Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.

Moderator: Flyin'Dutch'

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8
User avatar
By Jim Jones
#1663228
johnm wrote:Much of this is about attitude and in many poor estates and terraced house areas in my youth there was a sense of pride in keeping one's modest abode clean and tidy, but there were always a few feckless, dirty and occasionally criminally. What seems to have changed is that they are no longer isolated and looked down upon, but feared. I'm guessing that is because faith in the authorities to keep them under control has evaporated.



Social housing used to a perfetly acceptable choice for skilled and middle management. I grew up in one. Social pressure, not the law, kept miscreants in check
The right to buy skewed that, together with the notion that home ownership as early in life as possible was the way to go.
This led to a concentration of low aspiration, low education, low income low impulse control people in one place, who developed their own social norms unchallenged. Moving out from that environment has many barriers. Look at the effect post code has on insurance, loan rates etc as an example. Social division seems to be increasing at the moment.
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1663233
Paul_Sengupta wrote:
chevvron wrote:Has this reduced the use of pistols in crimes?


Certainly there hasn't been a Dunblane type incident since they were banned.

Or Hungerford.


In both cases, the offenders had histories that should have excluded them from being firearm certificate holders.

The subsequent bans have not reduced or removed illegal firearms from our streets.

And the firearms that are currently able to be held legally in the UK, are still capable of causing carnage if required.

Hypothetically, a mentally unstable individual could obtain an NPPL on a self certified medical, then crash whatever he happens to fly, into a music festival crowd causing far more destruction than either of the above. Ban on GA to follow?
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1663235
The problem we as a society have is the way we punish offenders. Where there is a clear and proven guilt, for example the murderers of Lee Rigby, we should have no problem with the death penalty.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1663236
Sooty25 wrote:The problem we as a society have is the way we punish offenders. Where there is a clear and proven guilt, for example the murderers of Lee Rigby, we should have no problem with the death penalty.


That must be why crime in the US of A is so rare and their prisons virtually empty.......
By Mike Tango
#1663240
Yup, there was never any violent crime here until the death penalty was abolished.

And as for thinking the death penalty is going to be a deterrent or punishment for those that are essentially seeking some sort of martyrdom, that’s not really been thought through has it?
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1663246
Miscellaneous wrote:
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Unless you think that UK citizens are less able to be educated than those in the Netherlands, Germany, Scandinavia I think you are doing the population a great disservice.

Not at all FD I'm sure Brits are just as able to be educated, I just don't accept similar problems don't exist in Scandinavia.


Of course they do but on a much smaller scale (and not just in absolute but also relative basis)

Miscellaneous wrote:
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:These situations and circumstances are not inherent to people of a certain background or intelligence but rather, for the largest part, the result of generations of neglect and deprivation.

I'd probably go with the background not being the primary cause, however inherent it is, in some.

I struggle to understand the disconnect here. I don't know your backgrounds, however I would have thought a GP would certainly have been exposed to the people I describe.


Of course GPs other than those solely working in the leafiest of areas are exposed to this and see the effects of it first hand.

Miscellaneous wrote:
Yet again there are the deniers of the facts, the reasons behind them, with the finger immediately, it seems without thought, being pointed at the authorities. Well what else would you expect from those who are; a) anti establishment, and b) non believers in personal responsibility?

Whilst education certainly influences all areas of lives, and of particular relevance mental health, it doesn't require much education to get up off the chair and do a bit of cleaning.

If we can accept that throughout the species there is great variation in, for example, sexual orientation and preference, why is it so difficult to accept there are differences which cause people to live lives as I describe? Or is sexual orientation a consequence of govt policy too?

For clarity, I believe education is the greatest tool available to shape a population, there's not doubt. Indeed it has been shown time and time again. However, I am not naive enough to believe it will cure all and simply blaming govt at every opportunity for not providing 'education' is an opt out IMO.


Miscellaneous wrote:Yet again there are the deniers of the facts, the reasons behind them, with the finger immediately, it seems without thought, being pointed at the authorities. Well what else would you expect from those who are; a) anti establishment, and b) non believers in personal responsibility?


Deniers of which facts?

I am not denying that there are problems in and with people in certain parts of society.

But I don't think that these people are the only people in society who cause damage to society as a whole and I also don't think that these people are solely responsible for the situation they find themselves in and that the depth of deprivation getting deeper and the fraction of the population who is in this situation is getting larger is their doing.

If nothing else the rest of society has not been able to stem this increase of the problem. Pretty poor for society as a whole who can send people into space but can not sort out that our brethren can have a decent life.

Miscellaneous wrote:Well what else would you expect from those who are; a) anti establishment, and b) non believers in personal responsibility?


Never been called an anarchist before but it is never too late I suppose!

I am not anti-establishment and I am a very strong believer in taking personal responsibility but I also think that society as a whole and we each as individuals have a responsibility to make the lives of all a bit better - if for no reason that it will make my life better and safer if society improves and we have less poverty/social discord/violence.

And again it is not dissimilar to what we experience in our beloved aviation world. You cannot make CAS safer by having the 'death' penalty i.e. loss of licence for transgression; that is a complex problem too which requires a multi faceted approach.

Miscellaneous wrote:Whilst education certainly influences all areas of lives, and of particular relevance mental health, it doesn't require much education to get up off the chair and do a bit of cleaning.

For clarity, I believe education is the greatest tool available to shape a population, there's not doubt. Indeed it has been shown time and time again. However, I am not naive enough to believe it will cure all and simply blaming govt at every opportunity for not providing 'education' is an opt out IMO.


It is not just about school type education it is also what happens in our society at every level.

Allowing cooperations to ride roughshod over common decency and exploiting people as the likes of Sports Direct, Uber, Amazon doing is also teaching people something, for there to be zero consequences for MPs who have had their hand in the expenses jar, teaches people something, for politicians to be able to tell blatant lies without there being any consequences is also teaching people something. To roll out universal credit when it is not fit for purpose and drives people into poverty is also teaching people something.

Or do you think that the population at large 'doesn't get' get what is happening there?

And that it is possible to 'educate' people into more desirable behaviour is proven. But is complex and requires joint up thinking and an ongoing effort beyond the life-span of a fish and chips wrapper.

How did rates of alcohol and drug use reduce under teenagers; and teenage pregnancy rates and rates of smokers in society?

All very very successful programmes with very positive outcomes.

But none of that is easily capture in a few sound bites or a red top headline.

Miscellaneous wrote:If we can accept that throughout the species there is great variation in, for example, sexual orientation and preference, why is it so difficult to accept there are differences which cause people to live lives as I describe? Or is sexual orientation a consequence of govt policy too?


Clearly it isn"t, but acceptance of diversity very much is a government responsibility.

:wink:
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1663248
I'd have no issue with them being granted their ultimate wish.

What excuse do we give to the Soham school girls murderer?

Or, this weeks Surrey train stabbing?

Or the two new years eve events?

If you murder, you should risk the death penalty. It may act as a deterrent or it may just reduce the burden on society, either way, the current punishment isn't sufficient.
By cockney steve
#1663249
^^^^^^ (1663235 @Sooty25 )the fatal flaw in that hypothesis (see what I did there?) is the number of bent/lazy/ incompetent employees in the "justice" system. I din't need to enumerate the extent , I thing we all know of instances (of course, there are those with a vested interest, in denial.....but , for instance, a notorious Welsh "parish" the Chief Constable of which is obsessed with the prosecution of speeding, whereas there are far more important issues to address

Now, what if the Guildford "bombers" had been executed and the Birmingham lot? followed by a massive cover-up and denials (early retirement with pension retained is a popular ploy among those we wrongly accredit with the highest of moral standards, ) Where does the "Compo" for such malfeasance come from?....our pockets, of course,- leading to even worse public services in the sectors involved.

As regards the rise of violence.......overcrowd rats and they'll turn on each other , the strongest and most brutal survive! -just sayin'.
By chevvron
#1663255
Paul_Sengupta wrote:
chevvron wrote:Has this reduced the use of pistols in crimes?


Certainly there hasn't been a Dunblane type incident since they were banned.

Or Hungerford.

Hungerford was a guy with a Kalashnikov 7.62 cal fully auto.
Now what possessed Thames Valley to grant him permission to acquire this weapon I can't imagine; you are supposed to 'prove' to the police that you have a genuine 'need' for all weapons which require an FAC and you need to get that permission before you can actually buy it.
Dunblane as far as I recall was a guy with legally held pistols which he used at a recognised club.
User avatar
By romille
#1663256
Sooty25 wrote:I'd have no issue with them being granted their ultimate wish.

What excuse do we give to the Soham school girls murderer?

Or, this weeks Surrey train stabbing?

Or the two new years eve events?

If you murder, you should risk the death penalty. It may act as a deterrent or it may just reduce the burden on society, either way, the current punishment isn't sufficient.

I agree that the death penalty should be an available sentence for some very specific crimes where the is no shadow of doubt that the perpetrators are guilty, as in the case of Lee Rugby.
Would it be a deterrent to those that commit such heinous acts, probably not, but at least it ensures they will not offend again and will not cost the UK taxpayer millions in imprisonment costs and having to funding spurious appeals.
User avatar
By rikur_
#1663257
Reminds me of a phone in on Jeremy Vine following one of the US shootings .... when he asked the caller what should be done, she asserted that it wouldn't happen if they reintroduced the death penalty :roll: . Also overlooked the fact that in the given example, the offender shot himself dead in any case.
By Mike Tango
#1663259
Sooty25 wrote:I'd have no issue with them being granted their ultimate wish.


Great, it makes you happy and it makes the perpetrators happy as they know that come what may the British State will ultimately grant them their greatest wish.

You’ll more than likely get to enjoy seeing lots more death penalties handed down as more martyrdom seeking fruitcakes pitch up here to achieve their end of life desires. Guaranteed win/win.

Unintended consequences and all that.

What excuse do we give to the Soham school girls murderer?

Or, this weeks Surrey train stabbing?

Or the two new years eve events?

If you murder, you should risk the death penalty. It may act as a deterrent or it may just reduce the burden on society, either way, the current punishment isn't sufficient.


I make no excuses, I just don’t see any evidence that the death penalty offers a deterrent or a solution.
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1663260
Sooty25 wrote:
What excuse do we give to the Soham school girls murderer?

.


To try to understand the underlying factors that lead to anti-social behaviour (from graffiti to murder) is not the same thing as excusing that behaviour. Ultimately as individuals we are all responsible for what we do. But it is important to realise that everybody is simply doing the best they can with the resources they have, in the environment that they are in.

http://www.naturalism.org/philosophy/fr ... everything

This takes us into the free-will versus determinism debate. I rather like the point of view of Galen Strawson in the article I've just linked to - briefly, that it all comes down to luck in the end - luck as to how intelligent you are, where and when you born, how rich your parents were, etc, etc...
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1663261
romille wrote:I agree that the death penalty should be an available sentence for some very specific crimes where the is no shadow of doubt that the perpetrators are guilty, as in the case of Lee Rugby.
Would it be a deterrent to those that commit such heinous acts, probably not, but at least it ensures they will not offend again and will not cost the UK taxpayer millions in imprisonment costs and having to funding spurious appeals.


Is that going to be a third level of proof?

1. Balance of probability
2. Beyond reasonable doubt
3. Without a shadow of doubt

:?:

Which other burden on UK taxpayers shall we sanitise?

:shock:
User avatar
By romille
#1663265
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
romille wrote:
Is that going to be a third level of proof?

1. Balance of probability
2. Beyond reasonable doubt
3. Without a shadow of doubt

:?:

Which other burden on UK taxpayers shall we sanitise?

:shock:

I think there was no doubt who murdered Lee Rugby, especially as those convicted were recorded wandering around at the scene of the crime with the weapons they had used and covered in the victims blood.
Even in prison the perpetrators are causing mayhem, it is an utter affront to the memory of Lee Rigby.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8