Henry Moor sculpture sold for scrap!

How right you are, John.

I believe I brought my son up in that way and now it seems as though my grandson understands what is right and wrong and is developing a sense of responsibility and consideration for others.

I am sure we are not alone and that thousands of families still live by these lights. The problem is the thousands which do not. Unfortunately, although you did not mention it, the problem is exacerbated by the daily doses of soap, reality, game-show and inane celebrity television.

Charlie,

You and I both know that Pandora’s Box is well and truly open. I do not know whether it will be possible to get the lid down. If it is, it could take years.

A moral revival has to begin in the home. What chance is there? We now practically have two generations without the kind of moral certainty that comes from strong moral guidance. Where is the example from the top? Politicians are regularly caught with their fingers in the till. They are exposed, then appear on or in the media totally without shame or embarrassment to justify their wrongdoing.

We presently have the unprincipled and wrongful activities of the Press brought to our attention. Wreaking havoc in some lives and yet my bet is that they will escape relatively unpunished.

If those who we used to refer to as ‘our elders and betters’ are unable to provide a moral example, what chance for the rest of us?

Given our limitations of opportunity Charlie, I think that all we can do is to set an example during our daily lives that might provide some ideas to others that they will think worthy of copy.

Very well put!

You are right about soft sentencing, hence my desire for non-custodial tough, unpaid community service, – tagged. Alternatively offenders boot camps might be as good operated by the ever increasing numbers of redundant ex-servicemen. The word punishment needs to be re-applied.

As to your last point – yes, of course, but how? Any ideas?

We have a judiciary that, for the most part is weak, limp wristed and ineffective because we now have, and have had, for at least four decades, a heavily politicised, socially engineered so-called liberal left State education system. Private education has to a lesser extent been similarly affected.

This system has, as its core belief, the view that people are born innocent and become corrupted by society. Hence the familiar refrain: ‘He comes from a broken home’ ‘he has known only poverty and deprivation’ ‘he was physically/sexually/mentally abused’ ‘raised in foster homes’ every excuse that can be offered in mitigation is offered.

The opposite of all this is the view that people are born with a ready capacity for wrong doing. They are then redeemed by a society that imparts a strong work ethic, a code of behaviour which includes practical concern for the week and disadvantaged, a code that features compassion and selflessness as familar constituents. This is a code that tolerates the odd ‘slip from grace’ on the basis that: ‘to err is human; to forgive divine’.

By failing to deliver appropriate sentencing, we deny the offender the chance of rehabilitation. Soft sentencing encourages re-offending. Until our judiciary grasp this so simple point, nothing will change and we will continue to be outraged by some media reports. Above all else, we need a nationwide moral revival.

So, are we saying they should have had a lower sentence or the worse scumbags should have got more? Or should the judge have been sent down?

No, I’d put the lot of them up against a wall…

I think it goes back to the post pointing out the inconsisterncy in sentencing between what one might perceive as a very serious crime and another far less serious being given not disimilar sentences.

In any case I would rather see “minor/petty” criminals working out their sentences in the community doing tough unpaid work, rather than taking up space in a prison cell.

I’ve never really enjoyed any of Moore’s sculptures that i’ve seen in the past but that one is quite pleasant to be fair.

So, are we saying they should have had a lower sentence or the worse scumbags should have got more? Or should the judge have been sent down?

Sorry – completely missed it!! Perhaps one of these :rolleyes: might have helped!

Certainly not offended at all, just amazed that you ascribe those adjectives to the great and good. People described thus cannot be great or good, in my book.

Irony, sarcasm.
Call it what you will.

I’ve yet to meet any of those.
You must move in different social circles to me.
Revolution..??
I’m sorry Charlie if you’re offended by my choice of words but I’ll stick with my life experiences.
I wrote this after hearing (yesterday) about a particularly small and shabby maneuver in a workplace, where someone did another down–total gain from shafting another human being–£20.00 a week.
Our masters must be wetting themselves with glee at the ease of it all.

Well, that I wouldn’t know, Andy – my small social group comprises a pretty ordinary bunch of people, some retired, some not, who just get on with their lives.

Certainly not offended at all, just amazed that you ascribe those adjectives to the great and good. People described thus cannot be great or good, in my book.

The great and good are those who do act selflessly for the good of others.

I’ve yet to meet any of those.
You must move in different social circles to me.

And I do not share your choice of adjectives to describe the majority of us.
In any case how should we act to prevent what you have described?

Revolution..??
I’m sorry Charlie if you’re offended by my choice of words but I’ll stick with my life experiences.
I wrote this after hearing (yesterday) about a particularly small and shabby maneuver in a workplace, where someone did another down–total gain from shafting another human being–£20.00 a week.
Our masters must be wetting themselves with glee at the ease of it all.

[QUOTE=Andy in Beds;1958856

Due to apathy, ignorance, greed and manipulation on the part of the majority (us–largely), the so called great and the good get away with murder and much else besides.
If more of us took an interest and acted accordingly,

Andy[/QUOTE]

Well I would take the opposite view in that by definition those who act as you describe are certainly not either great or good. The great and good are those who do act selflessly for the good of others. And I do not share your choice of adjectives to describe the majority of us.

In any case how should we act to prevent what you have described?

Andy – I am never really sure what that cliche means – getting the leaders we deserve.

I suppose over the decades, as in most democracies, we get a mix of the great and good together with the incompetent and dreadful. That’s inevitable.

Well what it means to me in this country at least is roughly this.

Due to apathy, ignorance, greed and manipulation on the part of the majority (us–largely), the so called great and the good get away with murder and much else besides.
If more of us took an interest and acted accordingly, these people would need to be better, more honest, less indolent etc.

Of course, they feed us ****e, passed across as materialism, the media and a few promotions in the workplace. They realised long ago that they don’t need to hand out much to divide and rule–our simple greed will do the rest.

I think it was Roman who coined the phrase ‘Bread and Circuses’.

Andy

Andy – I am never really sure what that cliche means – getting the leaders we deserve.

I suppose over the decades, as in most democracies, we get a mix of the great and good together with the incompetent and dreadful. That’s inevitable.

Well Charlie.
Like politicians, we get the judiciary we deserve.
Ultimately they only survive because we (the great unwashed) tolerate them.

We are awash with apathy–bread and circuses etc

A.

The problem of sentencing has been with us for as long as my life and probably longer. Parliament makes the laws and then it is up to the magistrates and judges to interpret those laws and apply the sentences within the criteria the law lays down.

The problem lies with the judiciary, not with “the Country”. I am pleased the statue was returned – I had not registered the outcome of the story. Apologies.

Yes Kev, I largely agree.
While I like art, and I tend to think the sentences handed down in this case are too light, I also tend towards thinking that the sentence handed down in the case you mention is way, way too light.
Absurdly so.

In this country now, you can get away with 16 months for putting some poor b*st*rd in wheelchair (and doing a bunk from the scene) who was on his way home from work.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2237033/Drivers-70mph-road-duel-paralysed-motorcyclist-crash-sped-suburban-street.html

A.

Goes to show that some people value a bit of sculpture above human life. Was it only last week that a young man (I use the term loosely) bashed in the head of his girlfriend’s infant son and was then given just four years? I’m sure the article said he would be released within 20 months on account of time served and the subsequent halving of the sentence.

A bit of sculpture or a child’s life? Somehow, somewhere, this Country clearly lost all sense of priority.

Regards,

kev35

No winners there at all. The nation loses a sculpture by one of the greatest 20th century artists, and two criminals go to jail for a year for £46!!:(

The sculpture was recovered.

“Such nice looking lads…”:rolleyes: