I grew up in the sleepy, rural town where the following attack took place last Summer (a group of 15/16 year olds attacked a couple dressed in goth clothes as they walked through a park and murdered the girl.) It seems more than ever that parents have lost control of their children or simply don't bother to try to control them. If this crime would have occurred in the States wouldn't the parents would have been charged?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cri...01435.html
It's awful. The decline of civilization as we know it. Remember the 1940s and 50s? What safe, secure time that was. Sure they had the war, the Blitz and rationaling, where millions of people died and most children didn't have secondary education but you could leave your back-door open in those days.
My grandad worked in a coal mine from the age of 11, he didn't have time to beat up goths.
It has nothing to do with whether things are worse or better than in the past. A person should be able to walk in a community at night without being scalped and stamped on by a bunch of drunk 15 year old boys and girls; whether it's 1953 or 2010 really is not the issue. 15 year old "children" should not be running the streets, drunk and angry at 3am on a Saturday night, and if they are - why aren't their parents held responsible for this? Instead, these mutherf...ers laughed with their parents as they were arrested for the girl's murder and still seem clueless as to what they did wrong.
It's shocking.
Bad stuff happens here too, let's be honest. The difference though is that here you are permitted a certain amount of leverage to redress the balance and the criminal has at least some fear of repercussions - whether it is picking the wrong house to rob or sizing up whether the next mark he mugs is carrying a legal, concealed weapon.
I already commented on another thread so won't repeat. I don't currently own any weapons because I feel safe enough without but if that ever changes, I appreciate the right to own and use one, under the direction of the law.
It's awful. The decline of civilization as we know it. Remember the 1940s and 50s? What safe, secure time that was. Sure they had the war, the Blitz and rationaling, where millions of people died and most children didn't have secondary education but you could leave your back-door open in those days.
What do you atribute the *decline * in civilization to ??
could it perhaps be to a laxing of laws or the letting of lightly of offenders cus is not their fault attitude of bleeding heart liberals ,
I remember the 40/50 well people took responsiblity for there actions and got punished sufficently for there transgressions in those days .
It's awful. The decline of civilization as we know it. Remember the 1940s and 50s? What safe, secure time that was. Sure they had the war, the Blitz and rationaling, where millions of people died and most children didn't have secondary education but you could leave your back-door open in those days.
My grandad worked in a coal mine from the age of 11, he didn't have time to beat up goths.
Damn, I had a good laugh here. Like John, I remember the 40s and 50s and it was a lot better than you portray, but we didn't leave the door unlocked. You reacted once before when I mentioned wide boys and spivs. And then there were the gangs in the fifties, the Bush Boys, the Elephant gang, there was one in Hammersmith....
The limited diet provided by rationing was responsible for the people being fitter than ever before. When I went for my National Service medical in 1956, I was 5'-9" and 12stone 13lbs (181lbs). They said I was 41lbs overweight by national average for my height. The limited quantities of foods got people with bad diets to switch to the better foods that were available.
I don't know how old you are or when your grandad left school, but the minimum school leaving age was raised to 12, in 1899. It was 14 in the forties, raised to15 in 1947. I stayed on an extra year and took the first GCE, in 1951. I know the title has changed since then, but it was General Certificate of Education, back then.
We weren't as backward or as forward as you imply although John is right, you couldn't weasel out of things in the courts back then.
..
The limited diet provided by rationing was responsible for the people being fitter than ever before. When I went for my National Service medical in 1956, I was 5'-9" and 12stone 13lbs (181lbs). They said I was 41lbs overweight by national average for my height. The limited quantities of foods got people with bad diets to switch to the better foods that were available.
I don't know how old you are or when your grandad left school, but the minimum school leaving age was raised to 12, in 1899. It was 14 in the forties, raised to15 in 1947. I stayed on an extra year and took the first GCE, in 1951. I know the title has changed since then, but it was General Certificate of Education, back then.
We weren't as backward or as forward as you imply although John is right, you couldn't weasel out of things in the courts back then.
That's a great concept; privation keeps you fit and healthy. You certainly wouldn't over eat and by the look of Amy Winehouse, the withered and sallow look is very chic. :)
The wonderment that was the 1944 Education Act, where Rab Butler and his cronies constructed a tripartite system of inequality that effectively consigned two generations to the educational dustbins of secondary moderns. We are still dealing with the hangover of that piece of genius legislation.
I never said it was 'backward', I was just replying to that knee-jerk reaction that sees history through rose coloured glasses, where one or two incidences are generalized to the greater population. But at least they had hanging in those days.
I never said that things were any worse now than in the past. I was simply expressing disgust and frustration that a girl had had her scalp ripped out by a group of out of control 15/16 year old kids for simply walking through a park. I implied that this one hit home for me given that it was in my home town. I also am pxxssed that noone has even mentioned that the parents should share responsibility for this murder.
I think you have a personal axe to grind on the issue of things being no worse now than they were in the past, and perceive this is what another person is inferring, even when they are not.
People have slowely been absolved of all responsibility for everything. I tripped on a flag stone - I'll sue the council instead of paying attention to where I put my feet next time. I mug an old lady, it's because I'm an addict and no-one is helping me. I do badly in school, it's because classes are too big. I get pregnant at 16, it's because they have sex in the movies. I get into debt, it's the bank's fault for giving me a credit card. What you're seeing here is more of the same.
I'm sure someone is going to stand up in court and say it wasn't their fault, that what happened was the result of a trauma at a young age, because they were high on whatever drug the kids are getting their hands on these days, because society and the establishment have in some way failed these kids or some such other lame brain liberal excuse. No-one is going to blame the parents who didn't discipline their kids at a young age (that's the school's job until they actually try and do it) or provide appropriate entertainment (the council's job).
Born in 77 I grew up during the Thatcher years. I knew right from wrong because my parents taught me. I knew there were consequences for my actions because my parent's punished me. I did well at school because my parent's encouraged me and helped me with my homework. And at 16 when I got my first boyfriend I talked to my mum about going on the pill because I had been taught by my parents to think about what I was doing before I did it. If I had stayed out past curfew (which would have been about 10pm) there would have been hell to pay. I think my brother did actually pay it one time twisted. My 2 cousins (10 and 15 years younger than me) have had a completely different upbringing. By the time they were born it was considered wrong to punish small children and a whole bunch of other things. My parents count themselves blessed not to having had to go through what their sistsers did (are) with their kids.
It's a fair cop, societies to blame.
And around and around we go.
Does anyone know if UK courts now allow relatives of victims to state their opinions and the effects of the offenders actions upon them before the jury retires?
In one of my bored cos I couldn't move moments I watched a court case on TV here and wasn't impressed with the lawyers, frankly thought they'd blown the case, then the mother and family of the dead boy stood up and said their bit and you could see the reaction of the jury.
Talk about banged to rights. Loved it. Struck me it was nobbut a hairs breadth from a lynching. The bastard deserved it.
It's a fair cop, societies to blame.
And around and around we go.
Does anyone know if UK courts now allow relatives of victims to state their opinions and the effects of the offenders actions upon them before the jury retires?
In one of my bored cos I couldn't move moments I watched a court case on TV here and wasn't impressed with the lawyers, frankly thought they'd blown the case, then the mother and family of the dead boy stood up and said their bit and you could see the reaction of the jury.
Talk about banged to rights. Loved it. Struck me it was nobbut a hairs breadth from a lynching. The bastard deserved it.
I think it's called, giving evidence, where the defendant has the right to cross-examine his accusers, I believe its called due process. But I don't think we have the emotional lynching they have in the US.
It's a fair cop, societies to blame.
And around and around we go.
Does anyone know if UK courts now allow relatives of victims to state their opinions and the effects of the offenders actions upon them before the jury retires?
In one of my bored cos I couldn't move moments I watched a court case on TV here and wasn't impressed with the lawyers, frankly thought they'd blown the case, then the mother and family of the dead boy stood up and said their bit and you could see the reaction of the jury.
Talk about banged to rights. Loved it. Struck me it was nobbut a hairs breadth from a lynching. The bastard deserved it.
I think it's called, giving evidence, where the defendant has the right to cross-examine his accusers, I believe its called due process. But I don't think we have the emotional lynching they have in the US.
No it's not called giving evidence, this is after all the evidence and before the jury retire and it's not the defendant stating anything, it's the relatives of the victim standing up and stating how the criminal action hasn't just had an effect on the victim but so many other people as well.
That was a tongue in cheek comment to make the point that this sort of emotional blackmail during sentencing should not have anything thing to do with fair just sentencing and really only serves the purpose of vengeance.
This is a very slippery slope.