ANARCHY U.K.

Steve[/QUOTE]

FREEDOM IS THE PROBLEM
Steve

Yes I agree, this is the problem, to much freedom to do what one likes, especially in the classroom. I agree, the parents in many cases, are the cause of problem children. So if the parents can’t discipline their children properly, then school is the best place to reinstate this lost discipline. However as you know, schools are no longer allowed to discipline children, like they used to back in the 60’s. This is because the nanny state has ruled,that discipline of a psychological or physical nature, harms children. Which in my view, is the biggest load of codswallop one could possibly imagine. I don’t know how this came about, but I guess it was as a result of some psychological studies, by so called child experts. So this is what we are up against, and now we are reaping the fall out from all this. So I hope you can see, that the interfering nanny state is a source of present day problems.
How on earth we will ever resolve this problem is any body’s guess, the damage has been done.

Therefore if you want to avoid anarchy, your attitude has to be ‘I will conform,’ and by so doing setting a positive example for the young. It might be painful but it is the only approach that offers any hope of avoiding the total anarchy you fear.

Steve

Exactly.
____________________________

Roscoria, I think you’ve missed the point of my post……………

FREEDOM IS THE PROBLEM, or rather people percieveing that their personal freedom is more important than social cohesion; coupled with an increasing tendency not to accept law, and regulate themselves in accordance with it. A problem which with each succsesive generation worsens.

Please reflect upon this, children often have their respect for society’s rules (ie the law)undermined from infancy, for example;

Parents telling children seated in the back of th car ‘it’s ok to do 40 in a 30mph limit.’

Similarly ‘smoking cannabis is harmless, I did it and it didn’t harm me.’

Such comments send out the message that it is ok to selectively obey/disregard the law, at the very stage in life where children’s future attitudes are being nurtured. This is the first step on the road to anarchy, and a direct result of the increasingly prevalent attitude that one’s personnal freedom is more important than the law.

There is also a tendency to be-little the police, and telling childrren that they don’t care or are incompetent this sends out the message that even if you break the law you won’t get caught, and even if you do you will get a disproportionately light sentance. This again damages the next generations respect for society and the law that is there to protect one and all.

Allways remember children turn out the way they do because of all the adults around them, with parents playing the leading role.

Your comment about getting rid of the nanny state is just the sort of remark that has under-mined young peoples social attitudes ie. the state restricts me therefore it is an obstacle and should be derrided and if possible ignored. And please remember NO STATE (nanny or otherwise) = ANARCHY.

Therefore if you want to avoid anarchy, your attitude has to be ‘I will conform,’ and by so doing setting a positive example for the young. It might be painful but it is the only approach that offers any hope of avoiding the total anarchy you fear.

Steve

Let’s get back to regulating ourselves, and get away from this European nanny state culture.

Too late. And not just in the UK.

If we wish to avoid anarchy, and remember that true anarchy is the absolute removal of law, and thus absolute personnal freedom, we need to start to accept giving up some of our freedom and accept that in order to function a society must have the right to regulate itself; even if sometimes that means we can’t have or do what we want as individuals.

I’m willing. Are you?

Steve.

This paragraph, perfectly exemplifies what is badly needed in Britain. Let’s get back to regulating ourselves, and get away from this European nanny state culture.
_________________________________

Hi Again,

As I see it the problem is this ;

In order to get elected the politicians court the support of two groups, the electorate and the establishment. This support is garnered largely in the following ways.

1. Letting the establishment continue as they always have, with a generally free had to ‘bend the law’ as they see fit. The politicians are of course rewarded for this (have a look at the registers of members interests – and remember a bribe is still a bribe even if you do tell to people about it). By always acting in an alliance of vested interests, these two groups set a poor example to the bulk of society.

2. With dwindling electoral turnouts they seek to engage the voters with ‘virtual bribes’ promises of better schools, talk of freedom and choice etc.
It is this latter post Thatcherite posturing that has done much to change people’s attitudes – to the point where individual liberty has become more important than social cohesion (witness the thread on bicycle helmets!), to the detriment of all, as the majority of this lands citizens imitate the self centred and egotistical behaviour of their ‘leaders.’

If we wish to avoid anarchy, and remember that true anarchy is the absolute removal of law, and thus absolute personnal freedom, we need to start to accept giving up some of our freedom and accept that in order to function a society must have the right to regulate itself; even if sometimes that means we can’t have or do what we want as individuals.

I’m willing. Are you?

Steve.

Quite right, Steve.

Rights are inextricably linked with responsibilities and, to my mind, the denial of that crucial linkage is at the root of many of the problems that beset us today.

…………..

The “no blame” culture that pervades the corridors of political and economic power has a lot to answer for.

Grey,

All too correct. The “No blame” culture stems from the fact that by ducking responsibility and passing it on to others, those in power can’t be held accountable for problems or failures, and thus the mistakenly believe they will never be seen as fallible. What most of them fail to realise is that such actions also show them to be the spineless wimps they really are, totally unwilling to take repsonsibility for their own actions.

As the old saying goes “If they can’t stand the heat , then they shouldn’t be in the kitchen…”. Unfortunately too many people in public office see attainment of said public office as a boost for their own ego and status, rather than seeing it as a chance to serve others.

Only when people start taking responsibility for the results of their own decisions and actions will things get any better.

This applies at all levels, even down to the basic roots of society too – if my kids start behaving like yobs, surely I must accept some responsibility for not teaching them right from wrong, or for not teaching them to respect other people and their property – but these days it is all too easy to sit back and blame society, school, pressures of modern life (a politically acceptable term for greed?), popular press, media shows, the “must Have it all now” mentality, etc etc for such behaviour, as this means I do not have to brand myself as having “failed” in some way.

Fortunately Mrs Paul F and I are both of an age where we were taught such basic life skills and morals. As a result we owe no-one anything, and we don’t buy anything we can’t pay for at the time we buy it. This means our kids don’t always get what they want, nor do they wear designer clothes, we don’t go on holidays we can’t afford, nor do we always buy the latest gadget or fashion trend. At Christmas we spend far less then the media reported “average per head”, and we treat others as we would hope to be treated ourselves, and have taught our childen this rule too. At times they have felt that Mum and Dad are too conservative (with a small “c”), and are unnesccearily stopping them fit in with their peer groups who all have the latest mobile phone, i-Pod, Trainers or whatever. However, they have both eventually realised that todays “must have” item is usually tomorrows “must replace” item.

We don’t claim to be perfect, far from it, but when we do make a mistake, we accept responsibility, apologise for it and do our best to put things right, to try and learn from the mistake, and then move on… we certainly don’t try and blame anyone else for our own failures.

I hope our children will take full responsibility for the decisions they make in their lives as they grow up and move on…. if they do then they will find themsleves swimming against the tide of populist opinion even more then we have….I hope they have the courage and commitment to do so.

Sorry – Rant over.:o

Paul F

Quite right, Steve.

Too many people conveniently overlook the fact that rights only form one part of the “social equation”.

Rights are inextricably linked with responsibilities and, to my mind, the denial of that crucial linkage is at the root of many of the problems that beset us today.

The causes and roots of this denial are varied and subtle but because we are human, we all expect to find simple binary “black and white” answers to these complex problems.

It’s just not realistic to expect an overnight solution, but a firm re-acceptance of the concept of personal responsibility by political and economic leaders and institutions, including those at the very apex of our political structure, would be a useful starting point IMHO.

The “no blame” culture that pervades the corridors of political and economic power has a lot to answer for.

Grey Area is spot on with regards to human rights; personnally I have yet to meet a critic of human rights who has actually read the charter and all have shown their profound ignorance as to what it actually says.

These critics should of course read the charter and then decide which articles thaey would personnally be willing to give up. The right to life perhaps?

The real problem is in how do you police and enforce human rights. Most people rightly percieve them as something they are entitled to, but pay scant or no regard to the same fundemental rights of others. I personnally believe that the corner stone of law should be an obligation for all citizens to observe the human rights of their fellow citizens – because only when all prosecutions contain a human rights element will they truely start to pervade our collective conscience.

Steve.

…….The reason this country is heading for Anarchy, is simply because certain individuals have this freedom to do what they like, without fear of the law coming down HARD on them…..

You may well be right, but there’s absoutely nothing in the HR Act that grants them that particular freedom or anything that remotely resembles it. Despite this, the blame is almost always laid on the HR Act. Strange, no?

My two-pennorth, for what it’s worth, is that laying the blame for all of the ills of society on the law is simply one of a number of means by which people and institutions can shrug off their own responsibilities onto someone or something else. We see it all the time, and in a variety of guises.

For instance, what’s “Attention Deficit Disorder”? When I was a lad, it was known as “being a little b*gger” and the sure-fire cure was a clip round the ear.

But nowadays – oh, no – it’s an illness, which means that it’s up to doctors to sort out while the little brat’s parents wring their hands and agonise about what Society has done to their little “martyr”.

The Human Rights Act is about basic fairness for all people.

It is about understanding the respect due to every one of us.

It is about recognising that some rights and freedoms are so important and so fundamental that they should be protected by law in civilised respectable nations.

There’s nothing in the Act that says that criminals should be treated leniently.

Nothing in there that compels you to act as a punchbag for some mindless thug.

Nothing in the Act that says we must all slavishly pander to every whim and fancy of feckless acne-ravaged chavs for fear of violating their “human rights”.

Try reading what the Act itself says – the link points to the “Articles” which are the “meat” of the Act – rather than going by what other people with an agenda try to pretend it says. I particularly recommend Articles 16, 17 and 18, which explode a number of the “myths” associated with the Act.

I’m sure that there really are people in favour of arbitrary execution, pro-torture, pro- slavery, in favour of imprisonment without trial or due process, opposed to the concept of a fair trail, against the idea of privacy and repect for family life, anti-freedom of expression, against freedom of association and in favour of discrimination.

If that is the case, then I can readily understand their dislike of the Human Rights Act because those are the issues that the HR Act addresses.

Yes we all know what the human rights law is supposed to be for, but in reality it’s misused by lawyers. The reason this country is heading for Anarchy, is simply because certain individuals have this freedom to do what they like, without fear of the law coming down HARD on them. They know their rights probably better than I know mine. I no longer feel safe, living in Britain, especially when working in London. About 35 years ago, this thought wouldn’t have entered my mind. It just shows how things have changed for the worst, and there’s no hope of it getting any better. Depressing isn’t it, but we only have ourselves to blame, for this ridiculous state of affairs. As you know, we have the worst reputation in Europe, for bringing up children correctly.
So what does that say about our society, it says things are not right. We don’t need to carry on fooling ourselves into thinking, that everything in the garden is rosy, when it obviously isn’t.
________________________________

The Human Rights Act is about basic fairness for all people.

It is about understanding the respect due to every one of us.

It is about recognising that some rights and freedoms are so important and so fundamental that they should be protected by law in civilised respectable nations.

There’s nothing in the Act that says that criminals should be treated leniently.

Nothing in there that compels you to act as a punchbag for some mindless thug.

Nothing in the Act that says we must all slavishly pander to every whim and fancy of feckless acne-ravaged chavs for fear of violating their “human rights”.

Try reading what the Act itself says – the link points to the “Articles” which are the “meat” of the Act – rather than going by what other people with an agenda try to pretend it says. I particularly recommend Articles 16, 17 and 18, which explode a number of the “myths” associated with the Act.

I’m sure that there really are people in favour of arbitrary execution, pro-torture, pro- slavery, in favour of imprisonment without trial or due process, opposed to the concept of a fair trail, against the idea of privacy and repect for family life, anti-freedom of expression, against freedom of association and in favour of discrimination.

If that is the case, then I can readily understand their dislike of the Human Rights Act because those are the issues that the HR Act addresses.

1.Every one has a right to legal representation to be treat with respect and dignity no matter what your crime.
2.People have been coming to this country up to no good for hundreds of years.
3.As no1, people have rights,but i agree that the police and courts have thier hands tied on the subject of anti social behaviour.
4.”Discipline the young,properly”?how?by beating them or hitting them with a cane at school,yes that really worked..not.
5.You can defend yourself and if you do it” effectively “then no1 comes into effect for YOU.

1. This country has always had a fair criminal justice system, and criminals have always been treated with dignity and respect. Probably more so, than rapists and murderers give their victims.

2. Yes indeed they have, so why have a law, which makes it easier for them to carry on with their dirty work, and escape conviction.

3. Ditto.

4. School teachers should be allowed to use reasonable discipline, to control children that are badly behaved. Children need an authoritative figure, to give them guidance in good behavior, and respect. Not the other way around, where the children ” rule the roost ” so to speak, as they do these days. Back in my school days during the 60’s, things were certainly a lot different. We had a lot of respect for our teachers, and they didn’t stand for any nonsense, we certainly weren’t angels that’s for sure. No human rights law in the 60’s, we didn’t need it.

5. The human rights law, should protect me from an assailant, not the other way around. I have a basic human right, to be able to go about my business, without fear of being attacked by some moron.

Basically the human rights law, is a criminal Lawyers dream come true.
_____________________________________________

On Tuesday morning when I opened the curtains I saw a trailer parked opposite my house and fence a few doors down had graffiti sprayed on them during the night. I joked with my partner “I’d better check my car” and when I went to my car later I found I should of as I’d had one wing mirror ripped off.

I went to local station only to find it had closed to public on Friday so I went home and phoned 0845 number to report the vandalism.

After 25 minutes on the phone I was told graffiti would need to be reported by victims not by 3rd party and whilst I was given crime number and told of investigating officers details I am not expecting to read of any arrests in local media!

Give us a Police force that operates when we need them to and then things might start getting better, until then I’m going to dig myself a very deep hole and hide….!!

Not quite. In respect of No5, if you defend yourself you are more likely to end up in court charged with assault while your attacker walks free and claims against you than your attacker being charged

Only if you haven’t done it effectively mike;)

Its a shame the way people think about the youth of today. Their not all like that ,the majority you see hanging about on street corners have nothing to do ,the play grounds are in disrepair ,sports fields full of needles or glass ,youth clubs closing. Even the pictures or going to the sports center gets expensive.
pumping monies into youth projects isn’t high on councils agendas as public feeling is more for the clean up the areas and get rid of the anti social aspect.

Not quite. In respect of No5, if you defend yourself you are more likely to end up in court charged with assault while your attacker walks free and claims against you than your attacker being charged

This silly little law is responsible for,

1. Protecting criminals.
2. Encouraging people to come to this country, who are up to no good.
3. protecting Yobs and troublemakers.
4. Making it impossible to discipline youngsters properly.
5. Making it impossible for the average citizen, to feel they can defend themselves effectively, if attacked.

1.Every one has a right to legal representation to be treat with respect and dignity no matter what your crime.
2.People have been coming to this country up to no good for hundreds of years.
3.As no1, people have rights,but i agree that the police and courts have thier hands tied on the subject of anti social behaviour.
4.”Discipline the young,properly”?how?by beating them or hitting them with a cane at school,yes that really worked..not.
5.You can defend yourself and if you do it” effectively “then no1 comes into effect for YOU.

I agree…. in terms of law and order what is this country coming to….?

Slightly off topic i know but does anyone remember the Stanstead Afgani hijackers?

Using guns and knives they hijacked a plane full of holiday makers, forced it to land at stanstead, would not co-operate with negotiators, kept the plane on the tarmac.. full of passengers, sorry ‘hostages’ for 5 days with little or no food, water and sanitation, all in the name of assylum seeking!
Most of them have been allowed to stay in the UK, were not deported on human rights grounds because they claimed they would face torture and/or death if returened to their home country, put up in a local hotel (the authorities claimed they had no-where else to put them!)
Went to court, the judge sent some of them to prison for a year or two, they appealed stating assyium seekers should not be held in prison, the appeal judge ruled… let them out into local authority (council) housing…
Some of the hijackers then made a ‘claim’ against their poor treatment and certain individuals of the group have been awarded as much as £150,000 !!!!
Yet no mention of the hostages and their ordeal, being taken to a foreign country (if memory serves me they originated outside the UK and were bound for turkey..? i think)
Men, women and young children having to ‘live’ on a airliner for 5 days in basic conditions under the constant threat violence or even death….

There you are chaps… sorry about all the fuss, at least we got you out of prison eh’

Sorry…. A house…?

Or you’ll tell everyone how horrid we were to you…?

Ok.. just one though….

Pardon…..? and 50grand a year for 3years whist you ‘settle in’

Or you’ll go the European court of human rights and drag the good name of Britain through the mud….?

Here you are then…. try not spend it all at once…. and try not to go waving your guns about on aeroplanes again eh there’s a good chap.

I seem to remember there was an outrage at the time over the ‘soft’ treatment of the hijackers, some of them, i think i am right in thinking do still reside in this country… i am not againt genuine assylum seekers… there are some horrific regimes around the world… but you only have to state your intention to the clerk at passport control… not by sticking a gun in pilots face!
If i have got anything here blindingly wrong, then i offer my appologies now, this happened 5/6 years ago-ish and i’ve just jotted it down quick from memory in-between meetings, i stand corrected if need be and all comemts gratefully recieved.

Going from bad to worse!!

The school education system in this country, is failing in it’s duty to educate some youngsters properly. It’s all to easy for some schools, to let the ones that have problems learning, fall by the wayside. These are the kids that turn into Yobs and troublemakers. They tend to come from poor families, whose mum or dad are poorly educated themselves. This is nothing new, so why is nothing being done about it. Put simply, it’s all because of that silly ” human rights ” law.
Yes that’s right, this silly little law is responsible for the mess this country is in now. If we are not careful, this silly little law, could cause ANARCHY on the streets of Britain, in the future, and could spell trouble for the government.
This silly little law is responsible for,

1. Protecting criminals.
2. Encouraging people to come to this country, who are up to no good.
3. protecting Yobs and troublemakers.
4. Making it impossible to discipline youngsters properly.
5. Making it impossible for the average citizen, to feel they can defend themselves effectively, if attacked.

These are some of the things I can think of now, I am sure there are more.

Now you would think, that the human rights law, would be on the side of the law abiding citizen, but it quite clearly isn’t.
It’s effectively creating, an underclass of untouchables.

So what do I think of Britain 2007?

🙁 I am a retired PC and we could enforce the laws and have the backing of Magistrates and the Police Authority in the 60’s.

Nowdays no respect is shown for anyone and I would certainly NOT like to be a PC trying to enforce legislation in todays climate. (no backing is ever forthcoming for the Police now)

Something severe will have to be done as we cannot continue in this manner for much longer without even greater problems confronting us.

dakota

If the law doesn’t protect the average citizen, then there is no hope for this country. I wouldn’t like to see a situation develop, where every young kid has to have a Gun for protection. There is an underclass of young people developing, which we haven’t seen before. These make the Hells Angels, look quite tame in comparison.
_________________________________

Anarchy

🙁 I am a retired PC and we could enforce the laws and have the backing of Magistrates and the Police Authority in the 60’s.

Nowdays no respect is shown for anyone and I would certainly NOT like to be a PC trying to enforce legislation in todays climate. (no backing is ever forthcoming for the Police now)

Something severe will have to be done as we cannot continue in this manner for much longer without even greater problems confronting us.

dakota