Do-gooders and bad parenting will ruin this Country? [Archive]

Mick

03-12-2003, 15:27

basa

03-12-2003, 15:38

...........Whats the answer? :shrug:

Emigrate m8 ..... at least that's what I hope to do !! :walk:

I noticed during the last school holidays, when hoards of teenage brats were terrorising our local shopping centre, there wasn't a copper to be seen, whreas before or after the holidays they were all over booking parked cars etc. !! I think the police are scared of them and the cries of brutality etc. !! :shrug:

Chris

03-12-2003, 15:43

I fear by the time i'm 65, mugging the old will be come the way of life for the youngsters of tomorrow. Whats the answer? :shrug:
The answer is for the 'do-gooders' and bleeding-heart-liberals to admit their social experiment of the last 40 years has been a disaster. We need to stop treating children as if they are somehow minature adults and trying to ascribe to them the same rights and responsibilities.

Corporal punishment. Pure and simple.

It is not barbaric and it does not teach children that violence is an acceptable way to resolve disputes. The fact is, Our society, and our schools, were far less violent places when discipline backed up by the cane was properly enforced. Or could someone post an alternative explanation for the upsurge in assaults on teachers by pupils and instances of kids being found in posession of offensive weapons at school?

I dislike the term do-gooders, by the way. Their misguided attempts to re-engineer our society have not been good.

downquark1

03-12-2003, 15:58

Emigrate m8 ..... at least that's what I hope to do !! :walk:

I noticed during the last school holidays, when hoards of teenage brats were terrorising our local shopping centre, there wasn't a copper to be seen, whreas before or after the holidays they were all over booking parked cars etc. !! I think the police are scared of them and the cries of brutality etc. !! :shrug:
Can you ellaborate on terriorising?

In the past punishment was for low accoumplishments as well as bad behavour - do we want teachers humiliating students who have done baddly in tests?

Indeed, who's to say adults are allowed freedoms as they cause trouble too ;)

homealone

03-12-2003, 15:59

I recall recent articles about children starting school & not being able to communicate effectively, because their upbringing had consisted of little more than being shoved in front of the telly. Their parents had obviously never made any attempt to converse with their kids and most of the kids view of the world was derived from the media they had watched - without any adequate supervision or discussion. No-one had ever talked with these kids, only ever at them. - If mutual respect doesn't happen inside a family, it certainly won't manifest outside it!

I'm not saying this is the only cause of the self centred behaviour of so many people today, but in my opinion it is a contributory factor.:(

Florence

03-12-2003, 15:59

Two sheltered housing schemes were robbed over the weekend for the 3rd time in our area, they made a right mess. One of the residents said one of the robbers only looked 15/16. The night after, youths pulled down a pipe, broke it half and then decided to stab the lawn with the pipe, hundreds of times leaving massive holes in the lawn, it looked an eye sore, they also knocked on the windows of residents. The police were called but never turned up perhaps because they have no powers to do anything to youngsters these days???

I was told recently by someone that Teachers are not allowed to shout at kids at school or to humiliate them in the classroom. Absolute maddness - there is no way I could be a teacher and last a full day, no infact last the hour. If there is any teacher using this site, I think you have one of the hardest jobs in the UK. :erm:

I fear by the time i'm 65, mugging the old will be come the way of life for the youngsters of tomorrow. Whats the answer? :shrug:

Things are getting bad but its all the younger parents who also have allowed the children to wonder the streets with older boys learning young all the bad ways.

I work in school and out acting head does shout at them she also does humilate them at times and she has her third line of attack her black book.. get your name in htere three times and you go home for the rest of the week. Trouble is these kids then wonder the streets all day as their mother son't want them home..

Ramrod

03-12-2003, 16:02

Corporal punishment. Pure and simple.

.
It put the fear of authority into me.....
Not sure if it is the way to go but it does keep 'em in line. In an ideal world all parents would be perfect and would bring up their kids to be well behaved obedient little individuals that don't need smacking and listen to their teachers.
In an ideal world we wouldn't need jails either because there would be no crime as we would all be considerate towards each other.

basa

03-12-2003, 16:03

How many would agree a lot of the problems are due to being overcrowded in this small island of ours ??

We have to queue at the shops, queue on the roads, queue for housing, queue for health care !! Try to get out into the countryside and if the local landowners / farmers haven't fenced it off we get charged a fortune to enjoy the scenery because so many people using it are damaging the environment or there's a new housing / industrial estate sprung up !! No wonder some get frustrated and turn to alternative sources of 'amusement'. :erm:

Add to that a healthy dose of media hype that we must have the latest mobile phone, Nike trainers, wide screen TV, BMW M3 etc, etc, and you set the seeds for crime for gain to get the stuff !! :rolleyes:

Ramrod

03-12-2003, 16:05

In the past punishment was for low accoumplishments as well as bad behavour - do we want teachers humiliating students who have done baddly in tests?

Lets not drag 'low accomplishment' into this as some sort of justification for shelving the idea. It's neither here nor there. The debate is about bad behavior.

dr wadd

03-12-2003, 16:10

Corporal punishment. Pure and simple.

I got the cane once when I was at senior school for fighting, quickest and easiest punishment I ever had, a few raps of the cane across the palm of the hand and it was done and dusted. So personally, if I was in that situation again I'd rather get the cane then the alternative typical punishment at my school which was detention.

basa

03-12-2003, 16:12

Can you ellaborate on terrorising?

Congregating in large groups that are in themselves threatening to old and small people, running around uncontrollably, bumping into people, shouting (sometimes abuse), fighting (even if only among themselves is frightening to others)...you get the sort of thing.

Another thing to add is the fact young people have nowhere much to go these days. In my day (we lived in a cardboard box...luxury !! :p ) we had coffee bars, night clubs (without the booze), social clubs, parks where you could play football or whatever. What have they got now ?? :shrug:

basa

03-12-2003, 16:16

I won't be around all that much longer, if standards continue to decline I am secretly rather pleased about that.

And I secretly have a little regret that I brought my two daughters (8yrs & 11yrs) into this society. :(

What have they to look forward to in another decade ?? :erm: I really do worry. :(

Flubflow

03-12-2003, 16:23

Congregating in large groups that are in themselves threatening to old and small people, running around uncontrollably, bumping into people, shouting (sometimes abuse), fighting (even if only among themselves is frightening to others)...you get the sort of thing.

Another thing to add is the fact young people have nowhere much to go these days. In my day (we lived in a cardboard box...luxury !! :p ) we had coffee bars, night clubs (without the booze), social clubs, parks where you could play football or whatever. What have they got now ?? :shrug:

I know what you mean. An old relative of mine won't go shopping around the time when schools turn out or during school lunchtimes because of the marauding gangs of kids throwing things and effing & blinding all over the place. The school is always getting complaints.

I disagree that kids have less to do these days. There is more choice than there ever was. There are more youth clubs, sports/leisure facilites than there ever were plus there's the video game consoles and computers that even the poorest families seem to have.

downquark1

03-12-2003, 16:51

It put the fear of authority into me.....
Not sure if it is the way to go but it does keep 'em in line. In an ideal world all parents would be perfect and would bring up their kids to be well behaved obedient little individuals that don't need smacking and listen to their teachers.
In an ideal world we wouldn't need jails either because there would be no crime as we would all be considerate towards each other.
It put the fear of authority in you, the problem with such things at young age is that it becomes so deeply embedded that it becomes irrational, and could leave authority figures free to abuse it. Is it right to fear a policeman if you haven't done anything wrong? This is how catholic priests have got away which such things we read in the news.

I think basa is right - sometimes it's not the things they do but rather where they do it.

Chris

03-12-2003, 17:03

<snip>could<snip>
Pardon me reducing your post to a single word, but it is absolutely key to the whole issue. Liberal social engineering over half a century or so in this country has been based entirely on theories justified not on any evidence but on might and could. Sadly we have all been unwilling specimens in this grand experiment and we are now all living with its failure.

I'm not going to say the way things 'used to be done' was flawless. But abuses of power can't be curbed by simply changing the expression of that power. 'Bent' coppers or even teachers find other ways to express their bentness even though they can no longer give their charges a clip round the ear. If abolishing corporal punishment was an attempt to curb such abuse, it was misguided - treating the symptoms rather than the underlying problem.

Ramrod

03-12-2003, 17:04

It put the fear of authority in you, the problem with such things at young age is that it becomes so deeply embedded that it becomes irrational, and could leave authority figures free to abuse it. Is it right to fear a policeman if you haven't done anything wrong? This is how catholic priests have got away which such things we read in the news.

.I wasn't caned at a very young age and I knew what I had done to deserve it. I certainly don't have an irrational fear of authority though I do see your point.

Russ

03-12-2003, 17:05

Flubflow

03-12-2003, 17:09

Tranquilisers and contraceptives* in school meals is the answer. :)

....I'll get me coat :walk:

Edit: *I meant pills not rubber thingies (don't want them to choke) :D

Ramrod

03-12-2003, 17:20

Ramrod

03-12-2003, 17:27

Luckily the police got involved and the bullie have now been sentenced to, WAIT FOR IT, a referral order for 6 months. They (which will mean the parents) have to pay the victim 500 GBP between them.I think that one broken leg each should square things..... :afire:

downquark1

03-12-2003, 17:41

It's pure co-incidence but I have just this minute read in our local paper about a group of girls who had picked out a particular victim. This day they had gone to the school hall to watch this girl have injections - to try to make her cry. She didn't but the bullies were sent out. they waited for the girl, grabbed her, threw her down a flight a stairs and shut her in a dark room, WITH HER LEG BROKEN.

The school punished these girls not by exclusion but as the girls solicotor put it: "These girls were not suspended from school but I believe they had a couple of lunchtime detentions".

Luckily the police got involved and the bullie have now been sentenced to, WAIT FOR IT, a referral order for 6 months. They (which will mean the parents) have to pay the victim 500 GBP between them.
Indeed, that is tragic but bullying has been ever present. The punishment from the authorities may have been leniant but I think the parents may take an active roll now money has been lost. Any mention of age?

Tiptoes

03-12-2003, 17:49

EU interference has caused this problem,

Basa the same thing happened near me in fact, the holes in the park grass were caused by kids chucking pipes into to the ground and throwing huge chunks of mud out of the end onto the walls of the houses they made a complete mess..

I called the police three months ago I'm still waiting for them to come after community beat officer phoned me up...

he problems have arisen since we destroyed true discipline both in the classroom, on the streets (police) and by parents who no cant reprimand their children by force if necessary...

I caught a kids throwing eggs I grabbed her and took her to her mum. Her mum went wild so I said I was prepared to go to jail if she didn't keep her child away from my house...

they lived in a housing scheme near me so I wen to their office and made a formal complaint. The housing office Interviewed the family and she told me the mum was unable to reprimand them because of the law..

So that was that... You cant jail you kids because the do wrong but you can jail the parents from reprimanding them..

Brought to you by a government backed EU law near you....

I got the can when I was a child for passing the buck... I never did it again...

Mick

03-12-2003, 17:49

It it my and Alyssa's mother's responsibility to ensure she is brought up well-adjusted and well-behaved; she is our daughter, not the teacher's.

Agreed, Russ you come into the good parent category, because I know you love your daughter as much as I probably love my son, the affection we give them, the love will follow them through the learning process and in time they probably learn to give affection back they know how to love give respect etc, I think some children are never shown affection and because of this they then do not know how to give affection back or treat people with respect and respect peoples property and this is where the problem lies, at home.

downquark1

03-12-2003, 17:53

Yes, they were all 12 years of age. The point which struck me is "what kind of signal does the school's actions send to the other pupils of this large school"?
What punishment would you have given them? (addressed to everyone)

Ramrod

03-12-2003, 17:56

What punishment would you have given them? (addressed to everyone)
Detention every day for a term/year?
Caning?
Caning and detention?

downquark1

03-12-2003, 18:00

Detention every day for a term/year?
Caning?
Caning and detention?
And the public reaction to canning a few 12 year old girls?

Lew

03-12-2003, 18:00

What punishment would you have given them? (addressed to everyone)

Expulsion.

Russ

03-12-2003, 18:03

Expulsion.

All surely all that does is move the problem on?

Tiptoes

03-12-2003, 18:05

There are a number of issues,

1. The goverment are to blame for forcing and actively encouraging mothers into working to pay the bills.The latch key kids that are produced have no sense of nurture and caring. The parents try their best but alas only have 24 hours and two pairs of hands.

2 The media and big business are also partly to blame because they force crap down the neck of our children sex,drugs and rock and roll has become an image every child seem to think is normall.

3. The EU are to blame for forcing iupon us rules and regulation that pamper the kids into the belief nothing is ever wrong.

Amongst this parents have to try and work their family best they can and it has become and impossible task..

So we see parents just giving up and that is blatanly evident by the state and attitude of a large porportion of our youngsters.

I once tried to infom my daughter on the dangers of sex,drugs and drink.

She can get the pill of her own free will yet is oblivious to the risk of STDs even though I once tried giving her condoms she refused them and told me she could go to family planning. I asked her where it was... she said she didnt know !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the car I discussed Drugs twith her and one of her close friends. They both said the government says cannabis is okay because they downgraded it ...What
could I say when despite the obvious?

Clothes ... I have been lucky I think with my daughter in that she doesnt wear skimpy clothes that often... I have tried and failed but who am I to determine the fashion of the day..?

These are the types of dilemas faced by parents every single day and it can be very hard indeed....

Its not getting easier and I understand why families are moving to environments where they cant be influenced by this society we live in...

good for them

I only wish I could afford to do the same...

Because I would not hesitate....

Xaccers

03-12-2003, 18:07

And the public reaction to canning a few 12 year old girls?

A few 12 year old girls who threw someone down the stairs, breaking her leg and then imprisoned her in a dark room in pain.
I think a lot of people would agree with canning them, or locking them up in a mental asylum for psychoanalysis to find out why they don't have a problem with doing that to another girl for no reason than fun and to cause pain?

downquark1

03-12-2003, 18:13

A few 12 year old girls who threw someone down the stairs, breaking her leg and then imprisoned her in a dark room in pain.
I think a lot of people would agree with canning them, or locking them up in a mental asylum for psychoanalysis to find out why they don't have a problem with doing that to another girl for no reason than fun and to cause pain?
I would have said the latter was the best action. I'm trying to think if the media has just spun this to sound extra bad but I can't think of how they could have done it.
Still it would have been interesting to hear their excuses for their actions

Tiptoes

03-12-2003, 18:17

On the subject of corporal punishment, any adult who lays a finger on my daughter will find their ars in court quicker than you can say NTL have ruined .com.

The punishing should be for the parents, full stop. Abdicating/sharing responsibility to teachers etc is IMO another step in the direction of today's convenience lifestyles. If the parents are not interested in disciplining their children then why on earth did they have them.

It it my and Alyssa's mother's responsibility to ensure she is brought up well-adjusted and well-behaved; she is our daughter, not the teacher's.

So how do you suggest we deal with children where parents feel they cant discipline their children?

Please i dont want well this should have happened that and the other....

The question surely is how to deal with the problem now not what should have happened whilst they were growing up?

In a slefish socitey it is very difficult to teach children to be selfless...

So what are you solutions?

What isf you child went out and did someting repeatedly and despite you disciplining which failed, how would you deal with it..

You think you are the perfect parent ?

I know one woman who was staunchly against hitting children and supported the campaigns against any form of physical punishment. When she had her second child she realised no matter what the only thing to work was a tap..

She totally changed her mind about her views when she experienced for herself that difference between her own children.

Lets hear your solutions.........

Paul

03-12-2003, 18:32

It it my and Alyssa's mother's responsibility to ensure she is brought up well-adjusted and well-behaved; she is our daughter, not the teacher's.
While she is at school then the school are responsible for her and should punish her.

Sorry but parents who threaten teachers with court and say that schools should not punish mis-behaving children are part of the problem as far as I am concerned.

Flubflow

03-12-2003, 18:42

While she is at school then the school are responsible for her and should punish her.

Sorry but parents who threaten teachers with court and say that schools should not punish mis-behaving children are part of the problem as far as I am concerned.

You have to be careful though and the problem is that the teachers are not always in posession of enough the facts to be judge, jury and executioner. I remember many occasions when someone who was innocent would be punished based merely on the lies of a greater number of other people. Very often kids can be deviously ruthless and vindictive towards a weaker kid (proportionally far more ruthless than adults would ever be towards each other).

Chris

03-12-2003, 18:44

What punishment would you have given them? (addressed to everyone)

At the time they were caught, stood in separate corners of their Head-of-Year's classroom for the whole of lunchtime. Then individually taken to the headmaster's office to have explained to them in some detail what the girl they assaulted was now going through, followed by six sharp strokes with a cane or strap on the palm of the hand, administered by the headmaster and witnessed by their form teacher and the head of year. Finally to watch the whole sorry episode officially recorded in the school punishment book, and to be informed that this incident will rest on their permanent school record. Then to be banned from associating with each other during school hours for the rest of that half-term and to have it made clear that any interaction at all with their victim, whether inside or outside school, would result in expulsion.

This mirrors almost exactly what happened to a classmate of mine when after we spent a day making life a misery for another boy in our class, except I got off with a detention for fighting with the boy (he got detention for the same reason). My classmate, who smeared ice cream all over the boy's face in the school canteen, was not so lucky and got the gym shoe on the backside.

In the majority of cases this works perfectly adequately. Sure the girls might go all bravado afterwards but they'll sure as hell avoid putting themselves in such a situation again. And the message to the rest of the school would be, 'don't mess with us or you'll regret it.' There can be no true discipline without an element of fear. I don't mean to keep everyone in terror, but fear of the consequences of misbehaving. Years ago, only a small minority of people received discipline of this kind because fear of it was sufficient to keep everyone else on the straight and narrow. Today, there is no fear - and offences far serious than those which warranted corporal punishment are now commonplace.

Russ

03-12-2003, 18:46

So how do you suggest we deal with children where parents feel they cant discipline their children?

Unless the child is diagnosed with such a condition as hyperactiveness, I cannot see how any parent can honestly say they can't discipline their child.

The question surely is how to deal with the problem now not what should have happened whilst they were growing up?

It's the developmental stage (or "whilst they were growing up" as you call it) that is the most critical. That's the key stage when they need to be taught discipline the most.

In a slefish socitey it is very difficult to teach children to be selfless...

In that case, educating society not to be so selfish should be part of the issue.

What isf you child went out and did someting repeatedly and despite you disciplining which failed, how would you deal with it..

I cannot see that happening. With the right amount of love, encouragement, care AND discipline, I cannot envisage that happening.

You think you are the perfect parent ?

Nope, never said that.

I know one woman who was staunchly against hitting children and supported the campaigns against any form of physical punishment. When she had her second child she realised no matter what the only thing to work was a tap..

I've never said I'm against hitting children.

Lets hear your solutions.........

In brief, I've just done that.

Sorry but parents who threaten teachers with court and say that schools should not punish mis-behaving children are part of the problem as far as I am concerned.

Teachers are paid to teach. If they need to defend themselves from a physical attack then in principle I'll agree but other than that, I stand by what I say that any adult (not just a teacher) assaulting my daughter will end up in a great deal of trouble.

Chimaera

03-12-2003, 18:57

At the time they were caught, stood in separate corners of their Head-of-Year's classroom for the whole of lunchtime. Then individually taken to the headmaster's office to have explained to them in some detail what the girl they assaulted was now going through, followed by six sharp strokes with a cane or strap on the palm of the hand, administered by the headmaster and witnessed by their form teacher and the head of year. Finally to watch the whole sorry episode officially recorded in the school punishment book, and to be informed that this incident will rest on their permanent school record. Then to be banned from associating with each other during school hours for the rest of that half-term and to have it made clear that any interaction at all with their victim, whether inside or outside school, would result in expulsion.

This mirrors almost exactly what happened to a classmate of mine when after we spent a day making life a misery for another boy in our class, except I got off with a detention for fighting with the boy (he got detention for the same reason). My classmate, who smeared ice cream all over the boy's face in the school canteen, was not so lucky and got the gym shoe on the backside.

In the majority of cases this works perfectly adequately. Sure the girls might go all bravado afterwards but they'll sure as hell avoid putting themselves in such a situation again. And the message to the rest of the school would be, 'don't mess with us or you'll regret it.' There can be no true discipline without an element of fear. I don't mean to keep everyone in terror, but fear of the consequences of misbehaving. Years ago, only a small minority of people received discipline of this kind because fear of it was sufficient to keep everyone else on the straight and narrow. Today, there is no fear - and offences far serious than those which warranted corporal punishment are now commonplace.
Well said towny - I agree.
There seems to be no deterrent now for bad behaviour - kids are sent on outings from secondary schools in my area because they are misbehaving - so that they don't disrupt the rest of the class! What sort of a message does that send out?
There are two 'referral' units for disruptive pupils (from 4 - 16 years) to be sent to - but they get treated with kid gloves there, the kids are afraid of nothing and no-one, and can quote you their 'rights' if you try to correct them!
On the rare occasions my two came home from school (one occasion each I think) saying they had been punished unfairly at school, I would offer to go and have it out with the staff member concerned - which was always hastily refused - the thought of me going to the school, finding out the truth and dealing with it as well as the school was not an option for them!
Oh - and I'm a single parent - not through choice - and I have made it my priority to give them a decent upbringing. I have impressed upon them that people will always be quick to condemn, given our current situation - and that although they have choices to make in their lives, if they ever do anything to make me ashamed of them, they will have me to answer to!
(Climbs down from soapbox)

Flubflow

03-12-2003, 19:15

downquark1

03-12-2003, 19:27

It is very hard to produce fairness without having some kind of court case with each incident, angry parents may take it out on kids and punish them severly for a minor offense that was 'just the straw that broke the cammels back'. Or indeed parents who have mood swings can cause a great deal of insecurity.

Aren't these the reasons it was removed in the first place?

Tiptoes

03-12-2003, 20:14

Chimaera

03-12-2003, 20:27

I think some parents are too willing to blame 'hyperactivity' on a child's bad behaviour. I accept there are some genuine cases, but it's so much easier to blame a 'medical condition' and give the kid a few pills than it is to address the real problem, and, heaven forbid, take responsibilty for your own child and their behaviour.

Tiptoes

03-12-2003, 20:31

I have impressed upon them that people will always be quick to condemn, given our current situation - and that although they have choices to make in their lives, if they ever do anything to make me ashamed of them, they will have me to answer to!
(Climbs down from soapbox)

Good on you....If the only option left to control children is to put the fear of Mum into them then so be it I say...

Ramrod

03-12-2003, 20:33

And the public reaction to canning a few 12 year old girls?
Probably good. :shrug:

Ramrod

03-12-2003, 20:36

Still it would have been interesting to hear their excuses for their actionsProbably like...you know....like...it was a laff...like :knock:

Ramrod

03-12-2003, 20:39

You have to be careful though and the problem is that the teachers are not always in posession of enough the facts to be judge, jury and executioner. I remember many occasions when someone who was innocent would be punished based merely on the lies of a greater number of other people. Very often kids can be deviously ruthless and vindictive towards a weaker kid (proportionally far more ruthless than adults would ever be towards each other).
Yes, I was caned once like that :rolleyes:
....no biggie :D

Chimaera

03-12-2003, 20:43

Good on you....If the only option left to control children is to put the fear of Mum into them then so be it I say...
Well I'm not really an old cow!!

Just that I'm the only parent they have, so if they pi$$ me off - they've had it!!
I've always told them that if I would be ashamed of what they are doing then they probably shouldn't be doing it anyway. I'm fortunate that they take notice of me. And I behave the same towards them - I don't hang around nightclubs till 4 in the morning! ;)

Ramrod

03-12-2003, 20:43

I cannot see that happening. With the right amount of love, encouragement, care AND discipline, I cannot envisage that happening.

It does happen. It's terrifying (as a parent) but I have had lots of people tell me their stories about how good their kids were till they got to 12/13 y.o. and then it all went to s*it. Really scary :mis:

Graham

03-12-2003, 20:55

Unless the child is diagnosed with such a condition as hyperactiveness, I cannot see how any parent can honestly say they can't discipline their child.

It's the developmental stage (or "whilst they were growing up" as you call it) that is the most critical. That's the key stage when they need to be taught discipline the most.

In that case, educating society not to be so selfish should be part of the issue.

I cannot see that happening. With the right amount of love, encouragement, care AND discipline, I cannot envisage that happening.

I've never said I'm against hitting children.

Teachers are paid to teach. If they need to defend themselves from a physical attack then in principle I'll agree but other than that, I stand by what I say that any adult (not just a teacher) assaulting my daughter will end up in a great deal of trouble.

I just want to say that these are the most sensible things I've read in this entire thread!

The people who are responsible for the behaviour of children are the *parents*!

Not the School. Not the Government. Not the Council. Not the TV programme makers. Not some ficticious "Do-Gooders" or "Bleeding Heart Liberals": THE PARENTS!!

Until people accept that there is *no* solution to the problem because (almost) everyone wants to blame someone else.

I'm tending towards the viewpoint that there should be lessons in parenting *before* a couple are allowed to conceive a child, rather than them just having to pass the "practical"!

Maggy

03-12-2003, 21:10

I have found that the majority of parents are 'good' parents.Most parents do keep an eye on their children and know where they are the majority of the time.They spend hours driving their children to a multitude of school and out of school activities.They supervise homework and sparetime activities.They give whole hearted support to their children's schools and dig deep into short pockets to pay for school outings and other school activities.They turn up for parents evenings.They come to see the school productions (even in secondary schools) and they pay for extracurricular activities such as music lessons.

Without the support of the majority of 'good' parents schools could never operate.

The majority of pupils are also kind,decent,hardworking,motivated,keen,enthusiasti c and WANT to learn.This majority ensure that schools keeping working and running well.

It is the very few feckless parents and their offspring that give all the other 'good' parents and students a bad name.These are the ones who connive at truancy,interefere with good discipline practices in schools(assaulting staff,laying down the law that a child may not stay AFTER school hours for detentions),allow their offspring to wander anywhere at all hours of the day,and refusing to come to the school when asked to.Feckless parents JUST DON't CARE and won't impose any discipline because it's too much trouble or they are scared of their offspring.They refuse to be boss in their own home and let the child call all the shots. Some are just overindulgent and unable to say no because they feel guilty for not caring:banghead:

As for physical punshment and children.I've seen those parents who don't belive in physical punishment struggling to explain to an egotistical 1/2/3 year old why they mustn't steal,hit another child,bite another child etc.The child can't understand long carefully worded explanations and demands for empathy because they do not have the vocabulary and they are self centred and ecotistcal at that age.They have to be,it's a survival trait.

Incog-resident secondary school teacher and a parent/survivor of a 20 and 15 year old.

:Peaceman:

Chris

03-12-2003, 23:39

I'm not sure that beating sense into someone is always going to work (or slapping, tapping or whatever you call it). It might make you feel good for a moment but I don't think it will work for the kids these days. If the offending child does not have enough respect for you to start with then inflicting pain and humiliation probably isn't going to make things better. I'd love to be able to think that I could give a bit of wack once in while and solve the problem in an instant. Kids are spoiled these days with more and more freedoms and things to do than we ever had and I think that if you take some of those freedoms and things away as a punishment then that will work better.

The words that made me look twice here are:

not sure
might
probably

Not meaning to try to rip you apart word-by-word but the fact that the way we run our schools discipline-wise has been radically altered based on a set of social theories (coulds, shoulds and mights) is exactly the problem. There never was any evidence that the liberal approach would work. In fact, having endured the 'experiment', the evidence is that it doesn't work.

As an aside, corporal punishment is not intended to make the one administering it 'feel good', it is meant to discipline the child receiving it. Anyone who derives enjoyment from inflicting pain on a child has a particular set of problems that need to be addressed, and certainly shouldn't be in charge of children in the first place. As I watch my son growing up and love him more every day, I think with absolute horror of the almost inevitable day that a sharp smack is the only way to impress upon him that certain behaviour is completely unacceptable. But I love him too much not to see it through; I want him to grow up a decent, respectful member of society.

Chris

03-12-2003, 23:45

I just want to say that these are the most sensible things I've read in this entire thread!

The people who are responsible for the behaviour of children are the *parents*!

Not the School. Not the Government. Not the Council. Not the TV programme makers. Not some ficticious "Do-Gooders" or "Bleeding Heart Liberals": THE PARENTS!!

Until people accept that there is *no* solution to the problem because (almost) everyone wants to blame someone else.

I'm tending towards the viewpoint that there should be lessons in parenting *before* a couple are allowed to conceive a child, rather than them just having to pass the "practical"!

I quite agree that sole responsibility for children is with their parents. The parents are the legal guardian; anything that happens to the child that is not administered by the parents is a delegated responsibility. We need to do something to get the minority of wayward parents in our society to take this responsiblity seriously.

However, schools, in educating (and disciplining) children do act in loco parentis from 8.30-3.30 each day. Where parents have not properly taught discipline to their children, this can make life hell for the school, but the school's power to counter this by perhaps administering stricter discipline than the children receive at home has been severely limited.

You may object to my (admittedly emotive) use of phrases like 'bleeding heart liberals', but there is an essential fact behind it - schools have been hamstrung in their ability to instil discipline thanks to the liberal social theory permeating the upper echelons of the education establishment.

Paul

03-12-2003, 23:46

Teachers are paid to teach. If they need to defend themselves from a physical attack then in principle I'll agree but other than that, I stand by what I say that any adult (not just a teacher) assaulting my daughter will end up in a great deal of trouble.Teachers are also paid to control their classes. Schools are legally responsible for their pupils during school time.

So next time a your (or any) child starts to disrupt a class and the teacher tries to control them and/or administer a punishment you believe that your (the) child should be able to say "I can do as I like, you can't touch me because if you do my parents will get you / sue you / sort you out" ?

Graham

04-12-2003, 00:02

There never was any evidence that the liberal approach would work. In fact, having endured the 'experiment', the evidence is that it doesn't work.

As an aside, corporal punishment is not intended to make the one administering it 'feel good', it is meant to discipline the child receiving it.

However there is also no evidence, apart from anecdotal, that the "non-liberal" physical punishment regime in schools works *either*.

If you'll pardon me quoting some lyrics by Madness...

"[Headmaster]
"Sits alone and bends his cane
"Same old backsides again"

Now *why* is it the "same old backsides again"? Surely if physical punishment *worked* on children of school age there wouldn't be the necessity to do it twice. However the fact of the matter is that, in schools which used physical punishment, it *was* often "the same old backsides again".

Trying to instill "discipline" by fear and punishment does not help and may well breed resentment and hatred.

A brief digression here, but with a point that will be made at the end...

One of the most successful schemes to prevent juvenile offenders re-offending is not to throw them in jail or try to give them a "short, sharp shock" (a system that utterly failed!) but to (with the consent of the victim) actually *introduce* the offender *to* the victim and let them understand that it's not just some faceless nobody whose home they broke into and who they've robbed, but a real person who has been seriously upset and discomforted by their actions.

It may not work in all cases, but it certainly has worked in a lot, because it's not just a nicked video, it's someone's life that has been disrupted and someone's house that has been violated.

The problem is that the burglar doesn't understand in the first place that there is a victim in the crime and that they've treated that person as an object. So trying to prevent a crime by treating the *criminal* as an object is also more likely than not, doomed to failure.

Equally, returning to the subject under discussion, treating a disruptive child simply as "an object" to be punished is also, more likely than not, doomed to fail.

Ramrod

04-12-2003, 00:04

I'm tending towards the viewpoint that there should be lessons in parenting *before* a couple are allowed to conceive a child, rather than them just having to pass the "practical"!
I agree. I forget what film it was in but the (neglected)child was saying that people need a license to have a dog but dont need one for a child....

Ramrod

04-12-2003, 00:13

However there is also no evidence, apart from anecdotal, that the "non-liberal" physical punishment regime in schools works *either*.

If you'll pardon me quoting some lyrics by Madness...

"[Headmaster]
"Sits alone and bends his cane
"Same old backsides again"

Now *why* is it the "same old backsides again"? Surely if physical punishment *worked* on children of school age there wouldn't be the necessity to do it twice. However the fact of the matter is that, in schools which used physical punishment, it *was* often "the same old backsides again".

Trying to instill "discipline" by fear and punishment does not help and may well breed resentment and hatred.

A brief digression here, but with a point that will be made at the end...

One of the most successful schemes to prevent juvenile offenders re-offending is not to throw them in jail or try to give them a "short, sharp shock" (a system that utterly failed!) but to (with the consent of the victim) actually *introduce* the offender *to* the victim and let them understand that it's not just some faceless nobody whose home they broke into and who they've robbed, but a real person who has been seriously upset and discomforted by their actions.

It may not work in all cases, but it certainly has worked in a lot, because it's not just a nicked video, it's someone's life that has been disrupted and someone's house that has been violated.

The problem is that the burglar doesn't understand in the first place that there is a victim in the crime and that they've treated that person as an object. So trying to prevent a crime by treating the *criminal* as an object is also more likely than not, doomed to failure.

Equally, returning to the subject under discussion, treating a disruptive child simply as "an object" to be punished is also, more likely than not, doomed to fail.I agree but think that you are putting forward too simplistic an approach. I think that both approaches can work if they are applied to the correct people. With some you will find that corporal punishment is most effective, with others the confronting of their actions consequences. Most things are too complicated for one solution to fit all.
The problem is to establish which approach will work best with a given child.

Nikko

04-12-2003, 00:44

Flubflow

04-12-2003, 01:25

The words that made me look twice here are:

not sure
might
probably

Not meaning to try to rip you apart word-by-word but the fact that the way we run our schools discipline-wise has been radically altered based on a set of social theories (coulds, shoulds and mights) is exactly the problem. There never was any evidence that the liberal approach would work. In fact, having endured the 'experiment', the evidence is that it doesn't work.

As an aside, corporal punishment is not intended to make the one administering it 'feel good', it is meant to discipline the child receiving it. Anyone who derives enjoyment from inflicting pain on a child has a particular set of problems that need to be addressed, and certainly shouldn't be in charge of children in the first place. As I watch my son growing up and love him more every day, I think with absolute horror of the almost inevitable day that a sharp smack is the only way to impress upon him that certain behaviour is completely unacceptable. But I love him too much not to see it through; I want him to grow up a decent, respectful member of society.

The thing is, I am very unsure and it is never the same for everyone so I say probably. I'm not an expert and I am certainly not in the bleeding heart liberal camp either but there has to be a better and more lasting punishment than a short duration of pain.

You seem to be in control in your situation and I'm sure any punishment that you metered out would be measured and appropriate but you can't say the same for everyone.

What about the ages of around 13 -16? Corporal punishment at those difficult hormone fuelled ages is unlikely to work as well or be possible in the home or school (unless you want a black eye or two yourself ;)).

I'm not saying that most people who practice it literally enjoy the act of corporal punishment but rather they think that they are satisfied that it has worked well when really it is no better or less effective than if they had grounded them and taken their toys away. I've smacked before and I have absolutely hated myself afterwards. Even though it was always mild and done to humiliate rather than inflict any great pain, in almost every case I have eventually admitted to myself that I had just completely lost it at the crucial moment.

Having said all that, if a teenage burglar broke into my home and I caught him in the act then I'd probably beat seven shades of sh*t out of him (as I was defending myself and in the process of attempting a citizens arrest of course). ;).

I really wish I had the answer to life the universe and everything ;)

Tiptoes

04-12-2003, 01:36

Lack of education is rampant - just look at some of the spelling/syntax/grammar errors/omissions just in this one thread. I am sure the authors meant well - they always do - and will say 'its the meaning not wot how we rote it' or similar.

That is a disgraceful and dispicable statment,

You use spelling as an example of both education and intelligence.

Both are dispicable....

You inherently think everyone posting on this thread is able bodied and is able to assert themselves in a fashion that of a literate genius.

A shallow and narrow minded view by all accounts..

Most of the people in the Higher echeleons of code breaking are dyslexic

Many a genius has been absent minded, forgetful and had some condition or another which may cause them not to suffer.

I say this in memory of a fellow sufferer ......JONATHAN SWIFT, (18th century British writer.)

Flubflow

04-12-2003, 01:54

In answer to the thread topic, do gooders and bad parenting already have ruined this country.

There is an endemic feeling that 'hey we have rights' - the right to be undereducated, underachieving, undermining and under the influence of something illegal.

Lack of education is rampant - just look at some of the spelling/syntax/grammar errors/omissions just in this one thread. I am sure the authors meant well - they always do - and will say 'its the meaning not wot how we rote it' or similar.

Somewhere it went wrong - it is not seen as important that you are unable to spell, your peers condone it, and its seen as acceptable. You should not be shown up for it, and the fact that your offspring will spell even less effectively is not a cause for concern, as long as they can post a :) .

Ever heard of dyslexia? Of course you have but you would be surprised that there is a larger number of people than you think who have some form of mild dyslexia which goes unreported. There are certain words that I continually spell incorrectly even after they have been pointed out to me time and time again. Sadly, as you have proven, such people can get pigeonholed as "thick" and tarred with general dysfunctional brush.
It can be true that bad education in general may not help but personally I think you are barking up the mad tree by putting it all down to spelling.

Ignoramus (n): Someone who doesn't know something you learned yesterday

EDIT: Edited for spelling/grammar

Tiptoes

04-12-2003, 02:03

Sadly, as you have proven, such people can get pigeonholed as "thick" and tarred with general dysfunctional brush.
It can be true that bad education in general may not help but personally I think you are barking up the mad tree by putting it all down to spelling.

I have been a victim of this many times over.....

And no matter what happens people still have a false perception.

kronas

04-12-2003, 02:12

i think that in some instances there is a case made for setting up some of the American style Boot camps.

i agree i dont think corpral punishment is a step forward a boot camp for all pupils kids teens segregated by age of course and the appropriate course of action must be taken against them whilst they are there

as is the case bad parenting is on the increase there seems to be a inability by some parents to control there children i noted this especially in an outdoor enviroment as well as visitors to the house where shouting screaming brats is the norm

looking at it from another perspective maybe some people find it hard to bring up there kids they can be very demanding at times

though with teens they should know better many that i have seen just simply dont care about what other people see them as there vandlism the actions that they do out on the street which are in some cases criminal

then again mixing with the wrong sort of people also influences youngsters you may get the odd smart pupil who finds it amusing to cause grievences to others

Scarlett

04-12-2003, 09:04

Lack of education is rampant - just look at some of the spelling/syntax/grammar errors/omissions just in this one thread. I am sure the authors meant well - they always do - and will say 'its the meaning not wot how we rote it' or similar.
.

My syntax, grammer and spelling are not the best at any time of the day but is that an indication of lack of education...

Flicks through CV
11 GCSE's (mostly Bs and Cs)
4 A-levels (A, 2 B's and a D)
Degree 2.2 Computer science.

Quite simply its down to the parents. The only time that the discipline will be instilled is when the child is young. Young children will push all the time for everything and unless they learn the limits early, they will be uncontrolable later on. I know my parents are disparing about my brother and his wife who are very lienient on there son (although to be fair, a) it's not my brothers son b) he wasn't around for the first 6 months - a year of his life and C) He is a lot less lienient than her and will discipline but she will often say to the kid, 'you just wait until your dad gets home'

Why is there nmot some form of exam where by you can <U>only</U> have a child once you've attended (and passed) a course on good parenting.

Chris

04-12-2003, 09:22

My syntax, grammer and spelling are not the best at any time of the day but is that an indication of lack of education...
No, but it might be an indication of the quality of your education - something that is the education system's responsibility, not necessarily yours. You, like me, are part of the GCSE generation. One of the hallmarks of this system is that good spelling and grammar is not pushed across all disciplines - you are 'reminded of the need' for good spelling and grammar on the front page of your history paper, but you aren't about to lose marks over it. In the O-level system, bad English could lose you marks regardless of the paper you were sitting, and as a result, teaching the rules of grammar was taken far more seriously.

Today, freedom of expression is the highest goal of an English class. This is laudible as an attempt to encourage people to enjoy using English, but the very unfortunate consequence of this is that the rules have been neglected and effective communication is beginning to suffer.

I found this summer's '1950s School' series on Channel 4 very interesting in this respect. Actually, it was very interesting in the context of this entire thread....

I take on board completely the points made by some about dyslexia, and we certainly shouldn't judge by appearances. (I used to edit a youth club magazine with two highly dyslexic friends, and they were the first to point out the often hilarious results) However some of our members (IMHO) do render their posts difficult to read by choosing not to construct their sentences properly. This can be a little self-defeating if we're trying to toss complicated ideas and easily-misunderstood opinions back and forth.

basa

04-12-2003, 09:46

It can be true that bad education in general may not help but personally I think you are barking up the mad tree by putting it all down to spelling.

I have to come down on Nikko's side on this one. I don't think he intended to discredit anyone for minor spelling mistakes. We all have a 'blindspot' for certain words.

IMO it is the combination of bad spelling and lack of punctuation; poor sytax and grammar that jump out of the screen shouting 'poor education'.

Some posts can be confusing at least or unreadable at worst and the added danger is that poor punctuation / syntax can completely alter the meaning of a post (ask Russ about an 'incident' a while ago with KA on another forum board).

dr wadd

04-12-2003, 09:56

No, but it might be an indication of the quality of your education - something that is the education system's responsibility, not necessarily yours. You, like me, are part of the GCSE generation. One of the hallmarks of this system is that good spelling and grammar is not pushed across all disciplines - you are 'reminded of the need' for good spelling and grammar on the front page of your history paper, but you aren't about to lose marks over it. In the O-level system, bad English could lose you marks regardless of the paper you were sitting, and as a result, teaching the rules of grammar was taken far more seriously.

I`m not sure you can blame it on the GCSE situation entirely. I too am a product of the GCSE generation, and while some of the strict rules may not have applied in exams, our teachers were certainly keen on it. My senior school had, in the past, been a grammar school, and a lot of the staff had stayed on. While it may have officially been a comprehensive school, as far as the education was concerned it was closer to a grammar school. (Now I suppose I`ve opened myself to having all my grammar and spelling closesly examined :) )

I found this summer's '1950s School' series on Channel 4 very interesting in this respect. Actually, it was very interesting in the context of this entire thread....

It was a very interesting program, but other than the boarding aspect it, I didn`t find the school in the program that different from my senior school. I`ve spoken to friends who have also said the same thing. From that it would seem that the rot set in some time around the early 90s.

I take on board completely the points made by some about dyslexia, and we certainly shouldn't judge by appearances.

Obviously I mean no disrespect to those that have been diagnosed with dyslexia, but without official diagnosis I think it is easy for parents whose child is failing at school to blame the child's poor performance on dyslexia. It has great potential to be used as a convenient excuse. I think it is sometimes easier to pigeon-hole children rather than deal with the issues in hand.

Scarlett

04-12-2003, 10:05

Chris

04-12-2003, 10:12

I`m not sure you can blame it on the GCSE situation entirely. I too am a product of the GCSE generation, and while some of the strict rules may not have applied in exams, our teachers were certainly keen on it. My senior school had, in the past, been a grammar school, and a lot of the staff had stayed on. While it may have officially been a comprehensive school, as far as the education was concerned it was closer to a grammar school. (Now I suppose I`ve opened myself to having all my grammar and spelling closesly examined :) )

It was a very interesting program, but other than the boarding aspect it, I didn`t find the school in the program that different from my senior school. I`ve spoken to friends who have also said the same thing. From that it would seem that the rot set in some time around the early 90s.

Obviously I mean no disrespect to those that have been diagnosed with dyslexia, but without official diagnosis I think it is easy for parents whose child is failing at school to blame the child's poor performance on dyslexia. It has great potential to be used as a convenient excuse. I think it is sometimes easier to pigeon-hole children rather than deal with the issues in hand.
Some good points here, Doctor ... I think you're right, you can't blame GCSE by itself; the way the school applies it is also crucial. However, I think GCSE gave the less well-performing schools enough rope to hang themselves, to coin a phrase.

I was privileged to go to a school that was (and still is) a Grammar school which was fiercely proud of its reputation and where it was not uncommon for the teachers to have more than one degree, or an M.A. or PhD. As such, sloppy English was not tolerated in any subject.

The 1950s school reminded me very much of my school in terms of its strict discipline and routine - we even had a CCF.

I think 'the rot' has been clearly visible since the 90s, however I do think it set in earlier than that, as various changes and reforms have taken time to filter through.

downquark1

04-12-2003, 10:55

Chris

04-12-2003, 11:06

I think Grammer and spelling shouldn't be measures of intelligence. You are all victims of my bad spelling and my occaisonal habbit of missing out a 'not' or 'isn't' :blush:. All I can say it that it's lucky you can't see my handwriting. When handwriting tend to make simular mistakes and then immediately (or later) correct them, coupled with my bad handwriting it leaves the paper looking messy and to some illegible.

I was never good at English language (spelling etc) but I'm quite good at interperating literature.

What is your opinion of me in intelligent and ease of understanding?

[prepares to get shot down]Download Failed (1)

Easy now DQ, you can come out, I'm unarmed ... :D :Peaceman:

I don't believe spelling and grammar are necessarily indicators of intelligence, but they can be indicators of level of education and they can be indicators of dilligence and attention to detail, both perfectly legitimate attributes an employer will look for in an employee. This is something many schools have completely neglected. In pursuing theories about ideas being ultimately more important than effective expression of those ideas, they have failed to take account of the more pragmatic needs of the British workplace and the skills demanded by employers.

If a school turns out young people who are ill-equipped to compete for good jobs, it further compounds the social problems that prompted this thread.

I know fine well from discussions in this forum that you are perfectly intelligent, even though you have a habit of mis-spelling grammar ;) I have never found you difficult to understand. :)

Nikko

04-12-2003, 11:37

/lowers flak shield

Nice to see several of you got my gist and have responded positively - I suspected my earlier post may be construed as controversial, but that's the nature of the subject.

I was certainly NOT denegrating anyone with a genuine learning disorder or dyslexic tendencies, I was making the point that others have picked up on, in that once general standards become lowered, the effect is then compounded and spirals. Not just in education and discipline, but these are something of an indicator of the overall state of things.

Lew

04-12-2003, 11:57

You are all victims of my bad spelling...

You do realise your Mac has a built-in spell-checker, right? ;)

("Edit->Spelling->Check spelling as I type" from within whatever app you're using. It works just fine in Safari)

Chris

04-12-2003, 12:09

You do realise your Mac has a built-in spell-checker, right? ;)

("Edit->Spelling->Check spelling as I type" from within whatever app you're using. It works just fine in Safari)
You know, I had no idea OSX had a spell check built in ... :dunce:

Mind you, I'm stuck at work with windoze2k at the mo. :(

Lew

04-12-2003, 12:27

http://homepage.mac.com/lwernham/.Pictures/Spelling.png

Works on any Cocoa-based application. Very useful for posting on web fora, I can tell you[/off-topic]

downquark1

04-12-2003, 12:35

You do realise your Mac has a built-in spell-checker, right? ;)

("Edit->Spelling->Check spelling as I type" from within whatever app you're using. It works just fine in Safari)
:eek: your right- I can't believe I missed that:dunce: - anyway to get it in firebird too? (I tend to use both depending where I am :disturbd: )

Thank you very much. :D

Lew

04-12-2003, 12:41

Firebird doesn't use the OS' built-in controls (in order to run the same on every platform) so it won't have access to the spell-checker (the spell-checker is something that comes "for free" with any Cocoa-based text control). It works fine in Safari and OmniWeb though.

Graham

04-12-2003, 13:12

I agree but think that you are putting forward too simplistic an approach. I think that both approaches can work if they are applied to the correct people.
The problem is to establish which approach will work best with a given child.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any justification for inflicting physical pain on a child who is of an age where they are capable of understanding what they have done is wrong.

Chris

04-12-2003, 13:14

I'm sorry, but I don't see any justification for inflicting physical pain on a child who is of an age where they are capable of understanding what they have done is wrong.
Because it's not just about teaching them that something is wrong, it's about teaching them that wrongdoing has consequences.

Graham

04-12-2003, 13:18

downquark1

04-12-2003, 13:20

Because it's not just about teaching them that something is wrong, it's about teaching them that wrongdoing has consequences. Disciplining too harshly and regularly teaches them that doing anything could result in consequences and then you end up with a generation of people who are as insecure as I am;)

Can you expect teaches or adults in general to remain objective when punishing and never abuse their power?

PS: Wow this spell checker really works :D :D

Graham

04-12-2003, 13:24

Because it's not just about teaching them that something is wrong, it's about teaching them that wrongdoing has consequences.

Yes, but as I pointed out previously, the programme that introduces criminals to their victims is more successful because it's easy to say "oh I'm hard, I can take the punishment and once it's over I can move on", but for them to realise that the *victim* of their crime may well have to live with the experience for the rest of their life is another matter entirely!

It is not the consequences to the criminal that matter, but the consequences to the *victim*.

Graham

04-12-2003, 13:28

Can you expect teaches or adults in general to remain objective when punishing and never abuse their power?

Exactly.

PS: Wow this spell checker really works :D :D

Dew knot putt awl yore trussed inn spill chequers!!

Chris

04-12-2003, 13:29

Disciplining too harshly and regularly teaches them that doing anything could result in consequences and then you end up with a generation of people who are as insecure as I am;)

Can you expect teaches or adults in general to remain objective when punishing and never abuse their power?

PS: Wow this spell checker really works :D :D
What's this? Did someone stick a babelfish in my ear? I can understand you! ;) ;) :D :D

[/heavy sarcasm] (You were never that bad!!!!!)

Now, on topic...

This is a little like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A few pages back, I posted what was effectively an example of how corporal punishment was handled in my school. The witnessing of the act and the signing of a register is not unlike the caution used when nurses are administering dangerous drugs in hospital. In both cases procedures were/are used to guard against accidental or deliberate abuse.

Surely if responsible use of an effective disciplinary tool is at issue, the solution is training in responsibility, not removal of the effective tool?

Ramrod

04-12-2003, 13:32

What is your opinion of me in intelligent and ease of understanding?

Que? :D

Chris

04-12-2003, 13:33

Yes, but as I pointed out previously, the programme that introduces criminals to their victims is more successful because it's easy to say "oh I'm hard, I can take the punishment and once it's over I can move on", but for them to realise that the *victim* of their crime may well have to live with the experience for the rest of their life is another matter entirely!

It is not the consequences to the criminal that matter, but the consequences to the *victim*.
I think introducing criminals to their victims is great as one of several means of dealing with their wrongdoing. However, I disagree that 'consequences' are all on the side of the victim. The one doing the wrong must also suffer consequences of their own. What happens when you attempt to deal with someone who genuinely doesn't give a damn how their actions affect other people?

Ramrod

04-12-2003, 13:35

I'm sorry, but I don't see any justification for inflicting physical pain on a child who is of an age where they are capable of understanding what they have done is wrong.True, they probably are capable of understanding that they have done wrong. A lot of them just don't care. They will just get amusement from seeing the suffering they have caused. In those cases a more 'physical' punishment may be in order.

Flubflow

04-12-2003, 13:48

Try this spelling test on your kids.
This is meant for 11 year olds.
I tried it last year on a 13 yo and a 8 yo (same standard of education system but indcidentaly, totally opposite standards of parenting).
The 8 yo won.

Word + Most common erroneous spelling
----- -------------------------------
change chang
swimming swiming
ready reddy
vanishing vaneshing
known nown
stripes strips
perfectly perfectley
future fucher
produce produse
themselves themselvs
advertise advetise
injured injered
serious serour
surprise suprise
nastiest nastyest
designed desined
regardless regardles
attempts attemptes
individual indevidual
technique techneck/tecnique

I originally got this from an article on BBC news.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1796331.stm

basa

04-12-2003, 14:07

And the following taken at random from posts on this forum (apologies to those who recognise their own faux pas !!):

---------------------------

legitimatley
usefull
inncoent
whos (should be whose)
whoes
knowin
misdemeaner
didnt
legitamate
acepted
deffending
chanllenged
serrious
loose (should be lose)
elseware
--------------------------

Obviously some are typos ??

Nemesis

04-12-2003, 14:12

basa

04-12-2003, 14:15

I blame me fingers .... they just don't do what I tell 'em :D

Whooops......nearly said something along the lines of 'as long as they do what your partner tells 'em !!', but perhaps I shouldn't ! :naughty:

Damn, too late ! :rolleyes: :rofl:

downquark1

04-12-2003, 17:03

Towny, you keep saying that teachers could abuse power - which is perfectly true. But teachers abusing power is far more likely than a child coming in contact with a paedophile - yet the public are perfectly willing to revert to insane methods to prevent it (sorry tiptoes)

Chris

04-12-2003, 17:06

Towny, you keep saying that teachers could abuse power - which is perfectly true. But teachers abusing power is for more likely than a child coming in contact with a paedophile - yet the public are perfectly willing to revert to insane methods to prevent it (sorry tiptoes)
That's a different but no less interesting issue. Fear of paedophiles has been elevated to near hysterical levels in this country, due in no small measure to the actions of the Tablod Press and a number of self appointed vigilante campaigners. You could argue that too much attention is focused on paedophiles rather than too little on abusive teachers.

Russ

04-12-2003, 17:21

Teachers are also paid to control their classes. Schools are legally responsible for their pupils during school time.

So next time a your (or any) child starts to disrupt a class and the teacher tries to control them and/or administer a punishment you believe that your (the) child should be able to say "I can do as I like, you can't touch me because if you do my parents will get you / sue you / sort you out" ?

If I found out my daughter said that kind of thing, to coin a phrase, she wouldn't be able to sit down for a week.

The punishment might not be physical but she will learn to respect teachers.

downquark1

04-12-2003, 17:52

That's a different but no less interesting issue. Fear of paedophiles has been elevated to near hysterical levels in this country, due in no small measure to the actions of the Tablod Press and a number of self appointed vigilante campaigners. You could argue that too much attention is focused on paedophiles rather than too little on abusive teachers. Pedophilia is a rarity because there is absolutely no valid answer to "why did you have sex with that child?"

Bringing back casual canings would mean that a teacher need only say "because they swore at me" to get away with it. Nobody will believe the pupil or indeed other pupils who stick up for them, and why would it matter the canning has already happened?.

A personal story that may serve as an example:
A particularly insane teacher in my old secondary school gave the entire class an 'unofficial' detention for standing outside the classroom waiting for her (this was in fact school rules). She arrived late and was angry that we weren't ready for her lesson. Had the punishment been made 'official' (they were written on little green slips) no doubt parents and teachers would object, but since it wasn't, it was more convenient to ignore it.

Graham

04-12-2003, 18:05

True, they probably are capable of understanding that they have done wrong. A lot of them just don't care. They will just get amusement from seeing the suffering they have caused. In those cases a more 'physical' punishment may be in order.

No, it will *never* be "in order"!

What kind of lesson does it teach the child if you say "if you hurt someone, then it's ok for us to hurt you"? The conclusion from that is that child may well think "well, if they can do it, so can I!" and goes on to take it out on the next person to cross them, or even on the victim who "caused" them to get punished in the first place!

Escapee

04-12-2003, 18:10

I think introducing criminals to their victims is great as one of several means of dealing with their wrongdoing. However, I disagree that 'consequences' are all on the side of the victim. The one doing the wrong must also suffer consequences of their own. What happens when you attempt to deal with someone who genuinely doesn't give a damn how their actions affect other people?

I think you have a few interesting points in there.

I would love to meet a criminal that had robbed my house etc.

I have always believed after seeing a few youngsters gradually working there way to more severe crime, that short sharp shock treatment is the answer.
If you put your fingers in an electric socket you will think twice about doing it again, go to court for burglary and get told theres a naughty boy, 20 hours community service and you will probably do it again because it boosts your reputation amongst your criminal friends and people in that circle will look up to you.

break into someones house and get confronted by someone who uses a cricket bat to break you fingers, arms or legs etc and you will definately think twice about doing it again. I have never stolen from shops or peoples houses etc, but if I did I would expect the victim to beat me if he was capable because thats exactly what I would do. It happened locally to where I live with one particular family, after a beating because the police were powerless and the court useless the locals sorted them out and the police appeared to turn a blind eye.
I have not heard of this family commiting any crimes since, or perhaps they are just more carefull.

The do gooders can say what they want but theres nothing like getting your fingers burnt to make you think twice. :eek:

Graham

04-12-2003, 18:13

The one doing the wrong must also suffer consequences of their own.

Of course. I'm not saying they should get away scot free, but just shoving them into prison etc (where they're more likely to learn better ways to break the law) is not the answer.

What happens when you attempt to deal with someone who genuinely doesn't give a damn how their actions affect other people?

Then you have someone who is a Sociopath and that is a *psychological* problem.

Graham

04-12-2003, 18:17

I think you have a few interesting points in there.

I would love to meet a criminal that had robbed my house etc.

Unfortunately you appear to have completely failed to understand what I was talking about.

I am not saying we should allow the victims to "take revenge" on the criminal, that is just the same as the corporal punishment argument and will *not* solve the problem.

The point of introducing the criminal to the victim is so the victim can't just say to themselves "well I don't know them, I don't care about them" and treat the victim as some irrelevant object, but that the victim is a *real person* with real feelings who has been greatly upset and distressed by their crime.

What you want to do, it seems, is to act in *exactly* the same way! You want to treat the criminal as some sort of object, rather than a person and take your revenge by physical violence and *that* makes *you* no better than *them*.

Chris

04-12-2003, 18:19

No, it will *never* be "in order"!

What kind of lesson does it teach the child if you say "if you hurt someone, then it's ok for us to hurt you"? The conclusion from that is that child may well think "well, if they can do it, so can I!" and goes on to take it out on the next person to cross them, or even on the victim who "caused" them to get punished in the first place!

This, I am afraid, is mere supposition, based on a grossly over-simplified caricature of the context and method employed when corporal punishment is administered 'properly'. Violent disorder is higher than ever in the UK, yet physical punishment of all kinds has been banned for maybe 15 years! It is a favourite argument of the social theorists who opposed corporal punishment to say that physical punishment breeds physical misbehaviour - and like so many of these theories, it had, and has, no basis in fact.

downquark1

04-12-2003, 18:22

This, I am afraid, is mere supposition, based on a grossly over-simplified caricature of the context and method employed when corporal punishment is administered 'properly'. Violent disorder is higher than ever in the UK, yet physical punishment of all kinds has been banned for maybe 15 years! It is a favourite argument of the social theorists who opposed corporal punishment to say that physical punishment breeds physical misbehaviour - and like so many of these theories, it had, and has, no basis in fact. How many generations has pasted since we banned it? People subjected to the punishment (who it has bred to) are still around. Society can't change in just 15 years,

Escapee

04-12-2003, 18:45

Unfortunately you appear to have completely failed to understand what I was talking about.

I am not saying we should allow the victims to "take revenge" on the criminal, that is just the same as the corporal punishment argument and will *not* solve the problem.

The point of introducing the criminal to the victim is so the victim can't just say to themselves "well I don't know them, I don't care about them" and treat the victim as some irrelevant object, but that the victim is a *real person* with real feelings who has been greatly upset and distressed by their crime.

What you want to do, it seems, is to act in *exactly* the same way! You want to treat the criminal as some sort of object, rather than a person and take your revenge by physical violence and *that* makes *you* no better than *them*.

I may be no better than them in your eyes, but about 15 months ago I nearly caught someone attempting to break into my worshop/garage, I chased him with my cricket bat and was sorry that I didn't catch him.

I had the whole episode on my cctv tape trying to gain access into 3 vehicles in my driveway before attempting to gain access to my workshop/garage and the police were no in the least interested when they eventually arrived. It made my blood boil a few weeks later when the police were appealing in the local newspaper for help in finding some criminals who were carrying out lots of breakins in the area! The police couldn't be bothered they said oh well he wont be back now he knows you are not going to pussy-foot around with him.

What if I had shouted "Oi You, I am going to call the police" I expect he would of run, but there would of been more of a chance that he would of returned after having a good look around. As it stands now that guy and probably most of his criminal mates are aware that if caught around my house they could be in for more than being told "theres a naughty boy" by the judge.

I believe that I am better then them, because I have never committed a robbery and I have never attacked anyone apart from one occassion when two big brave teenagers decided to attack my 70 odd year old grandfather as he was dropped off by someone in a car. I thought that was very big and brave of them, unfortunately they were not so brave when I went after them.

The bottom line is these two and most who do this sort of things are cowards that will run when someone stands upto them.

Then there was the incident where a bloke high on drugs decided to have a go at my grandfather after he had beaten his girlfriend senseless in our driveway, the story did have a happy ending as far as I am concerned because he took a heroin overdose and rid us of his thieving and violence.

Sorry if it appears that I am looking for an argument because thats no the case, it's just a subject that gets me very annoyed and I have no sympathy what so ever for these sort of people. not a single do-gooder bone in my body when it comes to low lifes like that.

Chris

04-12-2003, 19:00

How many generations has pasted since we banned it? People subjected to the punishment (who it has bred to) are still around. Society can't change in just 15 years,

It doesn't take generations for a change to be felt. Kids who were only just starting secondary school when the ban came in - aged 11 - would be about 26 now. That is well above the average starting age of someone heading for a lifetime career of violence and meyhem.

kronas

04-12-2003, 19:01

How many generations has pasted since we banned it? People subjected to the punishment (who it has bred to) are still around. Society can't change in just 15 years,

in 15 years many things can happen to look at it this way technology has changed more to the point look at the standards of what is on TV there is an ever increasing amount of stupidity from shows such as jackass invading our screens now people do infact recreate these teens youngsters

ultimately the blame lies with parents they should teach children the core levels of discipline responsibility and more in order for them to get through society as not just outcasts but people who can communicate affectivly and go out in to the work place and do the right things

i hear the cries of parents have no time to do this they cant keep track of what there kids do tough!!!!!!!!!

then again some just should not have kids the enviroment you are in leads you in to the life you progress in especially in your early years

Maggy

04-12-2003, 19:45

Ok .
First of all several of you have made some very good points but I'm unable to rep you because I have to spread it about some more.

Second,any spelling mistakes occur because I am a terrible typist(one fingered) and I also have fat fingers.

Also when my son is not around and I can't find the dictionary I have to rely on the Word spellchecker and I don't really trust it.My 15 year old son is a terrific spellchecker and so far hasn't let me down.

Finally I have to tell you that this week I got reported by a student.
Why I hear you ask?
Because I called him ginger nut.

The circumstances in which I called him this?He was running around the room at the end of the lesson,I was trying to gain his attention(without grabbing or touching him) and he was very busily ignoring me.I did not know his name so I used the appellation.I certainly got his attention.

However I was incensed by his reporting me because this was also the same child who had been involved in calling other children much worse names e.g. tampon head, during the same lesson and had to be moved because of his poor behaviour.:afire:

After I had informed his head of year of all this he was most certainly led to believe that he didn't have a leg to stand on.

I think that parents,teachers and society MUST teach OUR children that with rights comes responsibility.

Incog. :wavey:

BTW I did not use any spellchecker for this posting.

Graham

04-12-2003, 23:06

I may be no better than them in your eyes, but about 15 months ago I nearly caught someone attempting to break into my worshop/garage, I chased him with my cricket bat and was sorry that I didn't catch him.

No, you would have been more likely to have been sorry if you had caught him as you would have almost certainly ended up finding yourself in the dock.

For more information on my views of this subject, search these forums for the words "Tony Martin", "Paedophiles" and "Lynch Mobs".

I believe that I am better then them, because I have never committed a robbery and I have never attacked anyone apart from one occassion when two big brave teenagers decided to attack my 70 odd year old grandfather

And when you attempted to attack someone with a cricket bat...

The bottom line is these two and most who do this sort of things are cowards that will run when someone stands upto them.

I don't deny that in the slightest, however whatever your opinions are of the Police and what they may or may not do, the fact is that if you take the law into your own hands you are being as anti-social as the criminals.

Flubflow

04-12-2003, 23:39

Nikko

05-12-2003, 00:07

Having just got in, and skimmed through the contributions since I last checked, firstly, its an interesting discussion.

With regard to introducing Assailants to Victims, whilst this may be judged to (hopefully) have something of a positive effect on the perpetrator, personally I would prefer to have the process nipped in the bud, whereas had the assailant (as a child) got a short sharp shock, then he would not have perpetrated the offence latterly, in which he was then in a position to meet the victim of, in the (unlikely) event of him being caught/charged/processed by the inept system.

Secondly, has anyone else noticed how well presented in terms of written input this thread has become?

Flubflow

05-12-2003, 00:17

Secondly, has anyone else noticed how well presented in terms of written input this thread has become?

Wot, sinse u had a go at our spellin like?

Nikko

05-12-2003, 00:19

Wot, sinse u had a go at our spellin like?

Sumfink allong them lines yup

Graham

05-12-2003, 01:57

With every day that passes and as the victim toll increases, it is getting harder and harder to find an unaffected jury that would convict a "have a go hero" these days.

I think you need to understand the distinction between a "have a go hero" who steps in to stop a criminal in the perpetration of a crime, and a vigilante who takes the law into their own hands and attacks a criminal with a cricket bat.

Graham

05-12-2003, 02:02

had the assailant (as a child) got a short sharp shock, then he would not have perpetrated the offence latterly

Do you have any proof of this, or is it just based on anecdotal evidence of the "the local bobby would give them a clip round the ear and they wouldn't do it again" sort?

Secondly, has anyone else noticed how well presented in terms of written input this thread has become?

No, but I'm generally more interested in what people say than eg picking holes in spelling and grammatical errors.

Escapee

05-12-2003, 07:47

No, you would have been more likely to have been sorry if you had caught him as you would have almost certainly ended up finding yourself in the dock.

For more information on my views of this subject, search these forums for the words "Tony Martin", "Paedophiles" and "Lynch Mobs".

And when you attempted to attack someone with a cricket bat...

I don't deny that in the slightest, however whatever your opinions are of the Police and what they may or may not do, the fact is that if you take the law into your own hands you are being as anti-social as the criminals.

It's a misconception these days that breaking the law will result in you being punished, the honest people who break the law and hold there hands up and say "It's a fair cop gov, I did it" will get charged with the crime, but on the other hands the ones who deny it like I did when these 2 teenagers attacked my grandfather will get away with it scott free!

The police are bogged down with so much paperwork these days that to persue someone who says "I didn't do it" is very difficult for them. If they have no independant witnesses come forward they are up the creek without a paddle.
I think Tony Martins big mistake was using a firearm, if he had used a cricket bat and said he was defending himself it would of been a different story.

To wait until someone has raped a member of your family or robbed your house until the police arrive is not an option that I would persue. you obviously would wait for the police to arrive but I wouldn't simple as that!

Flubflow

05-12-2003, 09:53

It's a misconception these days that breaking the law will result in you being punished, the honest people who break the law and hold there hands up and say "It's a fair cop gov, I did it" will get charged with the crime, but on the other hands the ones who deny it like I did when these 2 teenagers attacked my grandfather will get away with it scott free!

The police are bogged down with so much paperwork these days that to persue someone who says "I didn't do it" is very difficult for them. If they have no independant witnesses come forward they are up the creek without a paddle.
I think Tony Martins big mistake was using a firearm, if he had used a cricket bat and said he was defending himself it would of been a different story.

To wait until someone has raped a member of your family or robbed your house until the police arrive is not an option that I would persue. you obviously would wait for the police to arrive but I wouldn't simple as that!

I think if you do have to use a weapon then, depending on the situation, it has to be something a tad more defensive looking and something you are likely pick up on the spur of the moment. One of the best allround weapons you can choose is a good solid walking stick. You'd get even more of the sympathy vote in the dock ("man with bad back knobbles burglar using walking stick").
Another good one is that can of bright yellow spray paint that you just happen to have lying around (if he does get away then he is going to be very easy to spot for quite some time :)).

Escapee

05-12-2003, 12:42

I think if you do have to use a weapon then, depending on the situation, it has to be something a tad more defensive looking and something you are likely pick up on the spur of the moment. One of the best allround weapons you can choose is a good solid walking stick. You'd get even more of the sympathy vote in the dock ("man with bad back knobbles burglar using walking stick").
Another good one is that can of bright yellow spray paint that you just happen to have lying around (if he does get away then he is going to be very easy to spot for quite some time :)).

I agree with that about not making it look like you are tooled up, the cricket bat that I have is a small size 3? that I have had since I was about 10yrs old and my story is that it was to hand because I had been clearing out the attic that day and was going to throw it out!

I do admit to having a nice baseball bat by the side of my bed though just in case any intruders decided to come in the night. :erm:

Ramrod

05-12-2003, 13:09

No, it will *never* be "in order"!

What kind of lesson does it teach the child if you say "if you hurt someone, then it's ok for us to hurt you"? If they know why they are being punished (hurt) and that they brought the pain onto themselves through their own actions there won't be a problem. The conclusion from that is that child may well think "well, if they can do it, so can I!" and goes on to take it out on the next person to cross them,Not if they understand that the corporal punishment was for a serious offense. or even on the victim who "caused" them to get punished in the first place! Not if that would mean more corporal punishment.

I am only advocating corporal punishment in certain circumstances for certain kids. Not as a blanket option for everyone.

Escapee

05-12-2003, 17:33

I think you need to understand the distinction between a "have a go hero" who steps in to stop a criminal in the perpetration of a crime, and a vigilante who takes the law into their own hands and attacks a criminal with a cricket bat.

I stand guilty of the charge sir.

A few years ago I was woken by what appeared to be someone trying to kick my front door in, it was actually happening whilst my grandfather (then about 81) was making his way past the front door towards the stairs whilst on his way to bed.

I was stone cold sober and grabbed my cricket bat, went out of the back door and around to the front. by this time the incident had spilled over fro the front door and onto the garden, there were two large thugs beating up a very weedy little teenager and when I say beating up I am talking about kicking him including his head whilst he was on my front garden. I can assure you that it was not a pretty sight, I was absolutely petified that they were going to kill him because it is the worst one sided beating that I have ever witnessed.

The one guy stopped and started to back off whilst the other continued to lay into the kid on the floor, the one who backed off made the other aware that I had arrived but he said to me "Get lost it's none of your business" I then made him aware that I would not be getting lost and his mate said "we had better leave" I did not attack them, but I will be honest that I would of if the guy hadn't stopped. The teenager was in a pool of blood on my garden and I thought it was very serious, although as it turned out he wasn't quite as bad as it looked. He seemed to be going unconscious and I was worried about him chocking on his tounge or the large amount of blood that he was possibly swallowing. The guy wanted me to phone his mother, I got someone to do that and phone an ambulance at the same time. His mother came around a few days later to thank us, apparently he had not been drinking and was a very quiet boy who had been set upon by two thugs, he ended up with a broken/cracked Jaw, Nose and a few cracked/broken ribs.

All in all he was very lucky not to sustain serious head injuries or even die.

So Graham, if two thugs attacked you would you rather it be on someones doorstep like yourself who would wait until the police arrive, and you could possibly be dead. Or would you rather it happen on my doorstep where you could possibly have your life saved?

I am actually quite proud that I possibly saved that young guys life, especially as it appears he was a nice person. I do wonder though with the reactions of some do-gooders if it's better to turn the other cheek and just look away!

downquark1

05-12-2003, 17:42

So Graham, if two thugs attacked you would you rather it be on someones doorstep like yourself who would wait until the police arrive, and you could possibly be dead. Or would you rather it happen on my doorstep where you could possibly have your life saved? No you missunderstand the difference:
I think Graham meant that you can protect your property or people by repelling the intruder, but you can't 'punish' them for it.

philip.j.fry

05-12-2003, 17:42

So Graham, if two thugs attacked you would you rather it be on someones doorstep like yourself who would wait until the police arrive, and you could possibly be dead. Or would you rather it happen on my doorstep where you could possibly have your life saved?

Having been assaulted in a similar manner, I can honestly say that I wish there had been someone like you around to help.

kronas

05-12-2003, 17:48

escapee what if they had not have stopped attacking the person would you have used force to stop them ie attack them ?

Escapee

05-12-2003, 18:03

escapee what if they had not have stopped attacking the person would you have used force to stop them ie attack them ?

Yes I would of kronas, we are talking about a teenager who probably weighed about 9St against two guys who were around 13+ St. I honestly thought the guy was going to die I was actually very afraid for him, but at the same time willing to do whatever I had to to help him.

It is a very long story, but I got in the Police car to go and look for these 2 guys. I was with one police officer in the car and we say them about a 3/4 of a mile up the road, the police officer refused to get out of the car to confront them! SERIOUSLY.

As someone myself who was jumped by 6 very brave 17ish year old boys and a girl when I was about 32 I know what it's like, If I had been closer to their age I think I wouldn't of come off so lightly. Make no mistake I am no thug but I will look after myself when I have to.

On that occassion I had only drunk 2 small bottles of lager in a strange nutorious town so was fairly aware of what I was doing, I ended up walking along with a teenager mouthing off to me saying that I was going to get in his words " a good kicking" as it happens I didn't get that much of a kicking just a broken nose and some sore ribs. I walked around the corner to be confronted by 5 of his mates plus this girl who was high on drugs and had allready bitten me on the stomach.

The bite mark was there for nearly 18 months, a few ntl employees would confirm that.

It was a totally unprovoked attack by some thugs who were out looking for some "Fun", they ran as soon as they realised that I wasn't going to be the pushover they thought. Again spineless yobs who can only attack in large numbers!

kronas

05-12-2003, 18:11

Yes I would of kronas, we are talking about a teenager who probably weighed about 9St against two guys who were around 13+ St. I honestly thought the guy was going to die I was actually very afraid for him, but at the same time willing to do whatever I had to to help him.

It is a very long story, but I got in the Police car to go and look for these 2 guys. I was with one police officer in the car and we say them about a 3/4 of a mile up the road, the police officer refused to get out of the car to confront them! SERIOUSLY.

As someone myself who was jumped by 6 very brave 17ish year old boys and a girl when I was about 32 I know what it's like, If I had been closer to their age I think I wouldn't of come off so lightly. Make no mistake I am no thug but I will look after myself when I have to.

On that occassion I had only drunk 2 small bottles of lager in a strange nutorious town so was fairly aware of what I was doing, I ended up walking along with a teenager mouthing off to me saying that I was going to get in his words " a good kicking" as it happens I didn't get that much of a kicking just a broken nose and some sore ribs. I walked around the corner to be confronted by 5 of his mates plus this girl who was high on drugs and had allready bitten me on the stomach.

The bite mark was there for nearly 18 months, a few ntl employees would confirm that.

It was a totally unprovoked attack by some thugs who were out looking for some "Fun", they ran as soon as they realised that I wasn't going to be the pushover they thought. Again spineless yobs who can only attack in large numbers!

you know i stop and think on diffarent occasions has the world really gone downhill well the uk over the past 5-10 years

gone are the days where you could walk down a street and be safe

such a sad world we live in :(

Graham

06-12-2003, 01:53

It's a misconception these days that breaking the law will result in you being punished, the honest people who break the law and hold there hands up and say "It's a fair cop gov, I did it" will get charged with the crime, but on the other hands the ones who deny it like I did when these 2 teenagers attacked my grandfather will get away with it scott free!

Sorry, could you remind me again, behaving *like* a criminal makes you *better* than the criminal *how* exactly?

I think Tony Martins big mistake was using a firearm, if he had used a cricket bat and said he was defending himself it would of been a different story.

Tony Martin's big mistake was shooting someone in the back in "self defence"!

To wait until someone has raped a member of your family or robbed your house until the police arrive is not an option that I would persue. you obviously would wait for the police to arrive but I wouldn't simple as that!

Escapee, please do not write stupid things like this. If you think that's what I would do then it only makes it clear that you have totally failed to read and comprehend what I actually wrote.

However, for your benefit, let me explain clearly.

If someone in my family was being raped or my house was being robbed I *would* most certainly take action to drive off or detain the assailant or burglar and to protect those I love/ my property.

However what I would *NOT* do would be to then *pursue* the criminal and "exact vengeance" on them myself because *I KNOW* that to do so would be for me to break the law.

"Obviously" (from your own words) it seems that *you* would be content to break the law and, once again, I ask just how that makes you "better" than the criminal you sought to "punish".

Graham

06-12-2003, 01:56

If they know why they are being punished (hurt) and that they brought the pain onto themselves through their own actions there won't be a problem.

Were you ever bullied at school? Did you ever suffer "retribution" from the bullies after they got caught bullying you?

I did. I know how they think.

Not if they understand that the corporal punishment was for a serious offense. Not if that would mean more corporal punishment.

"If I get punished again because you've grassed me up, I'm going to come back and break your legs..."

I am only advocating corporal punishment in certain circumstances for certain kids. Not as a blanket option for everyone.

I have yet to see any proof that it would have any really beneficial effect.

Graham

06-12-2003, 02:01

I think you need to understand the distinction between a "have a go hero" who steps in to stop a criminal in the perpetration of a crime, and a vigilante who takes the law into their own hands and attacks a criminal with a cricket bat.

I stand guilty of the charge sir.

No, you stand guilty of totally missing the point!

This is evinced by the last message of yours I replied to and the following comment:

So Graham, if two thugs attacked you would you rather it be on someones doorstep like yourself who would wait until the police arrive, and you could possibly be dead. Or would you rather it happen on my doorstep where you could possibly have your life saved?

I am actually quite proud that I possibly saved that young guys life, especially as it appears he was a nice person. I do wonder though with the reactions of some do-gooders if it's better to turn the other cheek and just look away!

You have no idea of what you are talking about.

1) To "turn the other cheek" is if someone slights *you*.

2) To "just look away" (or to cross over to the other side) well, I'm sure some of our more religious contributors will be happy to relate to you the parable of the Good Samaritan.

As I've already said, I would, like you, have stepped in to *help* someone.

The question is what would *you* do next? Stop there? Or seek to "avenge" the damage yourself instead of waiting for the proper authorities?

Flubflow

06-12-2003, 03:07

Escapee

06-12-2003, 11:50

No, you stand guilty of totally missing the point!

This is evinced by the last message of yours I replied to and the following comment:

You have no idea of what you are talking about.

1) To "turn the other cheek" is if someone slights *you*.

2) To "just look away" (or to cross over to the other side) well, I'm sure some of our more religious contributors will be happy to relate to you the parable of the Good Samaritan.

As I've already said, I would, like you, have stepped in to *help* someone.

The question is what would *you* do next? Stop there? Or seek to "avenge" the damage yourself instead of waiting for the proper authorities?

I think we can both accuse each other of missing the point, but the bottom line is I would rather be prepared with my cricket bat to protect myself from a burglar than assume that he has no weapon and is not going to challenge with a weapon when I try to detain him. I would think most burglars would use a weapon rather than be caught, I think this is a safe assumption considering the high percentage of drug related robberies carried out these days. I can only assume that many of these criminals are so high they wouldn't even remember stabbing you with there screwdriver or fracturing your skull with their jemmy bar.

The sad fact is the police and courts are not doing their job, last week in a local paper it was as usuall full of court reports. (I do not consider my area to be rough by any means) there was one case that stood out about a druggie who had left the court after being handed x amount of community service and was caught 20 mins later by a resident whos house he was breaking into just down the road.

kronas said about how bad things have got in the last 5 years, and I agree and can only say wind the clock on another 5 at the present rate to see how worse things will get. My parents live in a very nice area where there are large houses, a few have been converted into flats and are now occupied by druggies. The crime in that area has gone through the roof and the police have done diddly squat! I kept telling my mother that it was a waste of time and effort getting the police out because nothing was being done about it, my parents had the car broken into the van window smashed, garden ornaments stolen, patio table thrown through their front window and finally stones thrown at the house. No they were not teenagers the main culprit was about 40yrs old.
In the end it all got sorted without wasting any more police time, one action from a member of my family stopped the trouble dead in it's tracks.

I really wonder about the situation in this country where we champion the underdog, how many times have we heard about "Little Johhny" who is in court for some crime or other, he comes from a broken home, he's really a very good boy, he didn't mean to do it, he has only become wayward since his father left home. etc etc etc.

The do-gooders have a field day with the little Johnny's, what will we get next?

Sorry but little Johnny didn't really mean to stab that pensioner with the knife, or big Johnny as he is now didn't mean to deliver that last kick to that poor blokes head that will leave him brain dead for the rest of his life if he lives at all.

People who go out and commit crime should expect to get rough treatment, I have never gone looking for fights or robbed peoples houses and to be honest I couldn't care less if anyone thinks that I am bad for having a go at a burglar or a couple of thugs who are beating an innocent person up. At the end of the day I would feel much happier o know that I didn't stand by like the majority do and let someone get killed.

Graham you asked what would "I" do next in your question, you have the answer allready I let them walk away just as the police did the same in that situation! Oh they did plea in the local paper for witnesses to come forward but what use was that after I pointed them out to the officer and he let them get away?

never mind the victim lets all feel sorry for little Johhny :rolleyes:

Graham

06-12-2003, 13:34

I think you are missing the point too. Also you make too many bad assumptions.

I am not making *any* assumptions! I am going by *exactly* what has been written!

I think the definition of a vigilante in this argument is someone who proactively goes out looking for a culplrit without witnessing the crime.

I don't. And I think that trying to restrict the definition to one that supports your point is just special pleading.

Someone who goes one step further than merely standing there defending his property/family but runs down the road chasing after him/her and detaining the criminal (taking whatever steps required) is merely performing a public service.

But we were not talking about *detaining* the criminal!!

For instance, let me quote Escapee's *exact* words from post #102:

"break into someones house and get confronted by someone who uses a cricket bat to break you fingers, arms or legs etc and you will definately think twice about doing it again. I have never stolen from shops or peoples houses etc, but if I did I would expect the victim to beat me if he was capable because thats exactly what I would do."

This is not "detaining the criminal" this is exacting vigilante, lynch mob style "justice" and whether you think it is a good idea or not, the fact of the matter is that you or anyone, by doing so, would be committing a *criminal* offence!

Graham

06-12-2003, 13:47

I think we can both accuse each other of missing the point, but the bottom line is I would rather be prepared with my cricket bat to protect myself from a burglar than assume that he has no weapon and is not going to challenge with a weapon when I try to detain him.

However as I have just said and quoted to Flubflow in the previous message, you were not *talking* about "detaining" a burglar, you were talking about committing physical violence against them to make them "think twice about doing it again."!!

I would think most burglars would use a weapon rather than be caught, I think this is a safe assumption considering the high percentage of drug related robberies carried out these days. I can only assume that many of these criminals are so high they wouldn't even remember stabbing you with there screwdriver or fracturing your skull with their jemmy bar.

I think if you're going to make assertions like that you should back them up with some figures rather than just assumptions.

For instance your last sentence is nonsensical because the point is that people who are drug addicts who commit crimes do so to *get* the money to *buy* the drugs to *get* themselves high! It is the lack of drugs that makes them commit the crime. Once they have the drugs they may do stupid things, but they are probably more likely to injure themselves than anyone else.

The sad fact is the police and courts are not doing their job,

I agree, up to a point. But that does not justify vigilante action.

The crime in that area has gone through the roof and the police have done diddly squat!

Try asking your parents how much extra money they'd be willing to pay in Council Tax to cover the costs of the extra policing needed.

It's odd, everyone wants "someone to do something" about it, but nobody seems to be inclined to pay for it.

People who go out and commit crime should expect to get rough treatment,

Like those who use a cricket bat to break someone's fingers, arms, legs???

never mind the victim lets all feel sorry for little Johhny :rolleyes:

I have *NEVER* said "never mind the victim" and for you to suggest I did just implies that again you're not reading what I have written, but just trying to pigeon-hole me with all the other "bleeding-heart do-gooders".

Yes, there are problems with our legal system, yes it doesn't always work the way we'd like it to, but to try to take the law into your own hands is *wrong*, full stop, end of story.

Escapee

06-12-2003, 16:16

Try asking your parents how much extra money they'd be willing to pay in Council Tax to cover the costs of the extra policing needed.

Yes, there are problems with our legal system, yes it doesn't always work the way we'd like it to, but to try to take the law into your own hands is *wrong*, full stop, end of story.

The first point about extra cash for the police is not a relevant issue, the police lik most organisation/companies are bogged down by paperwork.
A local police officer on one occassion was telling me ho many forms he had to fill in and how many times/places he had to write down the persons name that he had arrested. He said a trip back to the police station to drop off someone they had picked up in the street close to the police station could waste upto an hour because of all the paperwork involved. I honestly dont believe that giving the police more money is the answer, I always wonder how they managed without all those police cars that are parked outside my local police station years ago!

The second point I can agree with you that there are problems with the legal system, as demonstrated in my local newspaper today. There is a big story about the ABSO's and they are basically saying they are generally a farce because youths are taking no notice of them. A very well informed Home Office spokesman is quoted as saying " The breaches of ABSO's were a sign of their success"

Well I am very sorry for being so dull, how can they be successfull if they are being ignored and breached by the youths that are placed under them.
We will all continue to have our own opinions, and I will continue to carry on believing my views are right to look after myself, family, property because no-one else is currently doing that for me.

If I had committed burglary or an attack on an innocent member of the public when I was a youth I know I would of received corporal punishment from my parents, I very rarely received such treatment but always knew it would happen if I stepped out of line in that sort of way. I think far too often these days parents stick up for their kids when they are in the wrong instead of feeling embarassed and apologising for them and giving them a belting later.

Yes, I have gone through life and come to the conclusion that in life in general and in the workplace being a nice person means you get taken advantage of and get walked over.

I understand that the police in South Wales arrested 200 criminals in a raid yesterday morning, perhaps they have been waiting for numbers to build up to make it more cost effective. :rolleyes:

Ramrod

06-12-2003, 21:30

Were you ever bullied at school? Did you ever suffer "retribution" from the bullies after they got caught bullying you?

I did. I know how they think. I sorted out the problem myself ;)

"If I get punished again because you've grassed me up, I'm going to come back and break your legs..."Not if the punishment is enough of a deterrent :shrug:

I have yet to see any proof that it would have any really beneficial effect.and vica versa.

Ramrod

06-12-2003, 21:35

Try asking your parents how much extra money they'd be willing to pay in Council Tax to cover the costs of the extra policing needed.

It's odd, everyone wants "someone to do something" about it, but nobody seems to be inclined to pay for it.

.
afaik we are paying for a decent service already! We're just not getting it! :afire:

Graham

07-12-2003, 00:00

The first point about extra cash for the police is not a relevant issue, the police lik most organisation/companies are bogged down by paperwork.

I agree with you that, yes, the Police are being overloaded with too much paperwork for "government targets" etc, however that does not obviate the point that the Police's resources are being stretched because of lack of money.

The second point I can agree with you that there are problems with the legal system, as demonstrated in my local newspaper today. There is a big story about the ABSO's and they are basically saying they are generally a farce because youths are taking no notice of them.

But if people want the Police to a) keep the peace (ie enforce Anti-Social Behaviour Orders), b) investigate crime and c) do so in a fair and impartial manner, *someone* has to pay for it.

Yes, I have gone through life and come to the conclusion that in life in general and in the workplace being a nice person means you get taken advantage of and get walked over.

Curiously enough, I have generally found that the exact opposite is true.

This doesn't meant that I *let* people take advantage of me or walk all over me, but that's not the same as not being a "nice person". Indeed, if you're *not* a nice person, you're far less likely to find people who are willing to be nice to you!

Graham

07-12-2003, 00:05

Were you ever bullied at school? Did you ever suffer "retribution" from the bullies after they got caught bullying you?

I sorted out the problem myself ;)

I'd guess from the context that you "did unto them" as they'd done unto you (although please correct me if I'm wrong).

Unfortunately I wasn't big enough or "hard enough" to do so.

"If I get punished again because you've grassed me up, I'm going to come back and break your legs..."

Not if the punishment is enough of a deterrent :shrug:

Even more so, if the punishment is severe enough.

I have yet to see any proof that it would have any really beneficial effect.

and vica versa.

"We haven't stopped the problem by hitting them, so maybe we should hit them *harder*"?

How exactly is "society" hurting someone going to *encourage* that person to want to *rejoin* that society? Answer, it won't.

Escapee

07-12-2003, 15:51

I agree with you that, yes, the Police are being overloaded with too much paperwork for "government targets" etc, however that does not obviate the point that the Police's resources are being stretched because of lack of money.

But if people want the Police to a) keep the peace (ie enforce Anti-Social Behaviour Orders), b) investigate crime and c) do so in a fair and impartial manner, *someone* has to pay for it.

Curiously enough, I have generally found that the exact opposite is true.

This doesn't meant that I *let* people take advantage of me or walk all over me, but that's not the same as not being a "nice person". Indeed, if you're *not* a nice person, you're far less likely to find people who are willing to be nice to you!

No Graham, the point they were making about the ASBO's was that the police were acting but the courts were powerless in reality to enforce any further punishment. The article is saying the judges are powerless because of the legal vagueness surrounding these orders. It is estimated in the article that around 60% of these orders are being ignored, securing an ABSO costs the local authority ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£5000 a time and that doesn't include the time/resources that the police have to put in.

The newspapers are full of this sort of thing and it's definately appears to be getting worse by the week. The ABSO are just another attempted vote winning political spin without any real teeth!

The second point about being taken advantage of, has probably given you the impression that I am not a nice person. I would like to clarify that I hope that I do give he impression of being a nice helpfull person in the workplace, but like life someone is always there to attempt to take advantage. I always had the idea that showing commitment and working hard would get you a reward from your superiors, but I have found to my cost that staying a quiet person when it comes to demanding more money and perks just doesnt work.
I am in the situation now where a guy that very few people like in work is getting a better deal because he has gone to the manager and demanded this that and the other, I have done my usual thing and waited until the time is right and asked for the same treatment for myself and everyone else.

However we feel about taking the law into our own hands, I stand by everything that I have said because the attempted thief that I chased had scaled a 6ft fence with barbed wire on the inside to gain access to the rear of my property and was not the casual opportunist thief looking for an unlocked car or shed etc.

I think the bottom line these days is that Crime does pay. :afire: