| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| long time no see |
Posted - 22/08/2007 : 21:32:48
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1281000,00.html
He is Critical.
The amount of Armed Youths in the UK
needs to be sorted out.
We spend Billions in Iraq due to Brown/Blair
but our own nation has a Police Force that claims
they are Busy with Paper Work
due to this current power.
Making sure all those Home office forms are done.
Sign Of The Times. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Fluffy Sheep |
Posted - 28/08/2007 : 22:14:58
Hello Monty. Do you honestly think that our police really WANT to take that route? They feel it badly enough when, rarely, they do take a life. If your suggestion did get seriously taken up, all it would achieve is real all-out chaos - after initially culling a few young thugs, they`d become martyrs and the problems would escalate. |
| Monty the bolshevik |
Posted - 28/08/2007 : 19:55:46
Police sharp shooters should take out these gangsters. According to Merseyside Police there are 70s gangsters (in two gants) on that estate. They should take them out - in self-defence because obviously they'd shoot if they had the chance. Blast their ugly stupid heads off them. |
| Fluffy Sheep |
Posted - 26/08/2007 : 23:58:57
O Dear!
LT, I don`t want our young people (even our ASBO thugs) killed by Americans. I don`t want our well-trained professional soldiers killed by Americans, I don`t want Iraqi`s killed by Americans.
BUT, you (deliberately..?) mis-read my post.
I wouldn`t wish to make matters even worse in a delicate area by sending these bozo`s abroad - not even anywhere abroad. I`m saying, give them serious labouring tasks right here where things need doing, and with military discipline and supervision. This might eventually give some of these youngsters some sense of acheivement and pride. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 26/08/2007 : 09:38:02
Though I agree that the punishment that we seem to be doling out does not act as a sufficient deterrent I don't think that an effective deterrent alone is the answer.
We have a whole sector of society that does not appear to engage with the rest of us, except for through the end of a barrel or the blade of a knife. That needs to be addressed. We also have to look at why we have this alienation in our midst and try and prevent it occurring in the future. |
| Daveb |
Posted - 26/08/2007 : 09:16:33
Nobody would want to send troops to be killed.
I am very saddend by the fact that good young people are being killed far from home while this useless bunch of lowlife get more benefits than they deserve.
If they catch the murderer of the young lad, who may only be about 15, will it mirror the Lawrence case and they will be free in 11 years?
The punishment (detterent) is not good enough.
|
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 26/08/2007 : 09:15:52
quote:
Originally posted by long time no see
I have done.
If you had read it properly you would have seen that she does not advocate putting them in the armed forces. |
| long time no see |
Posted - 26/08/2007 : 08:48:44
I have done. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 25/08/2007 : 23:11:48
quote:
Originally posted by long time no see
Fluffy
let me get this right,
You want Our young to be Killed by Americans?
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1281301,00.html
Read Fluffy's post again LTNS. |
| long time no see |
Posted - 25/08/2007 : 20:49:29
Fluffy
let me get this right,
You want Our young to be Killed by Americans?
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1281301,00.html
|
| Fluffy Sheep |
Posted - 25/08/2007 : 20:39:34
Some form of National Service should be introduced. `Worthless` or not, troublemakers would only make matters worse in places like Iraq, or Northern Ireland when so many troops were deployed there.
They DO need some military-type discipline, and there are surely many tasks they could be put to.
There are so many labour-intensive projects that never go ahead because of the cost, while we pay dole to a potential workforce for staying in bed all day and getting into trouble when they do get up and go out.
I also agree that we need a re-think about nursery education. |
| long time no see |
Posted - 25/08/2007 : 19:41:40
Dave
that is utter rubbish.
They are Worthless because , unlike our days,
Stinking New Labour have taken away so much for the Youth.
Because New labour are Neo Conservative in every way.
Get your facts right &
Vote New Labour Out. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 25/08/2007 : 19:37:11
Except that a) the army hasn't the time, the money or the personnel resources to lick them into shape and b) warfare and the rules of engagement have by and large changed. Gone are the days when we had the traditional 'front-line' and there is no room for cannon fodder in todays military campaigns. Can you see the likes of those knife wielding, gun-totting good for noughts dealing with the tact, self control and reserve that life for the average UK recruit in Iraq or Afghanistan calls for? Or do you really want to see an increase in the incidents of rape and murder of Iraqi and Afghanistan civilians at the hands of UK recruits? Because when all is said and done put thug in uniform and give him/her a gun and all you end up with is a thug in uniform with a gun. |
| Daveb |
Posted - 25/08/2007 : 19:07:42
The army would put them into shape.
If they are untrainable then the front line is good place for them.
It will save the worthy getting killed.
Bit harsh, but they do appear worthless scum to me. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 25/08/2007 : 18:36:50
I doubt the forces would thank anyone for the wholesale conscription of that calibre of recruit.
I do think that a form of national service for all youngsters, after they have left school not to be unreasonable. I just don't think that the armed forces would be the most appropriate place for them. |
| long time no see |
Posted - 25/08/2007 : 18:34:46
Yes Dave
the soft touch or as it is called the New Labour 11 year Mess Up
has failed.
A 15-19 year old with a Gun
does not feel what damage they do.
As for putting the young out of work into the Army,
that is what the Army want as they are short on troops now.
But I would say - No way to that
since the Iraq Illegal War is now a 30 year venture (GW. Bush wants it that way)
it would mean you are sending most of them to their death.
And Iraq has nothing to do with the UK.
It is a America Worldwide Mess. |
| Daveb |
Posted - 25/08/2007 : 17:54:38
It seems that everyday we are hearing more killing with guns and knives all over the UK.
The deterent is not there.
I think it is time to seriously think about conscription for all or those that cause trouble. They have too much time on their hands.
The forces are short of staff due to far to many cut backs.
This cheap cannon fodder may help.
The soft touch is clearly not working.
These people will take advantage.
|
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 24/08/2007 : 23:10:45
Certainly ... However I would go somewhat further then that ... I think that we need to establish a decent nursery education system for all youngsters and not just those perceived to be at risk by overworked and overstretched social workers and the like. Make it so that parents would have to opt out rather then opt in. |
| Fluffy Sheep |
Posted - 24/08/2007 : 22:34:47
I certainly agree with you there Miriam. But where there IS early evidence of an unstable home environment, be there one parent, both parents, and any number of extended family members, I still hold that Parenting Education for parents of infant school puipils is the way to tackle the social rot we`re seeing. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 24/08/2007 : 22:23:29
Certainly Fluffy but that was not the point I was trying to make. This tendency on the part of some to forget the part an absent parent has to play in the lives of some children which can be as relevant as the part the active parent plays ... sometimes even more so. A child always has two parents. Without exception.
Being brought up by a single active parent does not necessarily mean that the child is going to have behavioural issues anymore then being brought up by two parents necessarily means that a child is going to be, relatively speaking, a stable individual. |
| Fluffy Sheep |
Posted - 24/08/2007 : 22:15:42
I don`t think it`s as simple as some of the `family values` brigade make it sound. YES, it`s ideal to have 2 loving parents, and grandparents, aunts, uncles etc...but there are many single parent families who don`t have any behavioural problems .... I say a child gets more parental attention from one loving parent than from 2 warring parents. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 24/08/2007 : 21:45:56
quote:
Originally posted by long time no see
Yes you can blame the Parents
alhough it may be just one parent,
these days.
Unless the parent is a widow/er it is always two parents LTNS ... okay one of the parents maybe absent but that does not stop them from being a parent. |
| long time no see |
Posted - 24/08/2007 : 21:35:14
quote:
Originally posted by Fluffy Sheep
Yes, LTNS, Education is vitally important, and it`s failing - but a child won`t get much benefit even at the best school you could imagine, if his attendance there is poor the good influences, role models and the like will not get through to the child.
Again, I say, I blame the PARENTS. Poor school attendance patterns start in the infants (when parents can`t be bothered to get up on time to get the child to school). Over the years, the child quickly gets the message at home that school is not imperative.
Education (compulsory, it would have to be) for parents of very young children is one way to start tackling the social malignancy that seems to have set in.
Yes you can blame the Parents
alhough it may be just one parent,
these days.
|
| long time no see |
Posted - 24/08/2007 : 21:32:05
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1281197,00.html
At least a 16year old has been arrested
among other arrests. |
| Fluffy Sheep |
Posted - 24/08/2007 : 21:23:30
Yes, LTNS, Education is vitally important, and it`s failing - but a child won`t get much benefit even at the best school you could imagine, if his attendance there is poor the good influences, role models and the like will not get through to the child.
Again, I say, I blame the PARENTS. Poor school attendance patterns start in the infants (when parents can`t be bothered to get up on time to get the child to school). Over the years, the child quickly gets the message at home that school is not imperative.
Education (compulsory, it would have to be) for parents of very young children is one way to start tackling the social malignancy that seems to have set in. |
| moon23 |
Posted - 24/08/2007 : 12:02:34
quote:
Originally posted by Tombstone Blues
quote:
Originally posted by long time no see
Yes also on Radio 5
many spoke of Adult Criminals that gave the youngsters Guns
to look after.
Un-Elected Brown
talks of all these things he will do.
But No One trusts
Stinking New labour.
Don't forget that if you mention unelected Brown you must also mention
Robert Walpole, 1721
The Earl of Wilmington 1742
Henry Pelham 1743
The Duke of Newcastle 1754
The Duke of Devonshire 1756
The Earl of Bute 1762
George Grenville 1763
The Marquess of Rockingham 1765
William Pitt the Elder 1766
The Duke of Grafton 1768
Lord North 1770
The Earl of Shelburne 1782
Henry Addington 1801
William Pitt the Younger 1804
Lord Grenville 1806
The Duke of Portland 1807
Spencer Perceval 1809
The Earl of Liverpool 1812
George Canning 1827
Viscount Goderich 1827
Duke of Wellington 1828
Viscount Melbourne 1834
Robert Peel 1834
The Earl of Derby 1852
The Earl of Aberdeen 1852
Benjamin Disraeli 1868
The Earl of Rosebery 1894
Arthur James Balfour 1902
Herbert Henry Asquith 1908
David Lloyd George 1916
Andrew Bonar Law 1922
Stanley Baldwin 1935
Neville Chamberlain 1937
Winston Churchill 1940
Sir Anthony Eden 1955
Harold Macmillan 1957
Alec Douglas-Home 1963
James Callaghan 1976
John Major 1990
All unelected.
Prime ministers in this country have never been elected
We don't have a presidential system like france or america.
We vote for a party. Whoever leads that party becomes prime minister. If the the leader of the party in power dies or resigns, his successor becomes Prime Minister. It's nonsense to talk about ''unelected' Brown because, in real terms, no prime minister has ever been elected.
This is true, but poor old LTNS heard someone mention that Brown was un-elected and has now taken it on as one of his catchphrases without the historical insight that you provide. |
| Tombstone Blues |
Posted - 24/08/2007 : 08:47:42
quote:
Originally posted by long time no see
Yes also on Radio 5
many spoke of Adult Criminals that gave the youngsters Guns
to look after.
Un-Elected Brown
talks of all these things he will do.
But No One trusts
Stinking New labour.
Don't forget that if you mention unelected Brown you must also mention
Robert Walpole, 1721
The Earl of Wilmington 1742
Henry Pelham 1743
The Duke of Newcastle 1754
The Duke of Devonshire 1756
The Earl of Bute 1762
George Grenville 1763
The Marquess of Rockingham 1765
William Pitt the Elder 1766
The Duke of Grafton 1768
Lord North 1770
The Earl of Shelburne 1782
Henry Addington 1801
William Pitt the Younger 1804
Lord Grenville 1806
The Duke of Portland 1807
Spencer Perceval 1809
The Earl of Liverpool 1812
George Canning 1827
Viscount Goderich 1827
Duke of Wellington 1828
Viscount Melbourne 1834
Robert Peel 1834
The Earl of Derby 1852
The Earl of Aberdeen 1852
Benjamin Disraeli 1868
The Earl of Rosebery 1894
Arthur James Balfour 1902
Herbert Henry Asquith 1908
David Lloyd George 1916
Andrew Bonar Law 1922
Stanley Baldwin 1935
Neville Chamberlain 1937
Winston Churchill 1940
Sir Anthony Eden 1955
Harold Macmillan 1957
Alec Douglas-Home 1963
James Callaghan 1976
John Major 1990
All unelected.
Prime ministers in this country have never been elected
We don't have a presidential system like france or america.
We vote for a party. Whoever leads that party becomes prime minister. If the the leader of the party in power dies or resigns, his successor becomes Prime Minister. It's nonsense to talk about ''unelected' Brown because, in real terms, no prime minister has ever been elected. |
| long time no see |
Posted - 23/08/2007 : 23:35:58
Education
as well
Fluffy.
 |
| Fluffy Sheep |
Posted - 23/08/2007 : 23:12:37
My son had a pretty lethal (`black widow`)catapult when he was 14. It was bought from a classmate, after the other kids` parents sought our permission. It was never used without adult supervision and only ever at the target my hubby built for the purpose. When he tired of it and wanted to sell it, we vetoed one sale he arranged, because the parents weren`t interested in discussing how it would be used.We did allow him to sell it to another boy whose parents were seriously keen that it would only be used as our lad had used it. The same went for the air rifle. My son was brought up with some very strict rules and values about respect for Life, and to this day (he`s 35) he would rather send even a WASP out of the window than kill it.
Young lads do have a natural interest in weapons of all kinds. I don`t think we`re going to change that. We used to do `Viking` shows re-enacting battles and did educational school visits, and the boys were always fascinated with the swords, and bow & arrows.
But it has to be very closely monitored. Kids whose parents aren`t interested just don`t get the supervision or guidance, in respect of weapons or manners or socially acceptable behaviour.
Mim, I did those things too, and my lot were eventually - and even as kids- rather proud of mum being `strict`.
The bottom line, really, is I Blame The PARENTS! We can only blame the Government in their failure to make parents accountable and -?punishable? for the behaviour of their young. |
| long time no see |
Posted - 23/08/2007 : 17:30:36
Yes also on Radio 5
many spoke of Adult Criminals that gave the youngsters Guns
to look after.
Un-Elected Brown
talks of all these things he will do.
But No One trusts
Stinking New labour. |
| Daveb |
Posted - 23/08/2007 : 13:49:44
They are available if you move in the wrong circles!
Everywhere!
http://www.theargus.co.uk/display.var.1638481.0.armed_police_find_guns_cache_in_dawn_raid.php |
