|
So London has descended into chaos as 300 Rioters have set fire to buildings...
Bloody Brits.
Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-07/riot-breaks-out-in-london/2827852
Only just woken up, after a late night gaming to find out about this...
It sounds like this is kick back on project Trident, as much as the shooting itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only just woken up, after a late night gaming to find out about this...
It sounds like this is kick back on project Trident, as much as the shooting itself.
I'm interested to know how this is playing on your news? Especially faux news.
Ugh...already beginning to hate the phrase 'completely unacceptable.
No-Sh~@-Sherlock, ofcause its unacceptable, but since when do large numbers of angry young men behave in a rational manner that gives a s*@@ about acceptablity. Now instead of stating the obvious in message after message of condemnation, and pretending that will make those young men any less angry about the death of a member of their community and years of perceived racial harassment by trident. How about you o something about the underlying problems.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When the police act like an occupying force, they will eventually be treated as one.
When the police act like an occupying force, they will eventually be treated as one.
So wasn't the guy killed in a shootout with Police? Why did he have a firearm unless he was a criminal, and why did he decide to have a shootout rather than accept arrest?
How are the Police acting like 'an occupying force'?
When the police act like an occupying force, they will eventually be treated as one.So wasn't the guy killed in a shootout with Police? Why did he have a firearm unless he was a criminal, and why did he decide to have a shootout rather than accept arrest?
How are the Police acting like 'an occupying force'?
I am wondering if PC is confusing geography and assuming Tottenham is in Ireland (Northern Ireland) as we know most Yanks are geographically challenged when it comes to anything outside continental north America.
We also know that when it comes to Ireland the Yanks are historically challenged and don't understand that a clear Majority of the Northern Irish wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. That is why a lot of money for the Provisional IRA (Who loved to blow up innocent women children) came from the US because the Yanks thought the Irish were still fighting the Easter rebellion.
Then again at least the Poms arent rioting over a football match (this time).
|
|
When the police act like an occupying force, they will eventually be treated as one.So wasn't the guy killed in a shootout with Police? Why did he have a firearm unless he was a criminal, and why did he decide to have a shootout rather than accept arrest?
How are the Police acting like 'an occupying force'?
That must mean everyone who has a gun is a criminal...including the police.
How do I qualify that? Under Commonwealth law (Commonwealth countries like Britian) the only ground under which a Human Life may be taken by the state is if the perp has resisted arrest under charge of treason. So unless these cops had a Warrant for his arrest under chrge of treason and he said 'F' off and opened fired, thye had no legal right to kill him. Indeed doingso without such an arrest warrant finding you guilty of Treason the Cop killing you would be in breach of Section One: Treason.
That means every police officer taking a life without an arrest warrant finding the individual guilty of treason is guilty of Treason. This charge extends to any officer of the state who thinks other wise. So what is it going to be? Anarchy or accountability?
|
When the police act like an occupying force, they will eventually be treated as one.So wasn't the guy killed in a shootout with Police? Why did he have a firearm unless he was a criminal, and why did he decide to have a shootout rather than accept arrest?
How are the Police acting like 'an occupying force'?
That must mean everyone who has a gun is a criminal...including the police.
How do I qualify that? Under Commonwealth law (Commonwealth countries like Britian) the only ground under which a Human Life may be taken by the state is if the perp has resisted arrest under charge of treason. So unless these cops had a Warrant for his arrest under chrge of treason and he said 'F' off and opened fired, thye had no legal right to kill him. Indeed doingso without such an arrest warrant finding you guilty of Treason the Cop killing you would be in breach of Section One: Treason.
That means every police officer taking a life without an arrest warrant finding the individual guilty of treason is guilty of Treason. This charge extends to any officer of the state who thinks other wise. So what is it going to be? Anarchy or accountability?
This is flat out untrue. You are allowed to use reasonable and proportionate force to protect yourself, others or your property. This can include lethal force when confronted by an armed person. But, as usual, don't let reality get in your way.
That must mean everyone who has a gun is a criminal...including the police.
Erm, no, 'breaking the law' is what makes one a criminal; ownership of a firearm in the UK is relatively rare so the first assumption would be that it was an illegal firearm - which becomes pretty moot when you decide to get into a shootout with Police.
The Police, on the otherhand, have lawful carriage of firearms.
Similarly, they may use and employ said firearms in certain circumstances - such as having their lives threatened by a person pointing a gun at them. That applies to them, you, or anybody else.
I am wondering if PC is confusing geography and assuming Tottenham is in Ireland (Northern Ireland) as we know most Yanks are geographically challenged when it comes to anything outside continental north America.
Well that might be the case, I was just flat out trying to guess whether it was geographical error, hyperbole, or indeed some particular point of view by a local who had special knowledge we didn't.
When the police act like an occupying force, they will eventually be treated as one.So wasn't the guy killed in a shootout with Police? Why did he have a firearm unless he was a criminal, and why did he decide to have a shootout rather than accept arrest?
Because gun and knife crime in north London is complicated. Black Male between the ages of 14 and 30 in that part of north London are at elevated risk of violent crime. They carry knives and gun, because it makes them feel safe, but in reality, those who do carry weapons in that part of London are more likely to be the target of knife and gun crime.
Details of why he was being arrested, have not yet been released to my knowledge.
What we do know is that his cousin died in a fatal stabbing, and that he had become increasingly paranoid with regards to his own safety. He fits the profile of someone who would carry a weapon for self-defence(though he is at the upper end of that group).
Carrying a weapon makes him a criminal. But we do not know with certainty at this point that he did decide to have a shoot out with the police rather than submit to arrest. It is entirely possible that any number of other events took place there. We won't have much of an idea until the IPCC reports.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I removed some posts. Do not make bigoted, hateful, or racially insensitive statements.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are the Police acting like 'an occupying force'?
Oh boy. Thats complicated. The MET has for years struggled with deeply in grained institutional racism, highlighted by the Steven Lawrence enquiry, and many others. These all breed resentment.
You then have racially targeted operations like Tridant which target young black men for search, based almost race alone, because it is targeted at a problem which is seen as only a problem in the black communities of london. This serves to breed resentment.
We have communities in Tottenham which are blightest by poverty, and which are seeing the services which give even the slightest chance at equality of opportunity with people living less than a mile away, slashed.
Higher and further education, one of the best hopes for many young men from these communities, has been shut of by pricing them out and the removal of support for those wishing to remain in education.
Tottenham has a history with the police. In 1985, Cynthia Jarrett was killed by the police during a house hold search. That sparked similar riots, put down with typical met efficiency. So this is the ghost of Broadwater Farm riot. Wider london had even more of a narrative of conflict with the police, as does England as a whole.
Along side the basic services which are being slashed, services expressly designed to improve working relations between the police and these young people are being cut.
and all these things are only scratching the surface.
When the police act like an occupying force, they will eventually be treated as one.So wasn't the guy killed in a shootout with Police? Why did he have a firearm unless he was a criminal, and why did he decide to have a shootout rather than accept arrest?
How are the Police acting like 'an occupying force'?
I am wondering if PC is confusing geography and assuming Tottenham is in Ireland (Northern Ireland) as we know most Yanks are geographically challenged when it comes to anything outside continental north America.
We also know that when it comes to Ireland the Yanks are historically challenged and don't understand that a clear Majority of the Northern Irish wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. That is why a lot of money for the Provisional IRA (Who loved to blow up innocent women children) came from the US because the Yanks thought the Irish were still fighting the Easter rebellion.
Then again at least the Poms arent rioting over a football match (this time).
Two sets of dark days that seem to be revisiting us...(see return of rebublican paramilitary activity to the streets of NI, and sectarian football violence north of the boarder )
When the police act like an occupying force, they will eventually be treated as one.So wasn't the guy killed in a shootout with Police? Why did he have a firearm unless he was a criminal, and why did he decide to have a shootout rather than accept arrest?
How are the Police acting like 'an occupying force'?
I am wondering if PC is confusing geography and assuming Tottenham is in Ireland (Northern Ireland) as we know most Yanks are geographically challenged when it comes to anything outside continental north America.
We also know that when it comes to Ireland the Yanks are historically challenged and don't understand that a clear Majority of the Northern Irish wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. That is why a lot of money for the Provisional IRA (Who loved to blow up innocent women children) came from the US because the Yanks thought the Irish were still fighting the Easter rebellion.
Then again at least the Poms arent rioting over a football match (this time).
Man you jumped to an amazing number of conclusions there (none of them correct).
As ZombieNeighboors said, the MET has had no small number of problems with conduct, especially towards non-white and poverty stricken communities. And you're damn right in places like that the police can and will feel not like peace officers, but as an occupying force. Because the police aren't there to protect them.
|
|
This is flat out untrue. You are allowed to use reasonable and proportionate force to protect yourself, others or your property. This can include lethal force when confronted by an armed person. But, as usual, don't let reality get in your way.When the police act like an occupying force, they will eventually be treated as one.So wasn't the guy killed in a shootout with Police? Why did he have a firearm unless he was a criminal, and why did he decide to have a shootout rather than accept arrest?
How are the Police acting like 'an occupying force'?
That must mean everyone who has a gun is a criminal...including the police.
How do I qualify that? Under Commonwealth law (Commonwealth countries like Britian) the only ground under which a Human Life may be taken by the state is if the perp has resisted arrest under charge of treason. So unless these cops had a Warrant for his arrest under chrge of treason and he said 'F' off and opened fired, thye had no legal right to kill him. Indeed doingso without such an arrest warrant finding you guilty of Treason the Cop killing you would be in breach of Section One: Treason.
That means every police officer taking a life without an arrest warrant finding the individual guilty of treason is guilty of Treason. This charge extends to any officer of the state who thinks other wise. So what is it going to be? Anarchy or accountability?
When they tell you that, they are lying. You dont have the right to kill. Anyone (Government or otherwise) who told you that you have the right to kill another is lying. The Law is absolute. The End.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because gun and knife crime in north London is complicated. Black Male between the ages of 14 and 30 in that part of north London are at elevated risk of violent crime. They carry knives and gun, because it makes them feel safe, but in reality, those who do carry weapons in that part of London are more likely to be the target of knife and gun crime.
Ok well that logic usually starts to fall apart pretty quickly.
If black males between 14 and 30 are at an elevated risk of violent crime, who are they at risk from? And WHY are they at risk?
Carrying knives and guns around is never the right answer, and is something that shuld be stepped upon by the Police with tremendous zeal.
Simply put, 'Self protection' is always the claim used by tooled up thugs set on running around threatening others. A coward with a gun or a box cutter (which is what these people tend to be) is a nightmare for ordinary and decent people just looking to mind their own business and get on with life.
The truth is that these 'at risk' people are at risk because of their attitudes, 'Well gangsta, innit?' - they enjoy the lifestyle and the two-bit tough guy notoriety they get. They aren't interested in really doing anything about their safety, or they'd be working with Police to FIX the problem, rather than continue to stymie and hamper the Police from doing their job and reducing crime; indeed by being confrontational with Police at every turn and breeding conflict they can justify their self indulgent persecution complexes and add the 'downtrodden because of race' card and wear it like a badge.
So there is an 'occupying force' on the streets, and they are armed with illegal firearms and concealed knives, and frankly they should be suppressed and dealt with as such so that the 99% of decent people can get on with their lives in peace and safety instead of fear of being mugged on the tube, knifed for the lulz, Happy slapped, or shot by some spanker in Brixton with a persecution complex.
That goes equal for the Chavs.
Spare me the "poverty stricken disadvantaged youth on struggle street" garbage.
Get a job.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because gun and knife crime in north London is complicated. Black Male between the ages of 14 and 30 in that part of north London are at elevated risk of violent crime. They carry knives and gun, because it makes them feel safe, but in reality, those who do carry weapons in that part of London are more likely to be the target of knife and gun crime.Ok well that logic usually starts to fall apart pretty quickly.
If black males between 14 and 30 are at an elevated risk of violent crime, who are they at risk from? And WHY are they at risk?
Carrying knives and guns around is never the right answer, and is something that shuld be stepped upon by the Police with tremendous zeal.
Simply put, 'Self protection' is always the claim used by tooled up thugs set on running around threatening others. A coward with a gun or a box cutter (which is what these people tend to be) is a nightmare for ordinary and decent people just looking to mind their own business and get on with life.
The truth is that these 'at risk' people are at risk because of their attitudes, 'Well gangsta, innit?' - they enjoy the lifestyle and the two-bit tough guy notoriety they get. They aren't interested in really doing anything about their safety, or they'd be working with Police to FIX the problem, rather than continue to stymie and hamper the Police from doing their job and reducing crime; indeed by being confrontational with Police at every turn and breeding conflict they can justify their self indulgent persecution complexes and add the 'downtrodden because of race' card and wear it like a badge.
So there is an 'occupying force' on the streets, and they are armed with illegal firearms and concealed knives, and frankly they should be suppressed and dealt with as such so that the 99% of decent people can get on with their lives in peace and safety instead of fear of being mugged on the tube, knifed for the lulz, Happy slapped, or shot by some spanker in Brixton with a persecution complex.
...
You are right. we should all have personal forcefields.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are right. we should all have personal forcefields.
A lot harder to be a victim of knife and gun crime when there are very very few knives and guns around... which means less of a reason to have a knife or gun of your own.
Similarly, if they don't have a knife or a gun they don't walk around trying to stand over other people.
Frankly though, if one scummy person really feels like stabbing another scummy person in the head because they both thought playing 'Gangsta' was cool then thats just fine by me, however the same lairy Muppets go around darkening the day of decent people, and that's not on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are right. we should all have personal forcefields.
Well that's all fine and dandy until someone shows up with a lasgun, then BOOM!
Also, IBTL.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is all you're saying.
Literally this is Privilege Denying Dude in it's purest form.
Literally this is Privilege Denying Dude in it's purest form.
Oh I see, you can't attack the logic so you attack the person; Ad hominem is all you can reply with?
if you felt like answering who they are at risk from, that would make interestig reading. Similarly you could provide details on exactly how they are oppressed and who, exactly, is oppressing them?
Facts please, not hyperbole.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Literally this is Privilege Denying Dude in it's purest form.Oh I see, you can't attack the logic so you attack the person; Ad hominem is all you can reply with?
if you felt like answering who they are at risk from, that would make interestig reading. Similarly you could provide details on exactly how they are oppressed and who, exactly, is oppressing them?
Facts please, not hyperbole.
So...
You're born in a poor innner-city area to poor parents.
You go to a poor school (transient student population, transient staff population, massive amount of EAL/EFL students, etc. etc.)
Your social circle has limited aspirations.
You have limited social capital so rely upon an overt display of machismo to establish yourself in new social situations.
You are overtly aware of your poverty, in terms of money, education, background, cultural knowledge...
You struggle to find work because of your poor qualifications and you have not developed in a way that makes you seem attractive to employers.
When you are confronted by the police you are amde acutely aware of your underclass status, something you can usually avoid by remaining amongst your peers. This means that even if you have done nothing wrong and get in no trouble then encountering the police can be a humiliating experience.
Are we feeling the tension yet?
And I haven't even thrown race into the mix...
When I went to university there was one student on my course (a popular course at a popular university) who had managed to get good grades and get onto the course but he was massively culturally disadvantaged and lasted about two weeks.
He didn't know how to approach other students, administrators or academic staff (mostly very middle class) and was clearly cowed by the whole experience, hiding behind a guarded, gruff, resentful attitude.
Or, to put it another way...
My Grandmother has never eaten any food with a hint of spice and regards pasta, rice and garlic as terrifyingly exotic. Once, when on holiday with a large group of people my sister and I made Spaghetti Bolognese. It was not a safe family environment in which she could easily e encouraged by friends.
She was guarded and uncomfortable, watched everyone eating and yet still tried to slice the spaghetti and spike it on her fork. She made excuses and went to bed early, having eaten almost nothing.
Or, to put it another way...
People are, in all kinds of ways, products of their environment. Analysing that environment (political, social, cultural, physical) is important in understanding why and how things happen.
If we want less crime then we have to understand why that crime is happening.
Why, for instance, did armed muggers in London go through a period of scarring their victims, even if the victims had given them everything very easily?
My roses have been killed by aphids, should I dig out the roses and kill the aphids? Yes.
If I plant a new rosebush next year, will the same thing happen? Yes.
So I find a solution which changes the context. I plant some other plants as well, these plants attract ladybirds, which are relatively harmless and eat most of the aphids.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So...
You're born in a poor innner-city area to poor parents.
Check!
You go to a poor school (transient student population, transient staff population, massive amount of EAL/EFL students, etc. etc.)
Check!
Your social circle has limited aspirations.
Check!
You have limited social capital so rely upon an overt display of machismo to establish yourself in new social situations.
Check! - though that was a personal choice.
You are overtly aware of your poverty, in terms of money, education, background, cultural knowledge...
Check!
You struggle to find work because of your poor qualifications and you have not developed in a way that makes you seem attractive to employers.
Check!
When you are confronted by the police you are amde acutely aware of your underclass status, something you can usually avoid by remaining amongst your peers. This means that even if you have done nothing wrong and get in no trouble then encountering the police can be a humiliating experience.
Check! Especially when theyraid your house and trash the place looking for stuff your shady relatives may have hidden there. That said, the Police kind of had a reason to be there - MY SHADY CRIMINAL RELATIONS AND FRIENDS.
That, and the fact that my good self and my mates were usually gobbing off at the Police, and quite often involving ourselves in shady activities. I reckon had we just stuck to minding our own business and not causing trouble then Constable Care wouldn't have been dropping in.
So whos fault is that?
Are we feeling the tension yet?
Check! Which is why I made the decision to get my act together and leave all that.
What I didn't do is sit around moaning about my sorry lot in life and how hard it all was, and then carry on about how I am owed something. It's called personal responsibility. What I didn't do was use it all as an excuse to go roll someones grandmother for her pension and try to justify it with perceived slights.
What we have here is a bunch of people where sheer idle laziness meets with entitlement mentality.
And I haven't even thrown race into the mix...
Will make little difference, because the real problems are on the inside, not the outside. As long as people can blame someone else for their lack of abundance they will.
Race cards get thrown around to try and add a further chip on ones shoulder, as if skin colour gives one the monopoly on doing it tough.
So in short, spare me the hard luck story, been there and done that.
The option to better their lot in life is there for the taking, but what you guys miss is that they WANT The life, they wanna be gangster livin it large yeah.
The faster the Police get in and clean those holes out, the faster kids who want to change will find it easier to do so - free of being oppressed and threatened by low life scumbags.
Literally this is Privilege Denying Dude in it's purest form.Oh I see, you can't attack the logic so you attack the person; Ad hominem is all you can reply with?
if you felt like answering who they are at risk from, that would make interestig reading. Similarly you could provide details on exactly how they are oppressed and who, exactly, is oppressing them?
Facts please, not hyperbole.
Anyone who goes "Oh get s job :smug:" to a group of poverty stricken minorities in most cases, much less the current global economy, has given up the right to claim they're using "logic."
|
|
You're completely right in that the reasons for the social problems need to be understood and addressed, and the current policing approach won't work. However, I think this train of thought can often lead to the notion that offenders who come from such backgrounds deserve lesser sentences because of their difficult situations. I don't think that citing a poor upbringing should diminish any criminal's personal responsibility; it's not a mitigating factor.So...
You're born in a poor innner-city area to poor parents.
You go to a poor school (transient student population, transient staff population, massive amount of EAL/EFL students, etc. etc.)
Your social circle has limited aspirations.
You have limited social capital so rely upon an overt display of machismo to establish yourself in new social situations.
You are overtly aware of your poverty, in terms of money, education, background, cultural knowledge...
You struggle to find work because of your poor qualifications and you have not developed in a way that makes you seem attractive to employers.
When you are confronted by the police you are amde acutely aware of your underclass status, something you can usually avoid by remaining amongst your peers. This means that even if you have done nothing wrong and get in no trouble then encountering the police can be a humiliating experience.
Are we feeling the tension yet?
And I haven't even thrown race into the mix...
You're absolutely right.
Right now we have a legal system where people who behave in the 'right' way and come from the 'right' background are more likely to get shorter sentences.
Our legal system also bends over backwards for the powerful (try waving a cream pie at Rupert Murdoch...).
Mostly, the disadvantaged get longer prison sentences so the British system is definitely not on this kind of slippery slope anyway.
I would like to see absolute equality of sentencing.
IBTL.... wow this thread is just smurfy.
CJ, this thread needs you smurfing it like it needs a hole in the head. If your not interested, go and wind up someone else. Take the Smurf-trolling to an audience that finds it funny.
|
|
Check! Which is why I made the decision to get my act together and leave all that.What I didn't do is sit around moaning about my sorry lot in life and how hard it all was, and then carry on about how I am owed something. It's called personal responsibility. What I didn't do was use it all as an excuse to go roll someones grandmother for her pension and try to justify it with perceived slights.
What we have here is a bunch of people where sheer idle laziness meets with entitlement mentality.
So, what your saying is that, in this environment, we have a number of people who rise above the quagmire and others who sink. Right?
I'm not worried about making a moral judgement about those who sink, that might make me feel good but it doesn't actually help to solve the problems.
The ways in which you are a superior person to some of these rioters are good things. Now what do we do about people who are not like you?
If you are correct and the causes of these problems are a lack of personal responsibility and an entitlement mentality then:
A: What are the causes of this?
B: What can be done to change this, for now and for future generations?
Will make little difference, because the real problems are on the inside, not the outside. As long as people can blame someone else for their lack of abundance they will.
Race cards get thrown around to try and add a further chip on ones shoulder, as if skin colour gives one the monopoly on doing it tough.
I didn't bring race into the debate, I was trying to show that race was quite a limited factor in many ways. Racial discrimination might exaggerate some problems but race does not necessarily create these problems.
So in short, spare me the hard luck story, been there and done that.
The option to better their lot in life is there for the taking, but what you guys miss is that they WANT The life, they wanna be gangster livin it large yeah.
The faster the Police get in and clean those holes out, the faster kids who want to change will find it easier to do so - free of being oppressed and threatened by low life scumbags.
Why do these poor, disadvantaged youths want the life? Why do they want to be "gangster livin it large yeah"? How do we change the circumstances so that the next generation to grop up in Tottenham don't want those things?
All you're suggesting is that we use the police to make it easier for people like you.
In my analogy, you are suggesting we dig out the rose bush and kill the aphids. Great.
After that, do we just plant a new rose bush and let the aphids kill it again? Or do we figure out how we can plant some ladybird attracting plants so that the aphids all get eaten and we can have a beautiful rose bush in our garden, rather than a spiky dead thing?
Understanding the context/causes/reasons/motivations/influences/etc which create these problems helps to prevent them from happening again. I'm not even especially interested in 'helping disadvantaged yoof'. I'm interested in replacing violent, negative youth with positive, aspirant, hopeful youth.
I don't want to help the Speedys and sod the sods. I want to consider how we can adapt our society so that we don't produce any sods, just lots of lovely speedys.
You asked why youths were armed and claiming they had to be in order to protect themselves, I was trying to give an insight into why. We need to do that so that we can consider what happens after the riots. After Broadwater Farm the intention was that it would never again happen - so something went wrong and something should be done differently next time.
|
|
IBTL.... wow this thread is just smurfy.CJ, this thread needs you smurfing it like it needs a hole in the head. If your not interested, go and wind up someone else. Take the Smurf-trolling to an audience that finds it funny.
Never said it was funny. This thread has lost any ground upon which it was made and has slipped into bickering and sniping amongst some of the worst trolls upon these boards.
It has lost any context or reason for being save a few racist and insensitive remarks.
It should die a quick and painful death and slip forever into the archives.
|
|
IBTL.... wow this thread is just smurfy.CJ, this thread needs you smurfing it like it needs a hole in the head. If your not interested, go and wind up someone else. Take the Smurf-trolling to an audience that finds it funny.Never said it was funny. This thread has lost any ground upon which it was made and has slipped into bickering and sniping amongst some of the worst trolls upon these boards.
It has lost any context or reason for being save a few racist and insensitive remarks.
It should die a quick and painful death and slip forever into the archives.
You wound me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're completely right in that the reasons for the social problems need to be understood and addressed, and the current policing approach won't work. However, I think this train of thought can often lead to the notion that offenders who come from such backgrounds deserve lesser sentences because of their difficult situations. I don't think that citing a poor upbringing should diminish any criminal's personal responsibility; it's not a mitigating factor.So...
You're born in a poor innner-city area to poor parents.
You go to a poor school (transient student population, transient staff population, massive amount of EAL/EFL students, etc. etc.)
Your social circle has limited aspirations.
You have limited social capital so rely upon an overt display of machismo to establish yourself in new social situations.
You are overtly aware of your poverty, in terms of money, education, background, cultural knowledge...
You struggle to find work because of your poor qualifications and you have not developed in a way that makes you seem attractive to employers.
When you are confronted by the police you are amde acutely aware of your underclass status, something you can usually avoid by remaining amongst your peers. This means that even if you have done nothing wrong and get in no trouble then encountering the police can be a humiliating experience.
Are we feeling the tension yet?
And I haven't even thrown race into the mix...
You're absolutely right.
Right now we have a legal system where people who behave in the 'right' way and come from the 'right' background are more likely to get shorter sentences.
Our legal system also bends over backwards for the powerful (try waving a cream pie at Rupert Murdoch...).
Mostly, the disadvantaged get longer prison sentences so the British system is definitely not on this kind of slippery slope anyway.I would like to see absolute equality of sentencing.
To be honest I'd like a criminal justice system designed to reduce crime, rather than an expensive system of punishment that actually(according to the vast majority of the availible evidence) breeds criminality and crime.
|
|
You wound me.IBTL.... wow this thread is just smurfy.CJ, this thread needs you smurfing it like it needs a hole in the head. If your not interested, go and wind up someone else. Take the Smurf-trolling to an audience that finds it funny.Never said it was funny. This thread has lost any ground upon which it was made and has slipped into bickering and sniping amongst some of the worst trolls upon these boards.
It has lost any context or reason for being save a few racist and insensitive remarks.
It should die a quick and painful death and slip forever into the archives.
not my intent.
|
Right now we have a legal system where people who behave in the 'right' way and come from the 'right' background are more likely to get shorter sentences.
Yeah. In fact, the system is so screwed up that if you really act the 'right' way then you will get no sentence. Since, you know, you haven't committed any crimes.
:P
Right now we have a legal system where people who behave in the 'right' way and come from the 'right' background are more likely to get shorter sentences.Yeah. In fact, the system is so screwed up that if you really act the 'right' way then you will get no sentence. Since, you know, you haven't committed any crimes.
:P
The real world is rarely this binary.
Oh and if I really wanted to SMVRF it, there would be two pages padding my post count.
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]
This thread, is a response to a horrible set of events, discussing its in a largely mature and level manner. We may well disagree, we may well even get into an argument, but we aren't trying to make one another angry, we are not dragging the conversational of its topic, we are not being disruptive. We are merely discussing a subject we find of interest.
Only one person in this thread is trolling.
Please either actually contribute, or go away.
My roses have been killed by aphids, should I dig out the roses and kill the aphids? Yes.
If I plant a new rosebush next year, will the same thing happen? Yes.
So I find a solution which changes the context. I plant some other plants as well, these plants attract ladybirds, which are relatively harmless and eat most of the aphids.
Even your analogy is wrong. Ladybugs are completely harmless (assuming you don't eat them). They don't eat plants (except stuff like raisins).
I am wondering if PC is confusing geography and assuming Tottenham is in Ireland (Northern Ireland) as we know most Yanks are geographically challenged when it comes to anything outside continental north America.
Hey! I know where Tottenham is--I've read about The Clash!
We also know that when it comes to Ireland the Yanks are historically challenged...
That's only the Irish Yanks. I'm still desperately waiting for the SNP to pick up the gun.
I mean, I've read about The Clash!