Knowsley borough council are planning on treating up to 50 louts to a day out at Alton Towers in an attempt to prevent a repeat of the previous years antics of vandalism on Halloween. The day out will hopefully leave them tired and will ultimately force them to stay in.

What do you think of this idea?

Here is the link to the story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/20/nlout20.xml

Well, its the same old story that the good kids get nowt the yobs get the sympathy.
A boot camp is the only answer to sort them out.
Some may say bring back national service but personally i believe that would just put young men in a position were they would not want to be therefor not getting a dedicated army.
we could bring back floggin for the muggers and burglars.

As you may have guessed,i think this idea stinks."Tough on crime,tough on the causes of crime" wasn't it Tony,yeah looks like it mate.
The last time i went to Alton Towers it cost me about £25,plus traveling down there. Next time i'll remember to just smash a few windows or burn a car out.:mad:

Absurd. I can't encapsulate in words the utter contempt I have for this government. The sooner Labour are out, the better.

That's a pretty dumb idea.:loopy:
So reward these louts with a day out at a fairground to enjoy themselves while other more deservng well behaved kids get what???? Nothing probably.
So the do-gooders who pay their taxes actually get to front all this?
Why not tire tham out by making them do something else, like build a community bonfire, make halloween decorations and costumes, carve pumpkins etc. I don't know, anything but a big fat treat for being what? a lout? Seems like a reward for the kids to misbehave next year so they get a day out at Alton Towers. Hell, I'd be bad for that!!!!!!!!

I cannot see what all the fuss is about. I can't imagine anything worse than a day at Alton Towers. The crimes these people must have committed to be condemned to that must be heinous.

I wonder if they'll wreck Alton Towers, steal things, break rides, vandalise the monorail, pull up plants, shoplift, fight other kids there, push to the front of the queues.....

I say lock them onto a ride and make them sit in it all day. Pick one of the pukiest nastiest rides. Enjoy!

That's nothing. My next door neighbour takes problematic kids drumming, scuba diving, canoeing, and climbing.

Before you throw blanket criticisms, it behooves you to look for balanced sources, and the actual circumstances of the visit.

A quick session with google will reveal all....

Ah yes, someone ELSE quoting from the Telegraph

That wonderfully balanced newspaper with no agenda of its own and which never ever prints lies, err sorry, mistruths

I can't think of one good reason why yobbos should be taken on a trip anywhere other than to the nearest prison or young offenders centre.

The council feel its a good deal at £500 with group discount and Asda providing food and buses given free. Well I think that it stinks. What sort of message are we giving to the good kids.

Another example of papering over the cracks by some half baked Labour council.

Maybe we could all chip in for some running machines, which these "louts" would be forced to run on before they become exhausted! Channel 4 could then spin-it off as a sick reality programme - with all profits going back to the government's anti-lout fund :P

I think some people on this post need to open their eyes a little. Do you really think that ANY government would undertake such an obviously unusual method without reason?

Although I disagree with the idea to 'reward' wrongdoers, i think the idea of trying to keep 'troubled youths' off the streets is a good one. After all, how much of tax payers money would it cost to repair all of their vandalisms, or keep them in Prison, where they would only associate with people who would encourage their bad behaviour. These are only kids, after all and I think that if they can be got off the "crime track" early, then they won't grow up into complete ******** later...

Originally posted by Agent Dan
I think some people on this post need to open their eyes a little. Do you really think that ANY government would undertake such an obviously unusual method without reason?

Although I disagree with the idea to 'reward' wrongdoers, i think the idea of trying to keep 'troubled youths' off the streets is a good one. After all, how much of tax payers money would it cost to repair all of their vandalisms, or keep them in Prison, where they would only associate with people who would encourage their bad behaviour. These are only kids, after all and I think that if they can be got off the "crime track" early, then they won't grow up into complete ******** later...


Yes I do think that politicians would undertake such a method because it's far easier than getting to the root cause.

It wouldn't cost taxpayers anything if the people who were resposible for vandalism were made to pay for it eg take it out of their state handouts or wages in the unlikely event of them working or if they are underage then make their parents pay


...simple.

And the root of the problem is?

Also, how do you expect them to pay for it? It is likely their parents won't be able to afford it either...

Originally posted by Mo
Yes I do think that politicians would undertake such a method because it's far easier than getting to the root cause.

It wouldn't cost taxpayers anything if the people who were resposible for vandalism were made to pay for it eg take it out of their state handouts or wages in the unlikely event of them working or if they are underage then make their parents pay


...simple.
Simple it may seem but unfortunately you would need to set up the infrastructure to manage it. Who would monitor the youths while they 'made good' the damage they had done? Which service or department would be expected to switch resources to do this? Where would the material come from?

If you were to make those existing on 'handouts' pay for repairs then how would they live? Presumably, you would have them begging or stealing.

Far better to pay to encourage them out of the lifestyle they have adopted.

And no, this is not bleeding heart, do-goody liberalism, this is simple economics.

Maybe it's that a lot of these 'louts' come from problem backgrounds. Abuse by parents guardians, kicked out of home, poverty and social exclusion.

Maybe the governments idea is to show these kids that people do care about them. That there ARE good things in life other than the poverty/problems they have endured probably since birth.

Maybe by showing them this, they are altering their view on life and maybe they'll change their ways.

I'm not saying I agree with it, or disagree. I'm just offering an alternative view on things.

Imaging you were brought up in a rough area, imagine your family on the poverty line and maybe your parents had to steal to put food on the table. Maybe they had to do other things.
Maybe all you have seen in your life is a single parent (maybe mother) who has been in the trap of disasterous relationships and abuse, violence and poverty is all you know. Maybe this has (subconciously) made you angry at life as whole... and as a release you vandalise things.

Sometimes it's easy to say we need to be tougher and show that we wont be taken advantage of. But sometimes, we need to look outside our own box and see the troubles facing some of these 'louts'.

Ok I admit that not all are from bad neighbourhoods and maybe some are just spoilt to the fact that they enjoy destruction and vandalism.

I know it's no excuse to do these things, but by showing these kids that there is more to life. Somehow they can be changed.

Is that such a bad thing?

Well said max and DB! :clap:

Well as soon as i saw this thread i saw red and jumped in feet first with ranting opinions, then DB goes and comments and puts my view in a totally different perspective.
You are right DB and that has got to be taken into account and if we look at it as a way of reform instead of 'reward' then yes maybe it is money well spent.
If that does not work and they take there criminal ways into adult ud then the courts should make them repay.

The root of the problem is that they do it because they get away with it. Then not only do they get away with it, they actually get a day out because of it.

How on earth do you see this as a deterrent or life changing experience. It's what it is...... ' a day out for thugs'.

Why shouldn't the money for repairing damage they have caused come from their pocket?

Originally posted by Mo
The root of the problem is that they do it because they get away with it. Then not only do they get away with it, they actually get a day out because of it.

How on earth do you see this as a deterrent or life changing experience. It's what it is...... ' a day out for thugs'.

Why shouldn't the money for repairing damage they have caused come from their pocket?

Cos they haven't got any?

Drown 'em all in barrels!

Originally posted by MichaelTravis
Drown 'em all in barrels!

And why not? It would save money on prison costs, rehabilitation (sp?), prevent further reoffending...

The root of the problem is that they do it because they get away with it. Then not only do they get away with it, they actually get a day out because of it.

How on earth do you see this as a deterrent or life changing experience. It's what it is...... ' a day out for thugs'.

Why shouldn't the money for repairing damage they have caused come from their pocket?


I *thought* they did it because they were bored/ didn't know any better/ came from disadvantaged backgrounds/ had no money/ problems at home... And I'm middle class supposedly... How can you justify your opinion? Have you had any experience with these 'louts'?

Originally posted by Mo
The root of the problem is that they do it because they get away with it. Then not only do they get away with it, they actually get a day out because of it.

How on earth do you see this as a deterrent or life changing experience. It's what it is...... ' a day out for thugs'.

Why shouldn't the money for repairing damage they have caused come from their pocket?
Again Mo with all due respect, you aren't looking outside what you see. You see them causing damage, you see them breaking the law. But you don't see WHY!!!

A human isn't born evil or bad (on the whole) they develope that through life experience. You may be the best mum in the worldand your children may grow to be doctors, plumbers or journalists... but on the flip side. Those who know only poverty and 'one side of life' may grow to be thugs, louts, vandals etc.

Maybe by showing them that life isn't just crap and that people DO care, then there future actions may be changed.

What good will come from showing a child/teen more pain and misery from their actions when thats all they have seen. They'll just do it again.

Again, it's the norm to think punish first. But that isn't always the best solution to the problem!

Originally posted by Agent Dan
I *thought* they did it because they were bored/ didn't know any better/ came from disadvantaged backgrounds/ had no money/ problems at home... And I'm middle class supposedly... How can you justify your opinion? Have you had any experience with these 'louts'?

I think that I'm well placed to voice an opinion on this one. I could well have been one of these yobs but I'm not.

I came from a one parent family, have never set eyes on my father as I was abandoned at 2 months old. Was brought up in rented accommodation with damp dripping down the walls, one cold tap to the property, no bath, ouside toilet (and that was in the 1970's).

My mum did all she could workwise to provide for me without a penny from the state. Perhaps she could have got DSS help I don't know but she had a work ethic that seems to be missing in a lot of todays parents. She worked her bloody hands to the bone for me. She taught me right from wrong and that you have to be responsible for your actions. If you do wrong you are punished, simple as that.

I was lucky that I had my mum. She was adamant that I shouldn't have the life she did. I went to university and have done alright for myself.

So don't give me all that disadvantaged crap because it's just a cop out.

I don't believe it is a cop out, actually. You seem to have avoided that course of action, but that doesn't mean everyone else can, or knows how to. There must have been times in your life when you did 'wrong' stuff, or came close to behaving like a 'yob'... no-one's perfect, after all. And if you had been caught, would you have been able to pay for it? Don't forget, it also sounds like your mum really cared for and looked after you, which is not something everyone gets to experience. If she hadn't been there to support you how do you think you might have turned out? This is hypothetical, of course, ad I am just trying to get you to think about it a different way...

I think what I'm trying to get at is this:
"what is the motivation for vandalsim?"

If it was just "because they could get away with it" then there's be all sorts of other things they can do not just vandalsim... There has to be more to it than that (even if the 'louts' are unaware of the reasons themselves)

Mo

You obviously had a mother who loved you

Lucky you

That is what made the difference, that is why you "turned out well"

The kids causing the most trouble tend to be physically abused, neglected and angry youngsters

There would be two ways to stop them behaving badly

1. make their mums love them too (let me know how you get on with that will you)

2. change something about their life so that they can stop feeling angry, cheated and sure that everybody else in the world is getting something they are not

err....that's it

You can punish people, beat them, take money off them, lock them up, all sorts of things, but none of those change behaviour or change lives, they just reinforce the original feeling the youngsters have

They stop committing crime when they stop feeling like an under dog

QED

Not all yobs come from disadvantaged homes or abusive parents, some have good parents who are pulling there hair out because there offspring choose to go down the crime path.

very very very very rarely - ask a Probation Officer

One other thing that is missing from all the lock 'em up arguments is that these 'treats' are not handed out on a whim. They are determined by professionals who have studied the subject at university, worked with juveniles, studied systems throughout the world and, more than likely, written erudite papers on the subject of juvenile delinquency. They it is who have discovered that the re-offending rates of people who have been treated to a more 'caring' regime is far lower than the rates of people who have been incarcerated.

Speaking personally, I would far rather trust their judgement than that of the Telegraph journo who has a, not very hidden, agenda.

Additionally, as I said in an earlier post, the reason these professionals are listened to by successive governments is that it is cheaper to prevent crime than it is to punish it. These jollies were being handed out during the tory era too and the tories certainly didn't condone caring solutions unless there was a financial return.

These kids do it because it is a "buzz". They get a rush of adrenaline and get to look big in front of their mates. Half of them are plastic, wannabe gangsters who think being "bad" is the smart and easy way to get on and the other half are the ones who go along with the others to "fit in".

Being soft is not the answer and rewarding criminals to "show we care" is just plain stupid. All this does is make these kids feel even more untouchable and powerful. It will not discourage them from doing criminal things - it will actually encourage them.

The courts should indeed get tougher and the kids, and their parents, should be made to financially pay for their crimes - on top of any other punishment like community service or prison. If they can't pay immediately then the court (at the time of conviction) should simply issue an attachment of earnings/benefits to automatically reclaim the money.

That said, I also think communities need to do more. They need to get together and take some responsibility for tackling problems and not expecting the police to deal with everything. Next time some snotty nosed, mouthy yob tells you "you can't prove nothing", remember that goes two ways! It is time people started to help themselves.

You can't seriously support vigilantism?

Is it the vandalsim of the rule breaking that you're referring to when you mention the 'buzz' they get? There are many other ways of releasing aggression which have the same chemical/psychological result... martial arts for example.

I blame the parents, but since I'm not one I don't know if that's a fair assessment.

Originally posted by Belle
Mo
You obviously had a mother who loved you
Lucky you
That is what made the difference, that is why you "turned out well"
The kids causing the most trouble tend to be physically abused, neglected and angry youngsters
There would be two ways to stop them behaving badly

1. make their mums love them too (let me know how you get on with that will you)

2. change something about their life so that they can stop feeling angry, cheated and sure that everybody else in the world is getting something they are not

err....that's it

You can punish people, beat them, take money off them, lock them up, all sorts of things, but none of those change behaviour or change lives, they just reinforce the original feeling the youngsters have

They stop committing crime when they stop feeling like an under dog

QED

Belle I'm trying really hard to understand your argument. I accept much of what you say but don't think that this is the right approach.

Offspring from bad parents will more than likely be bad parents themselves, so how do we break this cycle.

Perhaps some form of parentcraft classes. I don't know.

It's just too easy to blame society/unemployment/upbringing for an individuals misdemeanours. At some point people have to realise that they are responsible for their own actions.

Originally posted by Agent Dan
You can't seriously support vigilantism?
Do you call a plumber every time you have leaking tap? Of course not - you have a go at fixing it yourself.

Besides, if the plumber came out and told you his hands were tied without proof that it was that tap that made the puddle, then you're left with one choice - fix it yourself or live with a problem that will only get worse.

Originally posted by Agent Dan
Is it the vandalsim of the rule breaking that you're referring to when you mention the 'buzz' they get? There are many other ways of releasing aggression which have the same chemical/psychological result... martial arts for example.
They get the "buzz" from doing something they are not meant to because it's exciting, risking, daring. I agree, there are plenty of other ways to get such a buzz that don't require breaking the law, making other peoples lives a misery or loads of money. That's why the "they're just poor kids with nothing to do, who need some loving" excuse is b*ll****!

Originally posted by Zamo
The courts should indeed get tougher and the kids, and their parents, should be made to financially pay for their crimes - on top of any other punishment like community service or prison. If they can't pay immediately then the court (at the time of conviction) should simply issue an attachment of earnings/benefits to automatically reclaim the money.


But it doesnt work!!

It has never worked

For two hundred years people have been calling for (and applying) the birch, stocks, short sharp shocks, borstal, big fines, big sentences....

Punitive measures make the victims feel that justice has been done (which is fine of itself) but it doesnt stop kids from committing crime or repeat offending

It has never stopped them, that is why even the tough old Tories got rid of Borstals and Boot camps etc

It DOESNT work

Kids dont expect to be caught anyway so they wont be stopped by the prospect of the punishment

Yes they want the buzz, do you think the threat of a big fine will stop that buzz?

No of course it wont

The only way to stop them is to change them

It is as simple as that

Yes Belle!

Of course kids will still do bad things no matter what the potential punishment but that's no reason to reward them instead of punishing them... that's nonsense!

Well it would be nonsense of course, if that was what this is about


But it isnt

It is about kids who have offended, have been punished and are now part of a programme to try and divert them away from criminal activity in the future

They will have been punished, this is an "extra", not an "instead of"

Originally posted by Mo
Perhaps some form of parentcraft classes. I don't know.


Well that certainly would be a very good idea, as part of a big package of all sorts of other measures

Spot the loony idea...

1. Buy joy-riders nice cars so they don't have to nick anyone elses.

2. Give money to muggers so they don't have to mug people anymore.

3. Take little sh*tbags out for fun days so they don't get up to sh*tbag things... for that day.

Of dear, there all loony ideas! :loopy: :loopy: :loopy:

Ah, the beautiful sound of a lost argument....

Originally posted by Belle
Ah, the beautiful sound of a lost argument....
Sorry, haven't got the speakers on... could you describe what you sound like?:thumbsup:

Originally posted by Belle
Ah yes, someone ELSE quoting from the Telegraph

That wonderfully balanced newspaper with no agenda of its own and which never ever prints lies, err sorry, mistruths

I am afraid that's a rather predictable response from someone who constantly quotes from the Guardian.



http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/tables/0,7680,1037778,00.html

I do NOT constantly quote from the Guardian

I dont even buy it

I do look at their website from time to time

I am guessing, but I reckon in over 500 posts I have probably quoted from the Guardian less than 10 times

I will let you do the searches to see if I am right

POKES TONGUE OUT

- and when I do, it is not to say "All truth can be read here" but to say "This might be worthy of a thread of debate"

I dont buy it because in my view it is far too biased - to the far left, not the Labour Party who it loathes, and not the LibDems or Tories but some mad idea of a Utopia that will never exist, yes you heard it hear first

What I buy are local and regional dailies and weeklies

So THERE!

And that is a crap argument against my views if it is ALL you can come up with (but would be okay if it was only one of a number of well thought out and expressed criticisms against me)

Ooh Dear, well never mind we all come out with rubbish at times but the main thing is we all have our own views and our views should be respected, now nobdy who has commented on this thread is correct because the world is not like that we just hope at the end of these daytrips that these thugs change for the better.

Originally posted by Belle
I do NOT constantly quote from the Guardian

I dont even buy it

I do look at their website from time to time

I am guessing, but I reckon in over 500 posts I have probably quoted from the Guardian less than 10 times

I will let you do the searches to see if I am right

POKES TONGUE OUT

- and when I do, it is not to say "All truth can be read here" but to say "This might be worthy of a thread of debate"

I dont buy it because in my view it is far too biased - to the far left, not the Labour Party who it loathes, and not the LibDems or Tories but some mad idea of a Utopia that will never exist, yes you heard it hear first

What I buy are local and regional dailies and weeklies

So THERE!

And that is a crap argument against my views if it is ALL you can come up with (but would be okay if it was only one of a number of well thought out and expressed criticisms against me)

Lets just say that if you are attacking me for quoting the Telegraph but you have quoted the Guardian more often then that is a bit of an unfair attack I feel. I withdraw what I said about you CONSTANTLY quoting the Guardian but you have quoted the Guardian on a few occasions. I happen to read almost all newspapers and think that all press are utter scum but do agree/enjoy the odd article. I draw my own conclusions to what I read and try to observe both sides. Incase you didn't notice I did not actually comment on the article in question I just used the article to try and create a debate. btw, for the record I was not attempting to criticise your views. You are very much entitled to whatever views you may have as we all are. I am firmly against anyone having their views but denying others people theirs. :)

Originally posted by Zamo
These kids do it because it is a "buzz". They get a rush of adrenaline and get to look big in front of their mates.

Next time some snotty nosed, mouthy yob tells you "you can't prove nothing", remember that goes two ways! It is time people started to help themselves.

Ah....lout bashing. The biggest buzz of them all! Now where did I put my cricket bat....

Originally posted by Lickszz
I am afraid that's a rather predictable response from someone who constantly quotes from the Guardian.



http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/tables/0,7680,1037778,00.html

Sorry Lickszz, but once again the Telegraph is not being entirely honest...

Telegraph circulation figures do look good, but only because so many copies are given away for free or are hevaily subsidised (I should know, theyvel been junk mailing me money-off coupons for over three years now)

Telegraph sales fall below 1m
http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,807028,00.html
Guardian article, October 2002

Originally posted by Abby
Sorry Lickszz, but once again the Telegraph is not being entirely honest...

Telegraph circulation figures do look good, but only because so many copies are given away for free or are hevaily subsidised (I should know, theyvel been junk mailing me money-off coupons for over three years now)

Telegraph sales fall below 1m
http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,807028,00.html
Guardian article, October 2002

Sorry Abby but I already viewed that out of date link sometime ago, it's dated October 2002 . Those figures in my message were August 2003. Nice try though. :D

ps - I wonder if there is an article titled Guardian readers fall below 300,000? :thumbsup:

Yes I know the article dates from last year - It's under the link I supplied ;)

And it doesn't change the fact most copies of the Telegraph are heavily subsidised, which would have an impact on those 'sales' figures

I'll send you the next money-off coupons I receive. 50p for the Saturday paper's an absolute bargain, but I wouldn't pay full price, or pay 20p for it during the week.

Originally posted by Lickszz
Knowsley borough council are planning on treating up to 50 louts to a day out at Alton Towers in an attempt to prevent a repeat of the previous years antics of vandalism on Halloween. The day out will hopefully leave them tired and will ultimately force them to stay in.

What do you think of this idea?

Here is the link to the story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/20/nlout20.xml

looking forward to a trip to alton towers then are you??

Originally posted by Abby
Yes I know the article dates from last year - It's under the link I supplied ;)

And it doesn't change the fact most copies of the Telegraph are heavily subsidised, which would have an impact on those 'sales' figures

I'll send you the next money-off coupons I receive. 50p for the Saturday paper's an absolute bargain, but I wouldn't pay full price, or pay 20p for it during the week.

Yes, your source is 'An unconventional view' Exactly! ;)

Originally posted by fittdiva
looking forward to a trip to alton towers then are you??

You're too quick off the mark, recap a fuller answer.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Maybe it's that a lot of these 'louts' come from problem backgrounds. Abuse by parents guardians, kicked out of home, poverty and social exclusion.



And what of those louts who don't come from these backgrounds? What's the reason for sending them?

Not all kids who come from problem backgrounds are offending, so what rewards are they getting this year? None, simply because they are behaving themselves. Is that fair?
Never mind though, if they use their brains they'll smash up a few cars so they can go next year. Who'd blame them, I wouldn't.
My kids would love to go but I can't afford to send them.

Think I'll send them out now to cause havoc!

Well what can I say. We've had years of political correctness and now all the closet flog hang em brigade are once again putting their heads above the parrapit. Do you know that eightyfive percent of the worlds wealth is owned by fivepercent of its population. Blaming these so called "louts" sounds to me like treating cancer by building more cemetaries.

You are all being "had" the minority privilege of these five percent effectively guarantees thier continued exploitation and control of the majority. These "louts" live lives often times in the most barbarous of conditions they are the victims of a generation so affraid to feel its own vulnerability that it is indifferent to the suffering of others. You are being "groomed" by these affluent pinstriped "Neo Conseratives?" into believing that the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in society are a legitimate target for the hostility usually reserved for those in power, who abuse that power. Is it really so very long ago that we have forgotten the rantings of a certain Austrian corporal. Any vulnerable group whom he fealt was marginalised enough was fair game.

"At first they came for the communists, and I said nothing"
"Then they came for the Homosexuals, and I said nothing"
"Then they came for the Gypsies and I said nothing"
"Then they came for the jews, and no one was left to speak for me ".

When we target the vulnerable because of our own weakness, we unleash the "wolfpack" mentality which guarantees that he who was safe today, is unsafe tommorow. It is the incremental annihilation of justice.

"All that is needed for hatred to triumph
is the denial of our own vulnerability."
"Alice Miller"

They have socially engineered political correctness, whose height was reached during the Thatcher/ Reagan years (incidentally) to so sicken people with liberal thinking that they could sell us slavery as freedom. Free to be in debt,free to have any kind of sex, so long as it doesn't involve intimacey, free to see the gap between rich and poor at its widest for thirtyfive years,free to see twenty six percent living beneath the poverty line (Rowntree)
free to see the lip service promises of the third way, degenerate into the rhetoric of elitist stratification. The list goes on. So before we knee jerk into Alf garnett mode lets get our heads from up our
A***s and realise that New labour is less about pragmatism and more about blaming the weak for the excesses of the powerful.

Originally posted by Lirean
Well what can I say. We've had years of political correctness and now all the closet flog hang em brigade are once again putting their heads above the parrapit....

...So before we knee jerk into Alf garnett mode lets get our heads from up our A***s and realise that New labour is less about pragmatism and more about blaming the weak for the excesses of the powerful.

I shant worry about the mixed metaphors in what generally was a fair post, and besides we all do it.

But if you think that New Labour is the same thing as the Hang Em and Flog Em Brigade, allow me to be the first to disabuse you. .

AFAIK the people on here who would prefer to be tough on the causes of crime and who are not interested in hanging or flogging, would tend to be of the Labour variety, and those who prefer to be tough on the criminal in particular, would tend to be of the Tory variety.

I expect I generalise madly, but I think I am broadly representing the picture

I suppose if you confuse the map for the reality then you would find it difficult to see the difference between cleverly packaged oppression and genuine social justice. "New Labrador" is barely able to see the differencse between the two.

Therefore when they propose inserting silicone chips under the skin of peodophiles to monitor them via satelite(a nice little earner for someone) we should all bar our teeth and rattle our chains in support?. We'll ignore all the research which actually validates a therapeutic approach and pander to the mob.

Do I think (anyone) should be allowed to hurt the innocent, definately and uneqivicolly not. Do I think that we can assign a lable to another human being which effectivley gives the right to meet one form of inhumanity with another again no. Persecution will solve nothing in the long run. Canada has become a model for this kind of successful treatment so why no pragmatism on this one. Uhm let me think.... Labour being populist under the guise of praxis surely not!.

My problem with Labour comes down fundementally to thier hypocracey. They (and by they I mean Tony and his chums)strike me, to have the, "do as I say and not as I do" down to an art form.
Private education for Tonys offspring, the journalistic version of the Bermuda triangle for the story concerning the "alleged" purchase of drugs by jack straws son from a reporter. Property scams, sorry alleged property scams...more?. Rights and RESPONSABILITYS, the erosion of rights and the explosion of resposibiltys.

When we have underfunded inner city schools being effectivley forced to falsify league table results. It all smacks of of too much form and not enough content. A bit like my mixed metaphors only being a child of the Socialist seventies I'm more concerned with what I say than with whether or not Ive missed a bit.

"Thats my story and Im sticking to it!.

To my mind the main difference between New Labour and the Conservative party is that with the Conservatives, you expected to be beaten over the head with the law and order big stick. New Labour beats you over the head with the big stick whilst offering you solice? in the form of some hijacked language from Carl Rogers.

"Look... we're not really having you over, we're facilitating your growth. We're levelling the playingfield by widening the gap between the rich and the poor, and fanning the flames of Racism and calling it "Multiculturalism". Because look...o.k we're all different and we should celebrate diversity by covering up all the things that unite us together".

Perhaps it was a flash of "persperation" Tony and Cherie had whilst on thier"vision quest" in the Mexican sweatlodge, when the Shaman said "connect with the "cosmic" consciousness Tony misheard and thought he'd said "cosmetic".




[