chelstongull
TFF member
Posts: 6,759
Favourite Player: Jason Fowler
|
Post by chelstongull on Aug 17, 2011 16:39:24 GMT
Thought some of the punishments were a bit on the harsh side. 4 years for thinking about rioting?
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Aug 17, 2011 16:50:26 GMT
Thought some of the punishments were a bit on the harsh side. 4 years for thinking about rioting? There are different elements to sentencing though. Rehabilitation is of course very important but the other elements have been somewhat pushed aside in recent years. Punishment and a deterrent are important in regulating society. A big part of the problem these days is that people know that nothing will happen to them even if they are unlucky enough to be caught. This will send a message ... although it will of course be considerably reduced on appeal but it will make them sit and think for a day or two beforehand!
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Aug 17, 2011 17:00:15 GMT
Thought some of the punishments were a bit on the harsh side. 4 years for thinking about rioting?I'm waiting for Aussie to chip in and tell us they should have been hung [ from their cell walls] after being fed their own intestines [ prior to being hanged] Edit. Thanks to Stefano for reminding me to complete my sentences
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Aug 17, 2011 17:03:09 GMT
Thought some of the punishments were a bit on the harsh side. 4 years for thinking about rioting?I'm waiting for Aussie to chip in and tell us they should have been hung after being fed their own intestines! ... hanged
|
|
JamesB
TFF member
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by JamesB on Aug 17, 2011 17:13:09 GMT
the BBC ought to make it clear that there's more than one story here - they often do it well but the reports I saw on the rioting seemed to be lacking that If you think the BBC have been or ever will be 'impartial', James, you've a lot to learn. I know it isn't. I can't speak for before my life time, but I don't remember a time when it hasn't been. But that doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be The point is that the BBC too often tells 'the' story of the events without acknowledging that there's more than one story. If you ask a shopkeeper who lost his shop, he would give his story as "some blokes turned up, broke into my shop and looted it". But ask one of the the blokes who broke in and they would give a different story, something like: "I lost my job, I've got no money, I've got kids to feed and I'm really angry, so when I saw there was rioting I decided to break into the shop and take the food". It's a completely different perspective - a completely different story Putting it that way, essentially if the debate is taken to its ultimate conclusion, it becomes one of free will vs determinism, depending on your ideology, so it is a political issue
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Aug 17, 2011 17:23:50 GMT
I'm waiting for Aussie to chip in and tell us they should have been hung after being fed their own intestines! ... hanged Hung hanged who gives a monkeys? String `em up!
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Aug 17, 2011 17:28:15 GMT
If you think the BBC have been or ever will be 'impartial', James, you've a lot to learn. I know it isn't. I can't speak for before my life time, but I don't remember a time when it hasn't been. But that doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be The point is that the BBC too often tells 'the' story of the events without acknowledging that there's more than one story. If you ask a shopkeeper who lost his shop, he would give his story as "some blokes turned up, broke into my shop and looted it". But ask one of the the blokes who broke in and they would give a different story, something like: "I lost my job, I've got no money, I've got kids to feed and I'm really angry, so when I saw there was rioting I decided to break into the shop and take the food". It's a completely different perspective - a completely different story Putting it that way, essentially the debate becomes one of free will vs determinism, so it is a political issue Agreed two completely different stories. The first bloke is a victim of crime who has built up a business through hard work and has then seen his livelihood possibly put in jeopardy through no fault of his own; The second bloke is a burglar who made the decision to be one. There are many many people who are unable to get a job and who struggle week to week to support a family who would never dream of commiting crime to fund that. Many people like that were of course also victims in the recent riots losing all of their possessions whilst escaping their burning flats. It is certainly the responsibility of the BBC to be balanced in their reports (which of course they never have been) but they can report fairly on social injustice by giving a voice to those affected who do not commit crime rather than to those who do.
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Aug 17, 2011 17:31:49 GMT
If you think the BBC have been or ever will be 'impartial', James, you've a lot to learn. The point is that the BBC too often tells 'the' story of the events without acknowledging that there's more than one story. If you ask a shopkeeper who lost his shop, he would give his story as "some blokes turned up, broke into my shop and looted it". But ask one of the the blokes who broke in and they would give a different story, something like: "I lost my job, I've got no money, I've got kids to feed and I'm really angry, so when I saw there was rioting I decided to break into the shop and take the food". It's a completely different perspective - a completely different story That is the weakest excuse I`ve ever heard! If your kids are starving the social give you vouchers for food, I couldn`t care less if he feels angry, big bloody deal `get over it man` is what he should be told! Yes it is a completely different perspective, one of selfishness and stupidity on his behalf. If he lost his job then he must have some skills in order to have had a job to lose therefore is employable and could get off his lazy arse and find employment, now having commited a stupid act and got himself a criminal record stands less chance of getting a job, ever heard the expression `when in a hole stop f*cken digging`? Perhaps the Beeb don`t show `poor little mate`s` view because it would turn even more people against him!
|
|
|
Post by Father Jack on Aug 17, 2011 17:36:58 GMT
The point is that the BBC too often tells 'the' story of the events without acknowledging that there's more than one story. If you ask a shopkeeper who lost his shop, he would give his story as "some blokes turned up, broke into my shop and looted it". But ask one of the the blokes who broke in and they would give a different story, something like: "I lost my job, I've got no money, I've got kids to feed and I'm really angry, so when I saw there was rioting I decided to break into the shop and take the food". It's a completely different perspective - a completely different story You conveniently forget the plasma TV and the new trainers...and, on the tv tonight, the scooter as well...
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Aug 17, 2011 17:43:54 GMT
James is a very good thinker and has made some extremely good points but unfortunately seems to be hanging on to this topic by the skin of his teeth. His sport reports are without doubt fantastic but I feel he needs work on his argueing and debating strengths, sometimes you just run out of material and hit a dead end, I hope to be proved wrong!
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Aug 17, 2011 17:45:36 GMT
The first bloke is a victim of crime who has built up a business through hard work and has then seen his livelihood possibly put in jeopardy through no fault of his own; The second bloke is a burglar who made the decision to be one. Jesus, it's like listening to Theresa May talk about 'gangs'.............shock, horror...the British Home Secretary doesn't approve of working class communities forming groups with their own economies and value systems!
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Aug 17, 2011 17:53:27 GMT
The first bloke is a victim of crime who has built up a business through hard work and has then seen his livelihood possibly put in jeopardy through no fault of his own; The second bloke is a burglar who made the decision to be one. Jesus, it's like listening to Theresa May talk about 'gangs'.............shock, horror...the British Home Secretary doesn't approve of working class communities forming groups with their own economies and value systems! You`ve lost me on that one, I can`t see the similarity as Stefanos point is based on fact! Or did this innocent victim do something to piss the criminal off and therefore deserved his establishment destroying? I repeat " I don`t get it"!
|
|
JamesB
TFF member
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by JamesB on Aug 17, 2011 18:00:26 GMT
The second bloke is a burglar who made the decision to be one. People don't exactly just wake up one morning and decide to be burglars just because they feel like it, though. Nor do you here kids at school, when asked what they want to be when they are older, say "I want to be a burglar I could easily have started the burglar's story much earlier - "When I was younger, my parents kicked me out onto the streets every day, and my teachers didn't teach me anything and treated me like dirt". That is often the reality. You have exceptions like the bloke who drove from Winchester but by the mere mention of them, the BBC play to people's prejudices that this has been the fault of petty criminals rather than having a deeper cause I'm not saying people don't have any free will. But it would be equally wrong to assume that they have total free will. The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle I couldn`t care less if he feels angry, big bloody deal `get over it man` is what he should be told! You could equally say that to the shopkeeper - the reality of the situation is that while he may have lost his business, he will probably still have a comfortable life. Which is more than can be said for thousands of other people living in the same city, rioter or otherwise. It's all about perspective I'm not approving of any of this looting and rioting, by any means. I'm looking for reasons, not excuses, because it's important that we learn from this to prevent it from happening again. We should not just look at what they have done and whether or not it is wrong. What is much more important is finding out why they have done it, and explaining to them why it is wrong. Saying "it's wrong because it's against the law" isn't a good enough reason, because 1) we all break the law so there are no high horses to sit on and 2) laws should always be open to questioning, so just because it's against the law doesn't make it wrong (especially pertinent considering the UK government recently recognised and pledged its support for the rebels in Libya)
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Aug 17, 2011 18:09:26 GMT
Jesus, it's like listening to Theresa May talk about 'gangs'.............shock, horror...the British Home Secretary doesn't approve of working class communities forming groups with their own economies and value systems! You`ve lost me on that one, I can`t see the similarity as Stefanos point is based on fact! Or did this innocent victim do something to piss the criminal off and therefore deserved his establishment destroying? I repeat " I don`t get it"!I would say not. The shopkeeper had his morality and chose his path in life; the burglar had his and chose his. My guess is the shopkeeper will pull through.
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Aug 17, 2011 18:11:24 GMT
The second bloke is a burglar who made the decision to be one. Nor do you here kids at school, when asked what they want to be when they are older, say "I want to be a burglar I did. Was never good enough unfortunately
|
|