Suffer the children #385

[Snoopy]

So it continues today with every news broadcast and news-paper trotting out Opinions from "On the Spot Reporters", Policemen (retired and serving), Members of Parliament, Social Workers, School Teachers and Parents.
Nobody seems to have asked the children yet ~ but no doubt they will get round to it.
The Schools blame the Parents, the Parents blame the Schools, the Police blame both of these plus lack of funds from Government, the MPs threaten action ~ unspecified but generally saying "we've changed the law and we'll change it again" and "the Police have had all the money they are going to get" winding up with a dig at "Poor Parenting Skills which they will have to teach us" ~ Like I'm going to take lessons from some twat whose 16 yo son was found face down in his own vomit, too drunk to stand up, in Leicester Square at 2 am (Weren't you Ewan Blair). Was anyone prosecuted? NO The nice policemen took him home to Mummy and Daddy who were too busy, running the country  lining their pockets, to keep an eye on him.
Meanwhile the Social Workers are using it as an excuse to ........... Do what they always do ~ say it wasn't their fault and can they have some more money please?
Reporters continue to build their personal over inflated opinions of themselves with pure speculation ~ presumably on the basis that if they are wrong nobody will remember what they said and if they are right they will remind us all.
The b@st@rd lot want putting against a wall.

[GROWLER]

The five people taken custody earlier on Saturday were boys aged 15 and 16, a man aged 19 and girls of 15 and 18. The 19-year-old needed hospital treatment after falling from the back window of his home apparently trying to escape arrest.

Guilty or not, let's hope he broke his scumbag neck.

[Misunderstood]

I don't remember the last time I saw so much police activity.  Somebody must be getting hot under the collar...

Shows the state of the game though, that they can't get any witnesses.  That is where the real story lies. They dare to do this stuff because they know that everyone is too scared to bear witness.

Until we have fixed that, we'll never fix the gangs, if we can't fix the gangs -  we can't fix the guns.  Personally, I think we have left it too late. 

I want a gun, it is a more - Ah.. prompt - solution than dialling 999

["Your call is important to us"[ ---- [Vivaldi - Bach - Beethoven - Sting]----[Press 1 to report someone speeding. Press 2 to report a scamera out of action. Press 3 to change the music. Press 4 to access your human rights. Press 5 to report a lost pet.] ---- [My loves and goals by Mr. Beckham) ---- [Press 0 for extended menu]   Bla bla bla  Press 11 to report a shooting] ---- [Your call is important to us]............... [I'm sorry, all of our policemen seem to be busy right now, please try again later]..... purrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Try this instead...  [Hello - Best Call Undertakers, How can we help?]  "I'd like a body picked up please." [Certainly Sir - would you like the scene disinfection option?]  "Uh Yes please.  Amex OK?" [That will do nicely Sir - be there in 10 minutes - Goodbye]

[Barman]

Shows the state of the game though, that they can't get any witnesses.  That is where the real story lies. They dare to do this stuff because they know that everyone is too scared to bear witness.

Until we have fixed that, we'll never fix the gangs, if we can't fix the gangs -  we can't fix the guns.  Personally, I think we have left it too late. 

I couldn?t agree more.

I saw a policeman on the TV yesterday saying that if witnesses came forward they could be protected, witness protection schemes, video evidence in court?

No you can?t.

It is obvious to everybody that the reason people won?t come forward is that you can?t protect them ? even playing football outside the pub. Only drastic ?no tolerance policing? over a long period will put it all back together again.

[Misunderstood]

Dear God!  I am finding myself swearing at the TV.

The 'New' answer to gun crime is an 'anonymous' gun hand-in scheme!  Building confidence they say!   

Are they REALLY so devoid of any intelligence that this is the best they can manage under pressure?  Seeing as at least we have seen it as a priority issue for months if not years must mean 'they' are not thinking about it at all.

Ban guns - that's the answer. Oh dear! More gun crime. Never mind, give em really long sentences - that'll scare em.   Well, that didn't work either did it, so what now - Ah! I have it! get them to hand in their ?300 gun - Yeah that's it!

Utter tossers.  You have never ever had drugs legal and it is the all-pervasive drug market that needs protecting with guns.  If you can't stop the drugs.... - hello? 

When guns could be legally held, they tended to be a mark of respect because the ticket holder has obviously passed a searching police check as a suitable holder.  and while there was gun crime, it was mainly confined to gang use and didn....Hang on... Say that again?  Gang use??  Oh Yes!  Never thought of that!  In the old days gangs didn't really bother us they fought amongst themselves and left us alone.

So what do we do.  Ban guns!  Double ban guns! Ban pictures of guns.  Arrest anybody that even mentions the word guns!  What does that achieve?  Street cred!  "I've got the balls to carry... up yours" is the result  "I'm mean - I'm hard - I'll do what I want and I'm not a proper gangster without a shooter."

The more you kick up a fuss about guns the more popular they will be because these youngsters are rebels.  Anything that is banned or even disapproved of by government will do - Hell, if the government banned cross dressing they'd wear heels!  The incentive to do anything is generated by societies disapproval. This generation of kids have realised that the world is their oyster if they simply ignore the rules and be aggressive because they are untouchable. Today they are terrorising neighbourhoods, tomorrow robbing banks and then holding governments to ransom.  They have noticed that anybody with the balls to stand up to them is dealt with sharply by the law for them, otherwise they'll simply shoot them theirselves.  Win - Win situation!   Kids have no sense of vulnerability, the ten years inside will never apply to them, they are too smart to get caught and if they are nasty enough to terrorise everybody, then there will never be any evidence against them.  I'm amazed they aren't running protection, or maybe they are and its being kept quiet.  Fear is the glue that is holding all this together so there is only one thing that will break this hold, and that's fear back!   

Fear? What kind of fear? ---  Fear of pain? Fear of shame...  Oh I don't know, why don't we ask some kids?  Maybe take their iPods off them?

But what do we do?  Think up a hand-in scheme!  It is hard to believe that we are quite so inept,  everyone keeps yelling for more laws,  It's not going to work, we have more than enough laws to jail the entire population, but nowhere to put them. nobody wants to be the one that actually admit that all this progressive shit didn't work and we need to wipe the slate and go back to building more jails and getting on with some sensible policing.

Give them what they are asking for - consequences!  You know it makes sense.

[Snoopy]

 

[Sour Puss]

  You are on form this week... Who has been ruffling your fur?   

[Barman]

Dear God!  I am finding myself swearing at the TV.

The 'New' answer to gun crime is an 'anonymous' gun hand-in scheme!  Building confidence they say!   

Are they REALLY so devoid of any intelligence that this is the best they can manage under pressure?  Seeing as at least we have seen it as a priority issue for months if not years must mean 'they' are not thinking about it at all.

Ban guns - that's the answer. Oh dear! More gun crime. Never mind, give em really long sentences - that'll scare em.   Well, that didn't work either did it, so what now - Ah! I have it! get them to hand in their ?300 gun - Yeah that's it!

Utter tossers.  You have never ever had drugs legal and it is the all-pervasive drug market that needs protecting with guns.  If you can't stop the drugs.... - hello? 

When guns could be legally held, they tended to be a mark of respect because the ticket holder has obviously passed a searching police check as a suitable holder.  and while there was gun crime, it was mainly confined to gang use and didn....Hang on... Say that again?  Gang use??  Oh Yes!  Never thought of that!  In the old days gangs didn't really bother us they fought amongst themselves and left us alone.

So what do we do.  Ban guns!  Double ban guns! Ban pictures of guns.  Arrest anybody that even mentions the word guns!  What does that achieve?  Street cred!  "I've got the balls to carry... up yours" is the result  "I'm mean - I'm hard - I'll do what I want and I'm not a proper gangster without a shooter."

The more you kick up a fuss about guns the more popular they will be because these youngsters are rebels.  Anything that is banned or even disapproved of by government will do - Hell, if the government banned cross dressing they'd wear heels!  The incentive to do anything is generated by societies disapproval. This generation of kids have realised that the world is their oyster if they simply ignore the rules and be aggressive because they are untouchable. Today they are terrorising neighbourhoods, tomorrow robbing banks and then holding governments to ransom.  They have noticed that anybody with the balls to stand up to them is dealt with sharply by the law for them, otherwise they'll simply shoot them theirselves.  Win - Win situation!   Kids have no sense of vulnerability, the ten years inside will never apply to them, they are too smart to get caught and if they are nasty enough to terrorise everybody, then there will never be any evidence against them.  I'm amazed they aren't running protection, or maybe they are and its being kept quiet.  Fear is the glue that is holding all this together so there is only one thing that will break this hold, and that's fear back!   

Fear? What kind of fear? ---  Fear of pain? Fear of shame...  Oh I don't know, why don't we ask some kids?  Maybe take their iPods off them?

But what do we do?  Think up a hand-in scheme!  It is hard to believe that we are quite so inept,  everyone keeps yelling for more laws,  It's not going to work, we have more than enough laws to jail the entire population, but nowhere to put them. nobody wants to be the one that actually admit that all this progressive shit didn't work and we need to wipe the slate and go back to building more jails and getting on with some sensible policing.

Give them what they are asking for - consequences!  You know it makes sense.

Excellent post sir!

[Mr Happy]

No it's not. Pay one parent, through the tax system, to stay at home. Remove the laws that say you may not smack your child.

I don't think it's a case of paying a parent to stay home, Mrs H has to work.  What would help is if I wasn't taxed in excess of ?500 a month for the likes of her mother and sister (and other dole scum) to sit at home and not look after their children.

There is a huge issue with the underclass in this country and most trouble seems to stem from them.  There used to be a working class, a little rough around the edges but generally respectful citizens.  Dole scum now think they deserve to be kept and live outside of normal functional society and are rewarded for it; hence they feel above the law.

I also disagree with you suggesting a fear of authorities.  I do not fear anybody questioning the way i bring up my children.  I'm also unsure that there is a law preventing smacking???

[Snoopy]

You may not fear the "authorities" but perhaps you have not been pounced upon by the Police for publicly attempting to deal with your child which was having a tantrum
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/6917820.stm

As for the law on smacking it is illegal in Scotland and in England & Wales you may not leave a mark.
Read it and weep.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3868561.stm

As for Mrs H working because of your tax bill these things are relative. Perhaps a cheaper house, not owning two cars and not taking foreign holidays would help. Reduced expenditure on non essentials is a sure way of living on one income. I know because when forcibly retired due to ill health at the age of 54 my income plummeted from £45k pa to £15K. We survived even with three school age children to provide for. In other words be less aspirational and you can live on less.

[Misunderstood]

It is, as always, a matter of easy targets.   Why bother trying to target a kid that has just beaten another unconscious when there is a parent around the corner slapping their child in an attempt to stop their child being that thug.

The thug will give you two fingers and spit at you whilst alternating between swearing at you and screaming for his human rights and accusing you of 'perving' just to make it more interesting.

The parent however, is a different kettle of fish. knowing that the law forbids any kind of discipline and being humiliated with the accusation, they will be defensive and - Well, you know where they live.  If they prove troublesome you can just fine them and dock it from their wages is they don't cough up. 

Fear of authority by law abiding adults is a bad thing,  but you only get to be a law abiding adult by having some respect for authority as a child in the first place.

[Mr Happy]

As for Mrs H working because of your tax bill these things are relative. Perhaps a cheaper house, not owning two cars and not taking foreign holidays would help. Reduced expenditure on non essentials is a sure way of living on one income. I know because when forcibly retired due to ill health at the age of 54 my income plummeted from ?45k pa to ?15K. We survived even with three school age children to provide for. In other words be less aspirational and you can live on less.

Snoops, you assume rather a lot.  Now for the reverse of cock waving:

My abode is worth less than ?100,000, approx 5 years into a 30 year mortgage.

We do not own one car, two would be excessive considering neither of us drive.

I have not been abroad in 5 years, namely since my eldest was born.

I leave the house at 7ish in the morning and return in excess of 11 hours later.  On returning I often have to feed, bath and bed the children as my wife readies herself to work a 7pm-1am shift (2/3 nights a week).  She starts work at 7am at the weekends.  Bank Holiday Monday was her turn for a lie in, as such my last one was towards the end of May.

Why do we do this, because we have to.  The downside is quality of life for myself and the kids.  Now my kids are not going to turn into the feral scum we have been discussing, I simply wouldn't allow it.  However, do I have the sufficient time and energy to give the kids the attention they deserve, to take them for a walk in the park at the weekends, to be in a fit state to be a jolly parent when I see them?

That is why my piss boils to an unbelievable level when i am forced to visit the dole scum out-laws who live in a bigger house than me in a wealthier and safer area.  They have one and a half cars, well two really, does one count if uninsured and not taxed?  They pay no council tax, do not have to get up for work, smoke, drink and have a rather large plasma tv.  Their children are mal-nourished, thick and bereft of the joys of life; I am supporting these undeserving feckwits to breed more scum!!!

 

This was a Party Political Broadcast for The Conservative Party...

[Snoopy]

Sorry ~ didn't mean to imply etc..... but I see and hear sooooooo much of this "We both have to work" routine and my comments do apply to the majority of them.
Personally I'm happy to be off the