Knife attacks in Sheffield 2018

[Eccy Beach 11]

Possibly - but your previous post seemed to try and cast shade on people’s opinilns on tougher sentencing but the article does appear to support that to an extent.

 

I see what you're saying but it does seem to be contradictory to a significant body of research which suggests tougher sentences do not contribute to reductions in criminality.

[lil-minx92 10]

What type of positions are you talking about for say an 18 year old lad with minimal academic qualifications?

 

Less positions/opportunities than the same 18 year old lad with excellent academic qualifications, but thats life.

[Guest makapaka]

Less positions/opportunities than the same 18 year old lad with excellent academic qualifications, but thats life.

 

That’s life?

 

It doesn’t have to be though does it.

 

We also then have to bear some of the consequences that come from it.

[truman 10]

That’s life?

 

It doesn’t have to be though does it.

 

We also then have to bear some of the consequences that come from it.

 

How would you change it?

[Baron99 794]

Sorry- just assuming the people they've arrested are responsible. They of course might not be.

 

---------- Post added 22-09-2018 at 18:23 ----------

 

 

An absolute insult to single mothers.

 

I know of a great many people who had awful parents, and turned out great.

 

Likewise there are many people with 'decent parents' who have gone on to be criminals. You can start with someone like Jeffrey Archer if you like.

 

Bad parents are nothing new....they haven't sprung up in the past year or so to explain the rise in violent crime I'm afraid. You'll have to find something else to blame....

 

And neither are bad governments to blame for rising crime. Back in the the 70's when there was higher unemployment; almost permanent industrial action; sky high inflation; fewer opportunities for school leavers; less in the way of benefits; fewer organisations that the working class could turn to for help, there wasn't the level of crime we are experiencng now.

 

Looking after a child is the primary responsibility of parents. They are the ones that children should be looking to. If you only do one thing in this life it should be to make sure that your children end up better off than yourself.

[lil-minx92 10]

That’s life?

 

It doesn’t have to be though does it.

 

We also then have to bear some of the consequences that come from it.

 

Of course it does. We are not homogeneous manufactured beings.

[paula4sheff 10]

And neither are bad governments to blame for rising crime. Back in the the 70's when there was higher unemployment; almost permanent industrial action; sky high inflation; fewer opportunities for school leavers; less in the way of benefits; fewer organisations that the working class could turn to for help, there wasn't the level of crime we are experiencng now.

 

Looking after a child is the primary responsibility of parents. They are the ones that children should be looking to. If you only do one thing in this life it should be to make sure that your children end up better off than yourself.

 

Yep - we all know that good parenting is important.

 

So what if you don't have it? Is that it? An endless cycle of people blaming their parents, and being written off for having bad parents?

 

People look back at the 70s on here constantly whilst forgetting that the world has changed. It's pretty irrelevant how people behaved back then, and it's the endless 'it was better in my day' that means nothing ever changes, and problems aren't dealt with.

 

It's a governments job to ensure equal opportunities and chances for all of its citizens, regards of their background. They're clearly failing - the gap between the rich and poor, the haves and the have nots, has never been bigger. Harking back to the 1970s regularly people conveniently forget things like that - there has NEVER been less opportunity for the have nots. And they are fully aware of this- hence their antisocial reactions.

 

Throwing out "back in my day we pulled ourselves up by the boot straps" type comments are utterly pointless. They're as antagonizing to people as someone sitting in a nice house saying "well in my day we worked hard and bought this house, so I don't know what young people are complaining about" being totally unaware that house ownership is out of the reach of so many now, through no fault of their own...when they bought theirs, it wasn't. Things have changed.

[Cyclone 10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-crime_hypothesis

 

Here's an interesting idea. When did we get rid of unleaded petrol?

2000 according to google.

 

So studies of the US (which banned leaded petrol in the 70's) saw a reversal of the continuing increase in crime 2 decades later.

We banned lead in petrol in 2000, we should expect crime to peak (amongst the young particularly) in 2020, and then start to decline. At least if the lead hypothesis is correct and childhood exposure to lead directly causes an increase in crime.

 

Lead is a very potent neurotoxin," says Gesch. "It has a range of effects on the brain that have been demonstrated through hundreds of different biological studies. Lead alters the formation of the brain. It reduces the grey matter in areas responsible for things such as impulse control and executive functioning - meaning thinking and planning."

 

In other words - lead poisoning leads to bad decisions. The lead theorists say the poison has a time-lag effect which could not be understood until recently.

 

evin calculated the rise and fall of the presence of lead from petrol and he compared that curve to the modern history of violent crime. What he came up with was rather startling.

 

When the amount of lead in the environment increased, Nevin showed a corresponding rise in violent crime two decades later. And when the amount of lead in the environment fell, violent crime also tracked down - again about 20 years later.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27067615

Edited September 25, 2018 by Cyclone

[Guest makapaka]

How would you change it?

 

By a better distribution of investment and wealth to generate better opportunities for young people.

 

---------- Post added 25-09-2018 at 17:12 ----------

 

Of course it does. We are not homogeneous manufactured beings.

 

 

You used "that's life" in the context that nothing could be done about it. When of course we are able to develop people who have more practical skills than academic qualifications. We just need industry to employ them.

[bassett one 450]

with drugs the top man drives a big car,has lots of cash and women,this becomes a magnet for the youth that thinks its easy,so off they go and within hours they make big money,then they get killed or caught,then the big man gets another muppet to do the job,were the chances of being caught or killed are high,eventually the big man gets caught,but theres another person to take his place,it needs more police simple

[truman 10]

By a better distribution of investment and wealth to generate better opportunities for young people.

 

That's a bit vague...any flesh for the bones?

[POLSKI 10]

What type of positions are you talking about for say an 18 year old lad with minimal academic qualifications?

 

 

 

Like me at 18, any job and use it as a stepping stone to a better position, evening classes for some further education, and also in my case, going self-employed at age 29 (nearly 30 years ago). OR I could have sat back and taken an easy ride.