflict violent injury or even death on someone who either disagrees with them or attempts to prevent them from carrying out a crime etc. The general attitude to authority and the need to accept discipline in a civilised society was deteriorating however in 1985. Good manners seems in so many cases to have now disappeared completely, and that goes for adults too.
You would have to go back before 1985 to reach the times that I was discussing however.
Les
21 May 2006, 12:05 PM
#109
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I've shown a study published the other day that says behaviour was worse in youths in 1985 than it is today, yet somehow 1985 was better than today? I notice you haven't backed these opinions with any facts at all, just looks like IMHO's to me. Still no mention either of your 'golden era' despite numerous times you could have supplied it.
21 May 2006, 03:20 PM
#110
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an extistentialist I have some sympathy with your position that we might only imagine things are worse today than they were yesterday. Simple statistics showing that the average life expectancy in the UK just over 100 years ago was 40 years while it is up around 80 years today demonstrate just how far we have come. However, the "study" you posted appears, from the bits you've quoted, to be discussing problematic behaviour from an educational perspective. I have no reason to suspect that there would be any correlation between this and crime in society. However, despite that statement, I might suggest that the problem children in school in 1985 are now criminal adults in society in 2006. While I can see no reason to believe the last statement to be true that may also highlight the point that I don't think this particular study proves anything when it comes to crime on the streets.
There is also no question that there was considerable violence in the past, and several studies, most notably in Glasgow, documented such violence in detail (read "No mean city" for a fictional based on truth introduction) and, it should be noted, apart from alcohol there were no drugs involved.
So, I think this leaves us with a problem as it is probably reasonable to state that, on average, people believe that there is more crime today and the figures certainly seem to indicate a year on year increase in many types of crime. If we ignore the actual published crime figures for a minute then I think that we can state that a very many more people are victims of crime just because, for whatever reason, more people are frightened of crime. Those people will modify their behaviour because of their fear: children can't play in the street or go fishing in local rivers because of a fear of crime. These people are victims of crime, even if they are never robbed or assulted, because crime is causing them to be unable to do things they might like to do.
I doubt, for example, that there are many on this forum without a security system on their car, making us all victims of crime, and I believe that car crime in the UK is the worst in the world and would appear to be increasing with the number of cars stolen in my area going from about 6,000 to about 12,000 in 10 years.
I suspect that greater minds than us have debated this matter and, in view of what we see in society, I don't think they have produced a good answer. However, based upon some of the points made above I think it is reasonable to state that there was certainly crime in "the good old days" but I am inclined to believe that, certainly in the case of violent crime, it was more likely focused on people who would have been expected to have been at high risk, such as gang members. I also think that the increasing political and social control forced upon society by successive governments has made people feel helpless in the face of crime. In the past you could give an errant kid a clip around the ear and you knew that the police, when they turned up, would do the same thing. Today you are utterly powerless to take any action against crime and the police rarely turn up and their only action in many cases is to provide you with a crime number. On top of this every pole has a CCTV camera watching your movements while crime increases and the criminals appear free to go about their business. I believe that the focus on monitoring and controlling the ordinary, generally law abiding, citizen has made us all victims of crime even if we have no direct experience of criminal acts. The current war on terrorism provides another excellent example of this process in action as people lose their liberties and are subject to a range of measures which, they are told, are necessary to protect them against terrorism. Each and every one of these people, that's you and me, are victims of terrorism even if the actual chances of us seeing a terrorist are very low.
So while I do think there is more crime as it appears to increase year on year I also believe that a lot of the problem is down to attempts at social engineering which has left the population feeling helpless in the face of crime and this makes many more people victims of crime even if they never meet a criminal.
There is also no question that there was considerable violence in the past, and several studies, most notably in Glasgow, documented such violence in detail (read "No mean city" for a fictional based on truth introduction) and, it should be noted, apart from alcohol there were no drugs involved.
So, I think this leaves us with a problem as it is probably reasonable to state that, on average, people believe that there is more crime today and the figures certainly seem to indicate a year on year increase in many types of crime. If we ignore the actual published crime figures for a minute then I think that we can state that a very many more people are victims of crime just because, for whatever reason, more people are frightened of crime. Those people will modify their behaviour because of their fear: children can't play in the street or go fishing in local rivers because of a fear of crime. These people are victims of crime, even if they are never robbed or assulted, because crime is causing them to be unable to do things they might like to do.
I doubt, for example, that there are many on this forum without a security system on their car, making us all victims of crime, and I believe that car crime in the UK is the worst in the world and would appear to be increasing with the number of cars stolen in my area going from about 6,000 to about 12,000 in 10 years.
I suspect that greater minds than us have debated this matter and, in view of what we see in society, I don't think they have produced a good answer. However, based upon some of the points made above I think it is reasonable to state that there was certainly crime in "the good old days" but I am inclined to believe that, certainly in the case of violent crime, it was more likely focused on people who would have been expected to have been at high risk, such as gang members. I also think that the increasing political and social control forced upon society by successive governments has made people feel helpless in the face of crime. In the past you could give an errant kid a clip around the ear and you knew that the police, when they turned up, would do the same thing. Today you are utterly powerless to take any action against crime and the police rarely turn up and their only action in many cases is to provide you with a crime number. On top of this every pole has a CCTV camera watching your movements while crime increases and the criminals appear free to go about their business. I believe that the focus on monitoring and controlling the ordinary, generally law abiding, citizen has made us all victims of crime even if we have no direct experience of criminal acts. The current war on terrorism provides another excellent example of this process in action as people lose their liberties and are subject to a range of measures which, they are told, are necessary to protect them against terrorism. Each and every one of these people, that's you and me, are victims of terrorism even if the actual chances of us seeing a terrorist are very low.
So while I do think there is more crime as it appears to increase year on year I also believe that a lot of the problem is down to attempts at social engineering which has left the population feeling helpless in the face of crime and this makes many more people victims of crime even if they never meet a criminal.
22 May 2006, 04:37 PM
#111
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SN555,
With all due respect, the modern day habit of teenagers of carrying and being prepared to use knives or other weapons to injure or kill others as we see reported so often these days which might have happened happened only extremely rarely in the period of the report you mentioned does not indicate that the report is really very accurate anyway.
You mention the use of hard drugs which is a valid point but is no excuse for the viciously dangerous actions that can be expected these days.
What I am saying is that the combination of all the circumstances mentioned in present times coupled with the liberal PC attitude of so many of those who are supposed to be responsible for the behaviour of young people is causing a more and more dangerous future for us all.
Les
With all due respect, the modern day habit of teenagers of carrying and being prepared to use knives or other weapons to injure or kill others as we see reported so often these days which might have happened happened only extremely rarely in the period of the report you mentioned does not indicate that the report is really very accurate anyway.
You mention the use of hard drugs which is a valid point but is no excuse for the viciously dangerous actions that can be expected these days.
What I am saying is that the combination of all the circumstances mentioned in present times coupled with the liberal PC attitude of so many of those who are supposed to be responsible for the behaviour of young people is causing a more and more dangerous future for us all.
Les
22 May 2006, 05:15 PM
#112
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot believe that it is exclusively a modern day habit to carry weapons and be prepared to use them?
Hard drugs is THE most important factor regarding violence and robbery in this county.
True there have been periods when recorded crime hasn't been as high as it has in modern times, but that can be due to differences in recording of crime and even entirely new categories being formed where crime wasn't simply possible before. Also, there have been periods where hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of teenagers and youths (who seem to be responsible for much crime) would have either been dead or fighting overseas.
Hard drugs is THE most important factor regarding violence and robbery in this county.
True there have been periods when recorded crime hasn't been as high as it has in modern times, but that can be due to differences in recording of crime and even entirely new categories being formed where crime wasn't simply possible before. Also, there have been periods where hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of teenagers and youths (who seem to be responsible for much crime) would have either been dead or fighting overseas.
23 May 2006, 11:27 AM
#113
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Believe me, it is a modern day habit. Yes there was a period when "flick knives" became fashionable for a while, that was not that long ago however compared to the period I was extolling and the police and the courts soon put a stop to that. PC was not heard of then! The yoofs were carrying them for reasons of image and they were not inclined to use them at least but rather to flash them about.
I agree with your point about hard drugs. That is a big factor in today's problems. Trouble is, they are being used so widely now for recreational purposes that it has got out of control like all the other things which are going wrong now.
Unless someone really gets hold of the problem and is able to start reversing it, I see nothing but a "Mad Max" society for the future! We desperately need a strong leader who will get hold of the country by the scruff of the neck and sort it out.
Les
I agree with your point about hard drugs. That is a big factor in today's problems. Trouble is, they are being used so widely now for recreational purposes that it has got out of control like all the other things which are going wrong now.
Unless someone really gets hold of the problem and is able to start reversing it, I see nothing but a "Mad Max" society for the future! We desperately need a strong leader who will get hold of the country by the scruff of the neck and sort it out.
Les
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
