scarbunny Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I am glad that children and adults do not recognise the authority of the legal system and the state. LDV you have even worried me with one. Does that mean that LDV would be happy for some one to kick the crap out of him as long as the offender didn’t recognise the state and legal system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fubar Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 By all accounts this lad came from a good family and was well liked by his school friends, he was 13 and to some 13yr olds this would be like a bit of an adventure, not all children of his age are feral scum as you put it, think back yourself to when you were 13 or have you forgotten what it was like to be a teenager. We all make mistakes in life and I mean all of us, this poor lad paid the ultimate price and maybe you have just been lucky. I remember very well what it was like being a teenager, there’s no way that I would have broken into somewhere. My ideas of adventures were very much the same as most others of my age at that time and didn’t involve even petty crime. It wasn't a case of being lucky, it was a case of being decent and upright in society even as a child and then teenager, a principle that seems to be totally lost these days. We all make mistakes? Certainly we do but breaking the law isn’t a mistake, and nor is breaking into somewhere that signs specifically tell you not to and even spell out the reasons why. Of course he didn’t deserve to die. I have the greatest sympathy for his family and recognise the tragedy of a lost life at such a young age, but that’s not the point. The point is that he like so many didn’t give a stuff for authority and the law and instead work on a variation of the Witches Rede, ‘And thou don’t get caught, do as thou wilt’. Those younger don’t even give a dam about getting caught as long as they are under the age at which they can get brought before a court. Maybe, just maybe his death will get the message over to the feral scum that rules mostly exist for good reasons, and should NOT be broken. You're too obsessed with the 'sanctity' of the law. These kids shouldn't need to give about the authority of the legal system. It is possibly their understandable reaction to the imposition of an authority on them and being told what they shouldn't do that has put them there in the first place. Or could have had an influence on why there they are. If you have someone telling someone else to not do something, threaten punishment, but cannot explain how you come to have that authority then people will ignore or challenge it. I am glad that children and adults do not recognise the authority of the legal system and the state. But aren't you a student studying at uni' paid for by the IoM Dept of Education which is an arm of the state? How can you say you don't recognise the state yet are quite happy to accept money from it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I am glad that children and adults do not recognise the authority of the legal system and the state. That is about the most horrifying statement that I’ve come across in a long time. If people and especially children do NOT recognise the authority of the legal system and the state all that is left is the law of the jungle. Not really. And you can't expect people to abide by something when they are given no reasons for why that authority should be accepted. In this specific case it is perfectly reasonable that it be out of bounds. There were surely signs saying 'Danger' and referred to high voltages. Nothing more is really needed, unless they intend in making it impossible to enter. But aren't you a student studying at uni' paid for by the IoM Dept of Education which is an arm of the state? How can you say you don't recognise the state yet are quite happy to accept money from it? I recognise that it exists and I recognise my inability to get further education without applying for funds. I, however, don't recognise state authority - it hasn't adequately justified its existence to me. But let's not get into all this. All I was commenting on was that ranting on about breaking the law isn't where people should look to know what they should and shouldn't do - given it is so ambiguous as to why the law exists in so many cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I am glad that children and adults do not recognise the authority of the legal system and the state. That is about the most horrifying statement that I’ve come across in a long time. If people and especially children do NOT recognise the authority of the legal system and the state all that is left is the law of the jungle. Not really. And you can't expect people to abide by something when they are given no reasons for why that authority should be accepted. I, and I suspect all right thinking people, do not expect people to abide by something when they are given no reasons for why that authority should be accepted, we DEMAND that they should do so when the authority concerned is the elected legislative body or a body empowered by the elected legislative body to do so! People living in a civilised society have a right to expect their fellow citizens to accept and obey the law of the land, and people living in a civilised society have a duty to respect and obey the law of the land. If a law is wrong then mechanisms exist whereby the law can be and often is changed, but the option for an individual to decide for themselves what they should or should not do where the law is concerned is simply ludicrous. The thought of anyone teaching or even suggesting otherwise to children is appalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I, and I suspect all right thinking people, do not expect people to abide by something when they are given no reasons for why that authority should be accepted, we DEMAND that they should do so when the authority concerned is the elected legislative body or a body empowered by the elected legislative body to do so! People living in a civilised society have a right to expect their fellow citizens to accept and obey the law of the land, and people living in a civilised society have a duty to respect and obey the law of the land. If a law is wrong then mechanisms exist whereby the law can be and often is changed, but the option for an individual to decide for themselves what they should or should not do where the law is concerned is simply ludicrous. The thought of anyone teaching or even suggesting otherwise to children is appalling. Even if I agreed, it would be quite wrong of you to demand such obedience and adherence from those who have means to participate in this supposedly flexible and popularly controlled legislature. You simply order them to obey the laws that they have been born into. In any case, people are subject to the laws they are born into, not to laws they have decided upon. And let's be honest, they have little chance of changing the law. Do you really think your vote counts for that much? And it certainly isn't ludicrous to decide for oneself, as long as no harm comes to others. Besides, I don't think of a civilised society that has a small elite who decide what is good and not for me. You're authoritarian, I'm not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Even if I agreed, it would be quite wrong of you to demand such obedience and adherence from those who have means to participate in this supposedly flexible and popularly controlled legislature. You simply order them to obey the laws that they have been born into. And the problem with that is? In any case, people are subject to the laws they are born into, not to laws they have decided upon. And let's be honest, they have little chance of changing the law. Simply not so and in any case until law IS changed to not obey it is criminality. Do you really think your vote counts for that much? And it certainly isn't ludicrous to decide for oneself, as long as no harm comes to others. YES IT IS LUDICROUS! It’s bloody anarchy! Besides, I don't think of a civilised society that has a small elite who decide what is good and not for me. Err, an elected legislature actually. You're authoritarian, I'm not. That’s an implied definition of the word “authoritarian” I’ve not encountered before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I, and I suspect all right thinking people, do not expect people to abide by something when they are given no reasons for why that authority should be accepted, we DEMAND that they should do so when the authority concerned is the elected legislative body or a body empowered by the elected legislative body to do so! You demand that people obey a law when there is no clear or reasonable cause for them to do so? That is a starkly authoritarian view. Err, an elected legislature actually. You mean the legislative council which is not popularly elected, and includes by custom a seat for the bishop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 And the problem with that is? How do you justify the authority. Simply not so and in any case until law IS changed to not obey it is criminality. Of course it is. Err, an elected legislature actually. No difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 In any case, people are subject to the laws they are born into, not to laws they have decided upon. And let's be honest, they have little chance of changing the law. Agreed Do you really think your vote counts for that much? And it certainly isn't ludicrous to decide for oneself, as long as no harm comes to others. Agreed Besides, I don't think of a civilised society that has a small elite who decide what is good and not for me. Agreed You're authoritarian, I'm not. Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Stupid feral Jimmy, look at him getting what he deserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Stupid feral Jimmy, look at him getting what he deserves. Hahaha, I remember that ad, but it looks ancient. Isn't she a bitch, bet she persuaded him to go in there on purpose! I know it is not related, but just this minute come across another ad. I used to think escalators were scary enough when I was little (maybe cos I am a bit weird) but this just made it worse - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 You demand that people obey a law when there is no clear or reasonable cause for them to do so? That is a starkly authoritarian view. No, it is a civilised view. The clear and reasonable cause for them to do so is that we all live in a civilised society albeit that there are times when I watch the behaviour of some younger people, especially where alcohol is involved, I find myself wondering if there is not a sub-culture of feral scum predating off the rest of us. As such we have a process wherein laws are decided upon by elected representatives of the population as a whole and we are all required to live by those laws ‘from prince to pauper’. It is the framework within which we can live our lives in relative safety and comfort because of our responsibilities to each other and to obey the agreed laws and from that derive our rights and freedoms. The moment anyone rejects a law they at the same time erode the freedoms open to others. It may be an apparently trivial thing such as painting the front door of a building that has a restriction applied on what colour the door must be painted in by an unauthorised colour. Trivial in itself but it means that others who bought properties expecting a certain standard of the neighborhood to be maintained now find that their expectations have been breached. Or it may not bbe a trivial thing such as shop lifting the consequence being that the shop owner looses from his bottom line and will probably have to hike his prices so making everyone who uses that shop pay more because of the actions of shoplifters. You mean the legislative council which is not popularly elected, and includes by custom a seat for the bishop? No, I mean what I wrote. If I had ,meant the Legislative Council I would have used a capital ‘L’, but I did not. I wrote ‘legislature’ and that is what I meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 And the problem with that is? How do you justify the authority. Authority comes from our form of government wherein a representative section of the population are the body that decides on what laws shall exist for the population as a whole. The process is, or when there were only two parties WAS democratic, that is the majority opinion ruled, but now with the changes that have taken place both socially and demographically I am much more inclined to support the introduction of some form of Proportional representation rather than the system based on a simple majority. The one system that I do think stinks like last weeks fish is the one used on the Island where there is no overt party politics, in actuality the whole thing is run by cabal. Err, an elected legislature actually. No difference Yes there is. Any citizen of good character can stand in an election to public office Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I find myself wondering if there is not a sub-culture of feral scum predating off the rest of us. Politicians Bankers Pen pushers paid for by the taxpayer And so on. The list could go on ad infinitum. The law? Who respects the law now? When the transgressors seem to get preferential treatment over those who obey the 'law' As a concept, it's rapidly loosing credibility - if it hasn't lost it completely already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 How interesting. If it was someones child from Laxey or Ramsey, there'd be the usual 'sympathy to family' posts. But of course it's an outworlder so fuck 'em. Local to him, there were outpourings of sympathy, and eulogies for a "bright" child. Well, he certainly turned out to be a bright spark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.