Totting Ham Riots

[La_Dolce_Vita]

so why do they bother with a 'crime prevention unit' ?

there is a hint in the title

Why do they bother? Their function has historically and currently been to apprehend those who break the law. The way the police operate, it cannot take the role of being a preventer of crime, as it not a body that works to investigate into the reasons for crimes and does not have power to make societal changes that would prevent crime.

And if it was the primary role of the police, the police would have to be deemed a total failure.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You are, once again, trying to promote your own (and I should emphasise that I don't believe anyone else has such a twisted and misconstrued vision of political reality) crackpot version of events.

If you don't believe anyone else has my politics then you never spoken with people who have communist or anarchist politics. I find this surprising though.

 

 

I don't happen to approve of military-style discipline (I think we see the damage it can do when we read posts from the likes of MDO & PK) but projects to remove young people temporarily from depressing environments, and from the company of wasters, in order to offer them a chance to acquire the kind of skills that might enable SELF-discipline and the possibility of being able to CHOOSE a place in society could be productive for all concerned.

That's sound great. But others want that to be achieved by having such people fall under an authority that will dominate their live 24/7, more than waged work and school. On the basis of why it is seen as desirable there is poor justification for it. And there has to be an extremely good justification for it. The fact that kids are undisciplined and have no respect is not good enough if you have any value for freedoms.

 

Besides, it's 'old fart'/conservative nonsense to think that NS can instill respect (higher opinion of others) and empathy with others in the community in society.

 

Would be better to look at why these kids have little self-respect and why they are given no respect. For I believe that's where the problems lies.

 

NB (for LDV) I do not intend to define any of the concepts in the statement above that may confuse you. If there are any that you are uncertain about then feel free to follow THIS LINK

Yet I agree with you. That makes the two of us then.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

 

Cor Blimey, you really are way out there.... Have you done National Service? Do you know how it worked in Germany? Are you in a position to accurately judge what it does and doesn't do to people? I'm guessing no.

You can guess no. But do you think it is unfair to come to the conclusion that those who fall of NS are more likely to be less criticially-minded in terms of assessing the justifications for authority than others? People are in general uncritical of authority anyway. But then they have been brought up to be told to do as they are told by teachers and obey rules in school and then have a similar experience in the workplace.

These environments nurture a mindset that is subservient and given that justifications for these authorities is poor then the lack of widescale resistance is telling of what level of critical assessment is taking place.

I can only think that the situation would be worse were people to undergo NS. It's even more regimented and the less person has even less control.

Is that unfair in coming to that conclusion?

 

Seriously, you live in some warped bubble. A few months NS doesn't turn you into a robot that carries out orders and submits to the powers that be without thinking

As to BEING a robot, it depends on what you do. As to the thinking behind it, did you agree that NS was the right thing to be part of? You might have been politically satisfied with its implementation and with your participation.

 

For many, it's also the first time that they have any kind of structured lifestyle - quite obvious then that it clashes with your belief in Anarchy and chaos.

Nothing wrong with structure. Much wrong with regimentation and hierarchy. Unless in exceptional circumstances it is required to armed conflict.

 

Do I appear to be a dumb servile mind without any appreciation of freedom to you?

I can say that you advocacy of NS - which involves forcing people into a system of authority shows you have to be rather open to poorly justified authorities, unless you can provide a good reason for existence?

 

By the way: you stil haven't given me your address - I'm waiting to choose what bits of your stuff I would like, with yourself not believing in personal possessions and all that....

Never said that I don't agree with personal possessions. What are you talking about?

[kevster]

so why do they bother with a 'crime prevention unit' ?

there is a hint in the title

Why do they bother? Their function has historically and currently been to apprehend those who break the law. The way the police operate, it cannot take the role of being a preventer of crime, as it not a body that works to investigate into the reasons for crimes and does not have power to make societal changes that would prevent crime.

And if it was the primary role of the police, the police would have to be deemed a total failure.

One of the roles of the police crime prevention unit is to advise people on how they can help prevent crime. They offer advice on securing premises to prevent burglary for example. They work in the same way as the fire service prevention team who will inspect premises and educate people in fire safety and prevention.

[paswt]

 

 

 

 

By the way: you stil haven't given me your address - I'm waiting to choose what bits of your stuff I would like, with yourself not believing in personal possessions and all that....

Never said that I don't agree with personal possessions. What are you talking about?

 

You have indicated on previous threads that shoplifting etc was O.K. , theft being the redistribution of wealth .Pleased to see that you now accept the concept of personal possesions....or is that just yours? lol

[MilitantDogOwner]

so why do they bother with a 'crime prevention unit' ?

there is a hint in the title

Why do they bother? Their function has historically and currently been to apprehend those who break the law. The way the police operate, it cannot take the role of being a preventer of crime, as it not a body that works to investigate into the reasons for crimes and does not have power to make societal changes that would prevent crime.

And if it was the primary role of the police, the police would have to be deemed a total failure.

 

But if people didn't break the law, there would be no need for police. But then if there is no police, whats to stop someone commiting a crime....

 

And if the Terminator kills Sarah Connor, she won't give birth to John Connor. But then the Terminator would have no reason to travel to the past....

 

Previously, just the thought of getting caught used to be all the deterent that was needed. Now there is no fear of being caught (as some of the brazen acts in UK over the last week have shown) because the infrastructure of the Police, the courts and the prison service have been so thoroughly depleted that the system just isn't a deterent anymore.

[MilitantDogOwner]

 

 

 

 

By the way: you stil haven't given me your address - I'm waiting to choose what bits of your stuff I would like, with yourself not believing in personal possessions and all that....

Never said that I don't agree with personal possessions. What are you talking about?

 

You have indicated on previous threads that shoplifting etc was O.K. , theft being the redistribution of wealth .Pleased to see that you now accept the concept of personal possesions....or is that just yours? lol

 

AH you see LDV believes in a upward style of thieving. In that it is okay to steal from those above you on the social ladder, but not okay to steal from those below you on the social ladder.

 

For example, Scaly McWaster who lives in a council house with no job, can steal from shops and people who have more than him. But Dave St. Normalbloke who has a job and a reasonable amount of expendable wealth is not allowed to steal from Scaly McWaster.

 

SO in LDV's eyes those who stole stuff during the riots were okay in his book, because they were poorer than the nasty rich people who own the shops.

[macmannin]

Nob Jockey!!!!

[pongo]

Boris Johnson says London riots "are not a simple issue."

 

I do not think that this is a simple issue, and I do not think we can simply ascribe it to wanton criminality

[La_Dolce_Vita]

These questions are now getting off topic.

 

You have indicated on previous threads that shoplifting etc was O.K. , theft being the redistribution of wealth.

Acceptable, yes. But it is a very crude form of redistributable. It the reason why it is acceptable isn't largely about it being redistribution, but able the claim of ownership.

Pleased to see that you now accept the concept of personal possesions....or is that just yours? lol

Personal Possessions I agree with. I just disagree with the concept of private property. And it's so dull asking me about them all the time

AH you see LDV believes in a upward style of thieving. In that it is okay to steal from those above you on the social ladder, but not okay to steal from those below you on the social ladder.

Higher on the social ladder were they to be middle class (not in the layman sense; those who are rich or don't work given their wealth). It is wrong to steal from the working class, i.e. all of us.

SO in LDV's eyes those who stole stuff during the riots were okay in his book, because they were poorer than the nasty rich people who own the shops.

Big high street stores is fine, not family owned shops.

But if people didn't break the law, there would be no need for police. But then if there is no police, whats to stop someone commiting a crime....

The question that people should be interested in what crime occurs and why. In a society with a State that supports capitalism there will be wealth inequality and thus reason to steal.

Previously, just the thought of getting caught used to be all the deterent that was needed

Nonsense.

[kevster]

SO in LDV's eyes those who stole stuff during the riots were okay in his book, because they were poorer than the nasty rich people who own the shops.

Big high street stores is fine, not family owned shops.

Please explain the difference between theft from a high street store and theft from a family owned corner shop

[ballaughbiker]

Big high street stores is fine, not family owned shops.

Amazing logic there. Are you making this up as we go along?

 

Nonsense

Hmmm, ask someone old enough what happened if you were caught in the 30s, 40s and 50s

[MilitantDogOwner]

Previously, just the thought of getting caught used to be all the deterent that was needed

Nonsense.

 

Really? Care to explain?

 

When prison used to be an unpleasnt place to be, the majority would rather not lose their freedoms by commiting a crie and going to prison.

 

Nowadays prison is sometimes the sweeter deal than being on the outside.

[MilitantDogOwner]

SO in LDV's eyes those who stole stuff during the riots were okay in his book, because they were poorer than the nasty rich people who own the shops.

Big high street stores is fine, not family owned shops.

Please explain the difference between theft from a high street store and theft from a family owned corner shop

 

Its different because LDV says so, because in his head it makes sense. Or justifies his shoplifting at least.

[Ruger]

 

SO in LDV's eyes those who stole stuff during the riots were okay in his book, because they were poorer than the nasty rich people who own the shops.

Big high street stores is fine, not family owned shops.

But if people didn't break the law, there would be no need for police. But then if there is no police, whats to stop someone commiting a crime....

The question that people should be interested in what crime occurs and why. In a society with a State that supports capitalism there will be wealth inequality and thus reason to steal.

 

 

What a complete load of rubbish, how do you come to that conclusion?. You think if there were no wealth inequality that people wouldnt still steal from each other?!?!?! Hahahaaaaaa WTF