FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > National Service
National Service
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"So I've just heard on the news that if the Conservatives get back in power they plan to reintroduce National Service. It will be an updated version which will see 18yo's conscripted into some form of mandatory Service. There is a difference from the old system though. Yes there will be military service. But if the individual doesn't want to go into the military they can volunteer 1 weekend a month as an NHS responder, RNLI volunteer or special constable etc. While I'm not tory and generally am against war, I do like this idea. I definitely feel there are people out there who would benefit from this kind of thing. What are your thoughts?" What kind of responder are they going to be for the NHS? When will they train? Who will train them? Who will assess their competency before they are allowed to use their skills? Seems like a poorly thought out attempt to grab headlines and appeal to the sort of people who never did national service but think other people should. | |||
"Think sunak should be focussing on actually fixing the economy and our international trade / public sector " I agree, but that's not actually what I was asking. | |||
| |||
| |||
" What kind of responder are they going to be for the NHS? When will they train? Who will train them? Who will assess their competency before they are allowed to use their skills? Seems like a poorly thought out attempt to grab headlines and appeal to the sort of people who never did national service but think other people should." I totally agree with this. The same will probably be said (and be true) of 90% of the promises made by the main parties over the next few weeks. | |||
| |||
"Think sunak should be focussing on actually fixing the economy and our international trade / public sector I agree, but that's not actually what I was asking. " You asked peoples thoughts. My answer is above. Clearly it’s a waste of time hence my reply that he should focus on things that actual matter and make a real difference . | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
The older generation will probably like the idea and vote.
People with teenage kids will probably panic and not vote.
Younger people will not vote.
I do feel, no pun intended that he’s shot himself in the foot with this one and potentially lost any chance he had of winning. | |||
"Young people being drafted into the military is wrong. When I was in the equivalent of the TA, the last thing you need is an idiot with a gun. As for the community service, don't let any of them near me in a hospital. They will be used as cheap labour, cleaning. The laudable outcomes the Conservatives are searching for starts at birth and not at 18, the damage has been done." What’s the equivalent of the TA/Reserves? | |||
"Honestly, it's a bloody stupid idea. These services need committed people who will train up and stay with them. They do not need teenagers with bo interest, who will get trained uo and then leave." I am with this  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"What will happen to all those, and there'll be lot, who refuse to "volunteer"" Exactly, are we going to give 18 year olds a criminal record for refusing to do ‘national service’? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"What will happen to all those, and there'll be lot, who refuse to "volunteer"" I'm guessing something like not paying them any benefits just to set at home not working etc. | |||
"I have a brilliant idea, lets start up a thing called a 5 year apprneticeship where they learn on the job and spend two evenings a week at college learning theory, health and safety etc." We already do that, different skill sets have different lengths of stay. | |||
| |||
"I have a brilliant idea, lets start up a thing called a 5 year apprneticeship where they learn on the job and spend two evenings a week at college learning theory, health and safety etc." Thats a wizardly wheeze  | |||
"So I've just heard on the news that if the Conservatives get back in power they plan to reintroduce National Service. It will be an updated version which will see 18yo's conscripted into some form of mandatory Service. There is a difference from the old system though. Yes there will be military service. But if the individual doesn't want to go into the military they can volunteer 1 weekend a month as an NHS responder, RNLI volunteer or special constable etc. While I'm not tory and generally am against war, I do like this idea. I definitely feel there are people out there who would benefit from this kind of thing. What are your thoughts?" I can’t see any downside | |||
| |||
"I have a brilliant idea, lets start up a thing called a 5 year apprneticeship where they learn on the job and spend two evenings a week at college learning theory, health and safety etc." This we have a desperate shortage of skills in the work force. Let's get our younger generation properly trained and made to feel valued by society rather than seen as a problem. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"The problem here is this. People like myself and my colleagues will have to train them (yeeee
The older generation will probably like the idea and vote.
People with teenage kids will probably panic and not vote.
Younger people will not vote.
I do feel, no pun intended that he’s shot himself in the foot with this one and potentially lost any chance he had of winning."Well they've ostracised the young vote anyway. They know that. No point in appealing to them. I imagine this is for the older vote who might have been Tory but are now Reform. I'd say a vote grab for them perhaps? They're the ones who come out in droves in an election. | |||
"I have a brilliant idea, lets start up a thing called a 5 year apprneticeship where they learn on the job and spend two evenings a week at college learning theory, health and safety etc." That happens already in Childcare, but in their bid to tackle the staffing issues in the sector the government said that settings can use apprentices in a ratio if managers deem them 'competent'.....Of course it's open to exploitation because apprentices are not paid as much as someone who has a full and relevant qualification....Bear in mind that apprentice could find themselves based in a room with ten 2 year olds and one other staff member. It's dangerous and unfair The ratio of one adult to five 2 year olds is a stupid idea.... It's a panicked response to their other stupid idea of offering free places to two year olds without the means and the plan to deliver Sorry for going off topic there  | |||
"The problem here is this. People like myself and my colleagues will have to train them (yeeee
The older generation will probably like the idea and vote.
People with teenage kids will probably panic and not vote.
Younger people will not vote.
I do feel, no pun intended that he’s shot himself in the foot with this one and potentially lost any chance he had of winning.
Well they've ostracised the young vote anyway. They know that. No point in appealing to them.
I imagine this is for the older vote who might have been Tory but are now Reform. I'd say a vote grab for them perhaps? They're the ones who come out in droves in an election."That’s my thought, the people who constantly say ‘it’s not like it was in my day’ We’re aware of that and honestly, it never will be like that again. | |||
| |||
"Honestly, my thoughts are that it's a horrendous idea and I would only ever support conscription, if we were in a war with an aggressor, which posed an imminent threat of invasion. It's a breach of fundamental human rights, no one should be compelled to do labour especially without pay. It's not volunteering if you didn't volunteer. It appears the conservative solution to the void in public services is to get the general populace to fill the gap for free. So on top of the pressures facing young people. Cost of education due to tuition fees, lack of career prospects, housing costs, cost of living crisis etc. young people now have to work for free too? Just a flat no for me. My thoughts are that the government is headed by freemarket ideologues who believe that privatisation of everything is what's best for the economy. And that the third sector will magically rise from the ashes to fill the gap of welfare and the public sector. This principle relies on the freemarket actually working and being the 'rising tide that lifts all boats'. For wealth to trickle down. Which it hasn't done for over 40 years. Wealth inequality has grown, abject and relatively inequality has grown and public services along with equality of opportunity have declined. Neoliberalism is a sinking ship and rather than admit their fault and take accountability for the mess they have created, they are scampering up the mast, like the rats that they are. 18 year olds are legally adults and equal citizens in this country to you and I. Yes they are young, but we do not have a right to dictate their life choices to them because we feel it's in their interests. It's certainly not fair that we demand they do labour that benefits us as individuals, whilst claiming we feel it's what is best for them. They know they don't have a chance with the young vote so it's just another divide and conquer strategy where they try to gain ground with a different demographic. Like Milliband said 15 years ago it will be a race to the bottom and that's where we are now scrapping the bottom of the barrel ready to take away basic liberties like choice away from citizens. And ones that never voted for any of this mess." Hi. It isn’t conscription. | |||
"Sunaks kids first Basic training then the Ukrainian front line. " Not sure the proposal is to send the kids to war, more a case of putting them through military training and giving them some skills. And the regular army aren’t fighting in Ukraine, so why would the kids be sent? … and his daughters are 11 and 13, so why would they be first? | |||
| |||
"Id much rather see national service for MPs brought in. Have them volunteer several weeks a year in a hospital, school, police station etc. Give them some structure and get them off their backsides "Bit of a generalisation. My local MP works her ass off. | |||
| |||
"In principle I think its a good idea. Going into the services teaches a great range of practical, employment and life skills. It's not all rolling around in the mud and shooting bad guys. It won't work though as we haven't got the gumption to actually do it, even if the Conservatives win, which I don't think they will. We are ar one of theose cyclical moments where it doesn't matter what party is in power, or if they are doing a good job or not. They could be the best party in history, but every few years people just feel that it is time for a change. What people forget is that behind the few MPs there is a massive civil service machine telling them what to do. So does it matter if the front end is red or blue." You really do not understand how Govt in this country works do you! | |||
"Saying it's NS or volunteering muddies the debate imo. When people promote NS because the kids need XYZ skill or behaviour, or because of defence concerns, but never signed up, then I struggle to buy into their argument. I'd happily to listen to views from current and ex military. If we are talking about volunteering, then why not all of us ?" https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/13/army-families-suing-mod-for-poor-housing-told-to-drop-claims-or-have-pay-docked | |||
"Saying it's NS or volunteering muddies the debate imo. When people promote NS because the kids need XYZ skill or behaviour, or because of defence concerns, but never signed up, then I struggle to buy into their argument. I'd happily to listen to views from current and ex military. If we are talking about volunteering, then why not all of us ? https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/13/army-families-suing-mod-for-poor-housing-told-to-drop-claims-or-have-pay-docked " don't follow. Can you expand ? | |||
"So I've just heard on the news that if the Conservatives get back in power they plan to reintroduce National Service. It will be an updated version which will see 18yo's conscripted into some form of mandatory Service. There is a difference from the old system though. Yes there will be military service. But if the individual doesn't want to go into the military they can volunteer 1 weekend a month as an NHS responder, RNLI volunteer or special constable etc. While I'm not tory and generally am against war, I do like this idea. I definitely feel there are people out there who would benefit from this kind of thing. What are your thoughts?" It will cost him his election in my opinion. | |||
"So I've just heard on the news that if the Conservatives get back in power they plan to reintroduce National Service. It will be an updated version which will see 18yo's conscripted into some form of mandatory Service. There is a difference from the old system though. Yes there will be military service. But if the individual doesn't want to go into the military they can volunteer 1 weekend a month as an NHS responder, RNLI volunteer or special constable etc. While I'm not tory and generally am against war, I do like this idea. I definitely feel there are people out there who would benefit from this kind of thing. What are your thoughts?" Devil is in the detail…. So here is some of the proposed “details” Of the 700,000 annual 18 years olds who would have to do this.. only 30,000 places would be “military based” The way this would be paid for is that the money that had be earmarked for boris Johnson’s famous “levelling up” would be diverted to this.. you know, that fund that was supposed to improve town centres ect… | |||
"So I've just heard on the news that if the Conservatives get back in power they plan to reintroduce National Service. It will be an updated version which will see 18yo's conscripted into some form of mandatory Service. There is a difference from the old system though. Yes there will be military service. But if the individual doesn't want to go into the military they can volunteer 1 weekend a month as an NHS responder, RNLI volunteer or special constable etc. While I'm not tory and generally am against war, I do like this idea. I definitely feel there are people out there who would benefit from this kind of thing. What are your thoughts? It will cost him his election in my opinion." Two years extra maths Prevented from buying cigarettes Now this Sunak is a clown | |||
"I'm all for getting young people to get off their backsides (not saying there isn't some hard working 18-21 year olds out there) but I'm not sure this is the way forward. Plus with the state of everything else, shouldn't they be putting effort and funding into sorting out everything else first? Was it 1.2b I saw this was going to cost (apologies if I'm wrong) where is that money coming from? Why can't it be spent elsewhere? Something that would actually benefit us? Because, right now, the way this country (and world) is going, god knows what we will be like in ten years time." 2.5 billion | |||
"So I've just heard on the news that if the Conservatives get back in power they plan to reintroduce National Service. It will be an updated version which will see 18yo's conscripted into some form of mandatory Service. There is a difference from the old system though. Yes there will be military service. But if the individual doesn't want to go into the military they can volunteer 1 weekend a month as an NHS responder, RNLI volunteer or special constable etc. While I'm not tory and generally am against war, I do like this idea. I definitely feel there are people out there who would benefit from this kind of thing. What are your thoughts? Devil is in the detail…. So here is some of the proposed “details” Of the 700,000 annual 18 years olds who would have to do this.. only 30,000 places would be “military based” The way this would be paid for is that the money that had be earmarked for boris Johnson’s famous “levelling up” would be diverted to this.. you know, that fund that was supposed to improve town centres ect…" That accounts for 1.5 billion. The other billion is from tax avoidance. | |||
"So I've just heard on the news that if the Conservatives get back in power they plan to reintroduce National Service. It will be an updated version which will see 18yo's conscripted into some form of mandatory Service. There is a difference from the old system though. Yes there will be military service. But if the individual doesn't want to go into the military they can volunteer 1 weekend a month as an NHS responder, RNLI volunteer or special constable etc. While I'm not tory and generally am against war, I do like this idea. I definitely feel there are people out there who would benefit from this kind of thing. What are your thoughts? It will cost him his election in my opinion." I think the last 14 years of Tory competence and untruths around Brexit may cost him rather than this | |||
| |||
| |||
"If it gets those that might want to go on benefits out and about, it is a good idea. ." No it’s not I smacks of desperation by a desperate Tory party. Looking for the old git vote…. By that I mean anyone who lives in the past regardless of age. The countries that do have national service finance it correctly and have had it in place for decades so they know how to manage it. Which ever UK Government that ever does introduce National service will try and do it on the cheap. The UK has a track record doing this. This will be no different. | |||
| |||
| |||
"At first I thought it was a bad idea however kids of today do lack discipline to a point where they feel they can assault teachers, some of their own parents and feel its ok to carry knives and machetes and stab each other with them so maybe national service isnt a bad idea but more thoughts needs to be put into to be effective" Society has created these problems. I think society should address the causes first as opposed pushing the outcomes on the military to sort out Look at the finger pointing at the nhs, blaming them for everything but the life choices of UK plc; 37% overweight, 26% obese, third children overweight, 6 million smokers, three million+ drug users. What is the correlation of these young people issues related to the problems of their housing, austerity, three million using food banks, cost of living, 800 youth clubs closed, after school clubs closed, over a fifth of libraries closed by austerity/ council cuts. Education cuts, council funding cuts, rising homelessness, youth services cuts, children’s services cuts, social care cuts, record levels of children living in poverty. Downing Street and Westminster are responsible for much of this. https://www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2019/04/Youth-services-report-04-2019.pdf https://www.bigissue.com/news/politics/spending-cuts-decimated-public-services-since-2010-jeremy-hunt/ | |||
"At first I thought it was a bad idea however kids of today do lack discipline to a point where they feel they can assault teachers, some of their own parents and feel its ok to carry knives and machetes and stab each other with them so maybe national service isnt a bad idea but more thoughts needs to be put into to be effective" Kids of today? Do some history perhaps.. | |||
"At first I thought it was a bad idea however kids of today do lack discipline to a point where they feel they can assault teachers, some of their own parents and feel its ok to carry knives and machetes and stab each other with them so maybe national service isnt a bad idea but more thoughts needs to be put into to be effective" NS would be about four years too late in a these kids lives to solve this. | |||
| |||
"At first I thought it was a bad idea however kids of today do lack discipline to a point where they feel they can assault teachers, some of their own parents and feel its ok to carry knives and machetes and stab each other with them so maybe national service isnt a bad idea but more thoughts needs to be put into to be effective" What a low opinion of children you have. What a broad brush sweeping statement too! There are (and always have been) bad kids (bad adults too) but there are amazing kids too. Put them in the right environment and the vast majority of human beings are inherently good. I think you need to qualify your statement because it is clearly aimed at a specific group in society rather than “kids of today”.  | |||
" What is the correlation of these young people issues related to the problems of their housing, austerity, three million using food banks, cost of living, 800 youth clubs closed, after school clubs closed, over a fifth of libraries closed by austerity/ council cuts. Education cuts, council funding cuts, rising homelessness, youth services cuts, children’s services cuts, social care cuts, record levels of children living in poverty." | |||
"If it gets those that might want to go on benefits out and about, it is a good idea. I can't see many people voting for it." What about those 18yr olds who got straight A’s in their A Levels and a place at a top university and the potential for a very successful career ahead of them? Or do we only want NS for the slackers? | |||
"If it gets those that might want to go on benefits out and about, it is a good idea. I can't see many people voting for it. What about those 18yr olds who got straight A’s in their A Levels and a place at a top university and the potential for a very successful career ahead of them? Or do we only want NS for the slackers?" The rules should apply to all, but as others have said it's hard to see some communities accepting military service in our 'United' Kingdom. That said, there are options for community service as I understand. It's hard to say if this scheme will get any traction. What if Putin persists in his sabre rattling, and there's a gunuine emerging threat? | |||
| |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding " You should have lead with that lol | |||
"If it gets those that might want to go on benefits out and about, it is a good idea. I can't see many people voting for it. What about those 18yr olds who got straight A’s in their A Levels and a place at a top university and the potential for a very successful career ahead of them? Or do we only want NS for the slackers? The rules should apply to all, but as others have said it's hard to see some communities accepting military service in our 'United' Kingdom. That said, there are options for community service as I understand. It's hard to say if this scheme will get any traction. What if Putin persists in his sabre rattling, and there's a gunuine emerging threat?" It was rhetorical to the person I quoted. I can see people supporting this as it gets “bad kids off the streets and gives them purpose” etc but I am challenging that as it applies to all 18yr olds. Someone above posted some detail. I *think* only 30,000 will do military service. The rest will do “uniformed” community service (police, fire etc). As for Putin, well IMO unless he is mad enough to use nukes and unleash mutually assured destruction, then the UK won’t be invaded so a ground war would be the UK honouring our NATO commitments. I think a well trained professional army is preferable to 30,000 conscripted teenagers. | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding " Thank you for clarifying but you really should consider your posts more carefully | |||
| |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding " here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers?" My gut instinct as a GMAM was “hell yeah” but then on reflection it positions National Service as a punishment whereas Sunak wants to position it as a great opportunity to develop skills and a sense of national pride by giving something back so…no! | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers?" Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. | |||
| |||
"here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers?" They used to do that years ago - In France it was called the Foreign Legion But. No. Absolutely not. | |||
| |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour." It's more important to consider the role of individual responsibility alongside societal factors, not because of them. Most children raised in similar conditions to those that walk the streets causing problems, grow up to be responsible, well behaved individuals. This would indicate that personal choices and the influence of immediate family and peers play significant roles in a child's development. The erosion of personal accountability needs to be reversed, not championed. | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. It's more important to consider the role of individual responsibility alongside societal factors, not because of them. Most children raised in similar conditions to those that walk the streets causing problems, grow up to be responsible, well behaved individuals. This would indicate that personal choices and the influence of immediate family and peers play significant roles in a child's development. The erosion of personal accountability needs to be reversed, not championed." Certainly it is both nurture and nature but I suspect for those on the cusp of being a “bad sort” their environment will play a huge part in determining whether they slip over the line or not. There’s a old saying “it takes a village to raise a child” | |||
"Intrigued as to how they plan to extend national service to Northern Ireland." How do you mean? You do realise that the military component of the proposal is tiny, and optional, don’t you? | |||
"here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? They used to do that years ago - In France it was called the Foreign Legion But. No. Absolutely not." That’s not what the foreign legion is. It was set up as a vehicle to enable foreigners to join the French army. | |||
"here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? They used to do that years ago - In France it was called the Foreign Legion But. No. Absolutely not. That’s not what the foreign legion is. It was set up as a vehicle to enable foreigners to join the French army. " ***Courts used to option some sentences to be commuted to joining or serve a prison sentence instead. The Disciplinary Company of the Foreign Regiments in the Far East (Compagnie disciplinaire en Extrême-Orient) – A penal company of the French Foreign Legion in the Far East, consisting of Legionnaires who had committed serious offenses. Formed in 1946 and attached to the 2nd Foreign Infantry Regiment, the company depended on the battalions implanted in French Indochina. After French Indochina's dissolution following the 1954 Geneva Conference, the company was disbanded in August 1954.*** I think I know my history - Being half French and all.  | |||
| |||
"here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? They used to do that years ago - In France it was called the Foreign Legion But. No. Absolutely not. That’s not what the foreign legion is. It was set up as a vehicle to enable foreigners to join the French army. ***Courts used to option some sentences to be commuted to joining or serve a prison sentence instead. The Disciplinary Company of the Foreign Regiments in the Far East (Compagnie disciplinaire en Extrême-Orient) – A penal company of the French Foreign Legion in the Far East, consisting of Legionnaires who had committed serious offenses. Formed in 1946 and attached to the 2nd Foreign Infantry Regiment, the company depended on the battalions implanted in French Indochina. After French Indochina's dissolution following the 1954 Geneva Conference, the company was disbanded in August 1954.*** I think I know my history - Being half French and all. "Not the same thing at all. The poster was suggesting that lads on the cusp of going down the wrong path get to do national service, an alternative to borstal, I guess, they sort of level. What you cite is something completely different, “serious offences” | |||
| |||
| |||
"Oh dear. Actually he said: ****here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police *****(above and beyond a given level)***** or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS...*** So he really didn't stipulate what level. But you go ahead and slip the hairs, lol" “Kid” … “truancy” Vs “serious offences”. … that’s not splitting hairs. It’s just not the same thing. | |||
| |||
"(above and beyond a given level) What certain thing is that? " I took the references to “kid” and “truancy” to mean relatively low-level offences. You cite a short-lived set-up which specifically mentions serious offences. I doubt if “truancy” ever got anyone sent to the penal section of the Legion. | |||
"(above and beyond a given level) What certain thing is that? I took the references to “kid” and “truancy” to mean relatively low-level offences. You cite a short-lived set-up which specifically mentions serious offences. I doubt if “truancy” ever got anyone sent to the penal section of the Legion. " Period of time has no relevance to my answer. The fact that it happened for any period of time is proof absolute that it did. As you don't know what they were commuted for, then you are right - you don't know. But you agree at least that The French Foreign Legion did have a Penal Wing. Regardless. And back to the question: No. Do not send anyone into the Military for any offence. | |||
"(above and beyond a given level) What certain thing is that? I took the references to “kid” and “truancy” to mean relatively low-level offences. You cite a short-lived set-up which specifically mentions serious offences. I doubt if “truancy” ever got anyone sent to the penal section of the Legion. Period of time has no relevance to my answer. The fact that it happened for any period of time is proof absolute that it did. As you don't know what they were commuted for, then you are right - you don't know. But you agree at least that The French Foreign Legion did have a Penal Wing. Regardless. And back to the question: No. Do not send anyone into the Military for any offence." Yes, the legion had a penal wing. It was set up for legionnaires who were guilty of serious offenders as legionnaires, that was its primary purpose, its raison d’etre. Not sure we will find many examples of civilians being sent there for truancy … ?? | |||
"(above and beyond a given level) What certain thing is that? I took the references to “kid” and “truancy” to mean relatively low-level offences. You cite a short-lived set-up which specifically mentions serious offences. I doubt if “truancy” ever got anyone sent to the penal section of the Legion. Period of time has no relevance to my answer. The fact that it happened for any period of time is proof absolute that it did. As you don't know what they were commuted for, then you are right - you don't know. But you agree at least that The French Foreign Legion did have a Penal Wing. Regardless. And back to the question: No. Do not send anyone into the Military for any offence. Yes, the legion had a penal wing. It was set up for legionnaires who were guilty of serious offenders as legionnaires, that was its primary purpose, its raison d’etre. Not sure we will find many examples of civilians being sent there for truancy … ?? " Je vous laisse avec vos pensées abstraites.  | |||
"(above and beyond a given level) What certain thing is that? I took the references to “kid” and “truancy” to mean relatively low-level offences. You cite a short-lived set-up which specifically mentions serious offences. I doubt if “truancy” ever got anyone sent to the penal section of the Legion. Period of time has no relevance to my answer. The fact that it happened for any period of time is proof absolute that it did. As you don't know what they were commuted for, then you are right - you don't know. But you agree at least that The French Foreign Legion did have a Penal Wing. Regardless. And back to the question: No. Do not send anyone into the Military for any offence. Yes, the legion had a penal wing. It was set up for legionnaires who were guilty of serious offenders as legionnaires, that was its primary purpose, its raison d’etre. Not sure we will find many examples of civilians being sent there for truancy … ?? Je vous laisse avec vos pensées abstraites. "Nothing “abstract” at all about my thoughts thanks. Maybe you can provide examples of kids being sent to the Legion for truancy. I suspect that it’s very unlikely, and that it was a small number of serious criminals | |||
| |||
| |||
"Maybe you can show that I said that they were? Beyond that, the bridge is yours. Have fun playing with yourself. I'm off to do something a little less sophomore. "“Have fun playing with yourself”? Why do abusive? | |||
| |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour." I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy." What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly. | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly." I find statements like this genuinely depressing. Such a generalised sweeping statement that implies everyone is the same. It is the whole nature vs nurture argument (IMO both are what creates a well rounded person). Plenty of people transcend their environment and upbringing, but not all. Why is that? | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly." I went to the same school and lived on the same street … what “deprivation” did other lads on the same street experience that I didn’t? | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly. I find statements like this genuinely depressing. Such a generalised sweeping statement that implies everyone is the same. It is the whole nature vs nurture argument (IMO both are what creates a well rounded person). Plenty of people transcend their environment and upbringing, but not all. Why is that?" The statement applies to enough people to make it valid. Genetics play a big part in life prospects, as does the attitude and support of the parents. There are way too many people who don't respect this country, its laws and the environment we live in. Evidence is everywhere: "Petty" crimes such as littering, illegal parking, riding bikes on the pavement, riding private e scooters, illegal off road motorcycles and other anti social behaviour are endemic and rarely punished. Truancy and absenteeism from school is rising. Most schools have to spend a considerable amount of time chasing some pupils to try and get them to attend. Again the pupils and parents are rarely punished. More serious crime is also on the rise. Shoplifting, drug use, burglary and theft. Gang violence mostly linked to drugs. All partly driven by the general lack of respect for our society. National service may be one way of improving the situation. | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly. I find statements like this genuinely depressing. Such a generalised sweeping statement that implies everyone is the same. It is the whole nature vs nurture argument (IMO both are what creates a well rounded person). Plenty of people transcend their environment and upbringing, but not all. Why is that? The statement applies to enough people to make it valid. Genetics play a big part in life prospects, as does the attitude and support of the parents. There are way too many people who don't respect this country, its laws and the environment we live in. Evidence is everywhere: "Petty" crimes such as littering, illegal parking, riding bikes on the pavement, riding private e scooters, illegal off road motorcycles and other anti social behaviour are endemic and rarely punished. Truancy and absenteeism from school is rising. Most schools have to spend a considerable amount of time chasing some pupils to try and get them to attend. Again the pupils and parents are rarely punished. More serious crime is also on the rise. Shoplifting, drug use, burglary and theft. Gang violence mostly linked to drugs. All partly driven by the general lack of respect for our society. National service may be one way of improving the situation." And what is driving the increases in anti-social behaviour and petty crime (and more serious crime)? There is a correlation between economic hardship and increases crime rates. When the good times are rolling and felt by more people, ironically the level of crime reduces. Weird isn’t it? Why are crime levels in poor and deprived areas higher than in affluent areas? Why is school truancy higher in poor and deprived areas and poor performing schools than in wealthier areas with good performing schools? | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly. I find statements like this genuinely depressing. Such a generalised sweeping statement that implies everyone is the same. It is the whole nature vs nurture argument (IMO both are what creates a well rounded person). Plenty of people transcend their environment and upbringing, but not all. Why is that? The statement applies to enough people to make it valid. Genetics play a big part in life prospects, as does the attitude and support of the parents. There are way too many people who don't respect this country, its laws and the environment we live in. Evidence is everywhere: "Petty" crimes such as littering, illegal parking, riding bikes on the pavement, riding private e scooters, illegal off road motorcycles and other anti social behaviour are endemic and rarely punished. Truancy and absenteeism from school is rising. Most schools have to spend a considerable amount of time chasing some pupils to try and get them to attend. Again the pupils and parents are rarely punished. More serious crime is also on the rise. Shoplifting, drug use, burglary and theft. Gang violence mostly linked to drugs. All partly driven by the general lack of respect for our society. National service may be one way of improving the situation. And what is driving the increases in anti-social behaviour and petty crime (and more serious crime)? There is a correlation between economic hardship and increases crime rates. When the good times are rolling and felt by more people, ironically the level of crime reduces. Weird isn’t it? Why are crime levels in poor and deprived areas higher than in affluent areas? Why is school truancy higher in poor and deprived areas and poor performing schools than in wealthier areas with good performing schools?" Conversely, why should having less money make people have less respect, and make them more likely to commit crime? Are they criminals because they live there or do they live there because they are criminals? Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. Society seems to accept low level criminality as normal. For example someone was killed riding a private e scooter last week. In the news his wife pleaded with people to wear helmets (he wasn't). But the scooters are illegal, so nobody should wear a helmet as they shouldn't be riding them anyway. Simple, black and white. | |||
" Society seems to accept low level criminality as normal. For example someone was killed riding a private e scooter last week. In the news his wife pleaded with people to wear helmets (he wasn't). But the scooters are illegal, so nobody should wear a helmet as they shouldn't be riding them anyway. Simple, black and white." He was going to primary school to pick up his son. Was the child expected to run along side or would he have been given an illegal lift home ? | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly. I find statements like this genuinely depressing. Such a generalised sweeping statement that implies everyone is the same. It is the whole nature vs nurture argument (IMO both are what creates a well rounded person). Plenty of people transcend their environment and upbringing, but not all. Why is that? The statement applies to enough people to make it valid. Genetics play a big part in life prospects, as does the attitude and support of the parents. There are way too many people who don't respect this country, its laws and the environment we live in. Evidence is everywhere: "Petty" crimes such as littering, illegal parking, riding bikes on the pavement, riding private e scooters, illegal off road motorcycles and other anti social behaviour are endemic and rarely punished. Truancy and absenteeism from school is rising. Most schools have to spend a considerable amount of time chasing some pupils to try and get them to attend. Again the pupils and parents are rarely punished. More serious crime is also on the rise. Shoplifting, drug use, burglary and theft. Gang violence mostly linked to drugs. All partly driven by the general lack of respect for our society. National service may be one way of improving the situation. And what is driving the increases in anti-social behaviour and petty crime (and more serious crime)? There is a correlation between economic hardship and increases crime rates. When the good times are rolling and felt by more people, ironically the level of crime reduces. Weird isn’t it? Why are crime levels in poor and deprived areas higher than in affluent areas? Why is school truancy higher in poor and deprived areas and poor performing schools than in wealthier areas with good performing schools? Conversely, why should having less money make people have less respect, and make them more likely to commit crime? Are they criminals because they live there or do they live there because they are criminals? Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. Society seems to accept low level criminality as normal. For example someone was killed riding a private e scooter last week. In the news his wife pleaded with people to wear helmets (he wasn't). But the scooters are illegal, so nobody should wear a helmet as they shouldn't be riding them anyway. Simple, black and white." All interesting points/questions and I am sure there are subject matter experts on social-demographic research who are better placed than me to respond. However, when you say… " Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them." I don’t agree. We already know that if you are better off, live in a better area, go to a better school (or Grammar or Pvt Sch) then you immediately have improved chances over someone living in an inner city sink estate. | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly. I find statements like this genuinely depressing. Such a generalised sweeping statement that implies everyone is the same. It is the whole nature vs nurture argument (IMO both are what creates a well rounded person). Plenty of people transcend their environment and upbringing, but not all. Why is that? The statement applies to enough people to make it valid. Genetics play a big part in life prospects, as does the attitude and support of the parents. There are way too many people who don't respect this country, its laws and the environment we live in. Evidence is everywhere: "Petty" crimes such as littering, illegal parking, riding bikes on the pavement, riding private e scooters, illegal off road motorcycles and other anti social behaviour are endemic and rarely punished. Truancy and absenteeism from school is rising. Most schools have to spend a considerable amount of time chasing some pupils to try and get them to attend. Again the pupils and parents are rarely punished. More serious crime is also on the rise. Shoplifting, drug use, burglary and theft. Gang violence mostly linked to drugs. All partly driven by the general lack of respect for our society. National service may be one way of improving the situation. And what is driving the increases in anti-social behaviour and petty crime (and more serious crime)? There is a correlation between economic hardship and increases crime rates. When the good times are rolling and felt by more people, ironically the level of crime reduces. Weird isn’t it? Why are crime levels in poor and deprived areas higher than in affluent areas? Why is school truancy higher in poor and deprived areas and poor performing schools than in wealthier areas with good performing schools? Conversely, why should having less money make people have less respect, and make them more likely to commit crime? Are they criminals because they live there or do they live there because they are criminals? Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. Society seems to accept low level criminality as normal. For example someone was killed riding a private e scooter last week. In the news his wife pleaded with people to wear helmets (he wasn't). But the scooters are illegal, so nobody should wear a helmet as they shouldn't be riding them anyway. Simple, black and white. All interesting points/questions and I am sure there are subject matter experts on social-demographic research who are better placed than me to respond. However, when you say… Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. I don’t agree. We already know that if you are better off, live in a better area, go to a better school (or Grammar or Pvt Sch) then you immediately have improved chances over someone living in an inner city sink estate." But is that genetics or "deprivation"? And would National Service improve things? | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly. I find statements like this genuinely depressing. Such a generalised sweeping statement that implies everyone is the same. It is the whole nature vs nurture argument (IMO both are what creates a well rounded person). Plenty of people transcend their environment and upbringing, but not all. Why is that? The statement applies to enough people to make it valid. Genetics play a big part in life prospects, as does the attitude and support of the parents. There are way too many people who don't respect this country, its laws and the environment we live in. Evidence is everywhere: "Petty" crimes such as littering, illegal parking, riding bikes on the pavement, riding private e scooters, illegal off road motorcycles and other anti social behaviour are endemic and rarely punished. Truancy and absenteeism from school is rising. Most schools have to spend a considerable amount of time chasing some pupils to try and get them to attend. Again the pupils and parents are rarely punished. More serious crime is also on the rise. Shoplifting, drug use, burglary and theft. Gang violence mostly linked to drugs. All partly driven by the general lack of respect for our society. National service may be one way of improving the situation. And what is driving the increases in anti-social behaviour and petty crime (and more serious crime)? There is a correlation between economic hardship and increases crime rates. When the good times are rolling and felt by more people, ironically the level of crime reduces. Weird isn’t it? Why are crime levels in poor and deprived areas higher than in affluent areas? Why is school truancy higher in poor and deprived areas and poor performing schools than in wealthier areas with good performing schools?" Don't be saying anything logical. You know someone will come along and trash it. | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly. I find statements like this genuinely depressing. Such a generalised sweeping statement that implies everyone is the same. It is the whole nature vs nurture argument (IMO both are what creates a well rounded person). Plenty of people transcend their environment and upbringing, but not all. Why is that? The statement applies to enough people to make it valid. Genetics play a big part in life prospects, as does the attitude and support of the parents. There are way too many people who don't respect this country, its laws and the environment we live in. Evidence is everywhere: "Petty" crimes such as littering, illegal parking, riding bikes on the pavement, riding private e scooters, illegal off road motorcycles and other anti social behaviour are endemic and rarely punished. Truancy and absenteeism from school is rising. Most schools have to spend a considerable amount of time chasing some pupils to try and get them to attend. Again the pupils and parents are rarely punished. More serious crime is also on the rise. Shoplifting, drug use, burglary and theft. Gang violence mostly linked to drugs. All partly driven by the general lack of respect for our society. National service may be one way of improving the situation. And what is driving the increases in anti-social behaviour and petty crime (and more serious crime)? There is a correlation between economic hardship and increases crime rates. When the good times are rolling and felt by more people, ironically the level of crime reduces. Weird isn’t it? Why are crime levels in poor and deprived areas higher than in affluent areas? Why is school truancy higher in poor and deprived areas and poor performing schools than in wealthier areas with good performing schools? Conversely, why should having less money make people have less respect, and make them more likely to commit crime? Are they criminals because they live there or do they live there because they are criminals? Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. Society seems to accept low level criminality as normal. For example someone was killed riding a private e scooter last week. In the news his wife pleaded with people to wear helmets (he wasn't). But the scooters are illegal, so nobody should wear a helmet as they shouldn't be riding them anyway. Simple, black and white." Same education 
Same life chances
I bet you're here all week | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly. I find statements like this genuinely depressing. Such a generalised sweeping statement that implies everyone is the same. It is the whole nature vs nurture argument (IMO both are what creates a well rounded person). Plenty of people transcend their environment and upbringing, but not all. Why is that? The statement applies to enough people to make it valid. Genetics play a big part in life prospects, as does the attitude and support of the parents. There are way too many people who don't respect this country, its laws and the environment we live in. Evidence is everywhere: "Petty" crimes such as littering, illegal parking, riding bikes on the pavement, riding private e scooters, illegal off road motorcycles and other anti social behaviour are endemic and rarely punished. Truancy and absenteeism from school is rising. Most schools have to spend a considerable amount of time chasing some pupils to try and get them to attend. Again the pupils and parents are rarely punished. More serious crime is also on the rise. Shoplifting, drug use, burglary and theft. Gang violence mostly linked to drugs. All partly driven by the general lack of respect for our society. National service may be one way of improving the situation. And what is driving the increases in anti-social behaviour and petty crime (and more serious crime)? There is a correlation between economic hardship and increases crime rates. When the good times are rolling and felt by more people, ironically the level of crime reduces. Weird isn’t it? Why are crime levels in poor and deprived areas higher than in affluent areas? Why is school truancy higher in poor and deprived areas and poor performing schools than in wealthier areas with good performing schools? Conversely, why should having less money make people have less respect, and make them more likely to commit crime? Are they criminals because they live there or do they live there because they are criminals? Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. Society seems to accept low level criminality as normal. For example someone was killed riding a private e scooter last week. In the news his wife pleaded with people to wear helmets (he wasn't). But the scooters are illegal, so nobody should wear a helmet as they shouldn't be riding them anyway. Simple, black and white. All interesting points/questions and I am sure there are subject matter experts on social-demographic research who are better placed than me to respond. However, when you say… Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. I don’t agree. We already know that if you are better off, live in a better area, go to a better school (or Grammar or Pvt Sch) then you immediately have improved chances over someone living in an inner city sink estate. But is that genetics or "deprivation"? And would National Service improve things?" What do you think? You don't strike me as worldly wise. | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly. I find statements like this genuinely depressing. Such a generalised sweeping statement that implies everyone is the same. It is the whole nature vs nurture argument (IMO both are what creates a well rounded person). Plenty of people transcend their environment and upbringing, but not all. Why is that? The statement applies to enough people to make it valid. Genetics play a big part in life prospects, as does the attitude and support of the parents. There are way too many people who don't respect this country, its laws and the environment we live in. Evidence is everywhere: "Petty" crimes such as littering, illegal parking, riding bikes on the pavement, riding private e scooters, illegal off road motorcycles and other anti social behaviour are endemic and rarely punished. Truancy and absenteeism from school is rising. Most schools have to spend a considerable amount of time chasing some pupils to try and get them to attend. Again the pupils and parents are rarely punished. More serious crime is also on the rise. Shoplifting, drug use, burglary and theft. Gang violence mostly linked to drugs. All partly driven by the general lack of respect for our society. National service may be one way of improving the situation. And what is driving the increases in anti-social behaviour and petty crime (and more serious crime)? There is a correlation between economic hardship and increases crime rates. When the good times are rolling and felt by more people, ironically the level of crime reduces. Weird isn’t it? Why are crime levels in poor and deprived areas higher than in affluent areas? Why is school truancy higher in poor and deprived areas and poor performing schools than in wealthier areas with good performing schools? Conversely, why should having less money make people have less respect, and make them more likely to commit crime? Are they criminals because they live there or do they live there because they are criminals? Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. Society seems to accept low level criminality as normal. For example someone was killed riding a private e scooter last week. In the news his wife pleaded with people to wear helmets (he wasn't). But the scooters are illegal, so nobody should wear a helmet as they shouldn't be riding them anyway. Simple, black and white. All interesting points/questions and I am sure there are subject matter experts on social-demographic research who are better placed than me to respond. However, when you say… Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. I don’t agree. We already know that if you are better off, live in a better area, go to a better school (or Grammar or Pvt Sch) then you immediately have improved chances over someone living in an inner city sink estate. But is that genetics or "deprivation"? And would National Service improve things? What do you think? You don't strike me as worldly wise." Genetics. Yes. I disagree with your last statement. | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly. I find statements like this genuinely depressing. Such a generalised sweeping statement that implies everyone is the same. It is the whole nature vs nurture argument (IMO both are what creates a well rounded person). Plenty of people transcend their environment and upbringing, but not all. Why is that? The statement applies to enough people to make it valid. Genetics play a big part in life prospects, as does the attitude and support of the parents. There are way too many people who don't respect this country, its laws and the environment we live in. Evidence is everywhere: "Petty" crimes such as littering, illegal parking, riding bikes on the pavement, riding private e scooters, illegal off road motorcycles and other anti social behaviour are endemic and rarely punished. Truancy and absenteeism from school is rising. Most schools have to spend a considerable amount of time chasing some pupils to try and get them to attend. Again the pupils and parents are rarely punished. More serious crime is also on the rise. Shoplifting, drug use, burglary and theft. Gang violence mostly linked to drugs. All partly driven by the general lack of respect for our society. National service may be one way of improving the situation. And what is driving the increases in anti-social behaviour and petty crime (and more serious crime)? There is a correlation between economic hardship and increases crime rates. When the good times are rolling and felt by more people, ironically the level of crime reduces. Weird isn’t it? Why are crime levels in poor and deprived areas higher than in affluent areas? Why is school truancy higher in poor and deprived areas and poor performing schools than in wealthier areas with good performing schools? Conversely, why should having less money make people have less respect, and make them more likely to commit crime? Are they criminals because they live there or do they live there because they are criminals? Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. Society seems to accept low level criminality as normal. For example someone was killed riding a private e scooter last week. In the news his wife pleaded with people to wear helmets (he wasn't). But the scooters are illegal, so nobody should wear a helmet as they shouldn't be riding them anyway. Simple, black and white. All interesting points/questions and I am sure there are subject matter experts on social-demographic research who are better placed than me to respond. However, when you say… Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. I don’t agree. We already know that if you are better off, live in a better area, go to a better school (or Grammar or Pvt Sch) then you immediately have improved chances over someone living in an inner city sink estate. But is that genetics or "deprivation"? And would National Service improve things?" Genetics do not determine where you live! Weird thing to say? | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly. I find statements like this genuinely depressing. Such a generalised sweeping statement that implies everyone is the same. It is the whole nature vs nurture argument (IMO both are what creates a well rounded person). Plenty of people transcend their environment and upbringing, but not all. Why is that? The statement applies to enough people to make it valid. Genetics play a big part in life prospects, as does the attitude and support of the parents. There are way too many people who don't respect this country, its laws and the environment we live in. Evidence is everywhere: "Petty" crimes such as littering, illegal parking, riding bikes on the pavement, riding private e scooters, illegal off road motorcycles and other anti social behaviour are endemic and rarely punished. Truancy and absenteeism from school is rising. Most schools have to spend a considerable amount of time chasing some pupils to try and get them to attend. Again the pupils and parents are rarely punished. More serious crime is also on the rise. Shoplifting, drug use, burglary and theft. Gang violence mostly linked to drugs. All partly driven by the general lack of respect for our society. National service may be one way of improving the situation. And what is driving the increases in anti-social behaviour and petty crime (and more serious crime)? There is a correlation between economic hardship and increases crime rates. When the good times are rolling and felt by more people, ironically the level of crime reduces. Weird isn’t it? Why are crime levels in poor and deprived areas higher than in affluent areas? Why is school truancy higher in poor and deprived areas and poor performing schools than in wealthier areas with good performing schools? Conversely, why should having less money make people have less respect, and make them more likely to commit crime? Are they criminals because they live there or do they live there because they are criminals? Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. Society seems to accept low level criminality as normal. For example someone was killed riding a private e scooter last week. In the news his wife pleaded with people to wear helmets (he wasn't). But the scooters are illegal, so nobody should wear a helmet as they shouldn't be riding them anyway. Simple, black and white. All interesting points/questions and I am sure there are subject matter experts on social-demographic research who are better placed than me to respond. However, when you say… Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. I don’t agree. We already know that if you are better off, live in a better area, go to a better school (or Grammar or Pvt Sch) then you immediately have improved chances over someone living in an inner city sink estate. But is that genetics or "deprivation"? And would National Service improve things? Genetics do not determine where you live! Weird thing to say?" Not weird at all. Genetics have a lot of influence on life chances as they determine health and intelligence to a large extent. There are some outliers but offspring of intelligent people are more likely to inherit intelligence, and the parents are more likely to nurture that. Therefore better life chances, and more likelihood of having a choice of where to live. The state gives everyone the same chance, arguably more "deprived" areas get more help. What people do with that is what determines their progress, and genetics play a large part in that. | |||
"If it gets those that might want to go on benefits out and about, it is a good idea. I can't see many people voting for it. What about those 18yr olds who got straight A’s in their A Levels and a place at a top university and the potential for a very successful career ahead of them? " Think of it as a gap year thing. | |||
"If it gets those that might want to go on benefits out and about, it is a good idea. I can't see many people voting for it. What about those 18yr olds who got straight A’s in their A Levels and a place at a top university and the potential for a very successful career ahead of them? Think of it as a gap year thing." Like a Maze runner thing. If you survive, you can go to Uni. | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly. I find statements like this genuinely depressing. Such a generalised sweeping statement that implies everyone is the same. It is the whole nature vs nurture argument (IMO both are what creates a well rounded person). Plenty of people transcend their environment and upbringing, but not all. Why is that? The statement applies to enough people to make it valid. Genetics play a big part in life prospects, as does the attitude and support of the parents. There are way too many people who don't respect this country, its laws and the environment we live in. Evidence is everywhere: "Petty" crimes such as littering, illegal parking, riding bikes on the pavement, riding private e scooters, illegal off road motorcycles and other anti social behaviour are endemic and rarely punished. Truancy and absenteeism from school is rising. Most schools have to spend a considerable amount of time chasing some pupils to try and get them to attend. Again the pupils and parents are rarely punished. More serious crime is also on the rise. Shoplifting, drug use, burglary and theft. Gang violence mostly linked to drugs. All partly driven by the general lack of respect for our society. National service may be one way of improving the situation. And what is driving the increases in anti-social behaviour and petty crime (and more serious crime)? There is a correlation between economic hardship and increases crime rates. When the good times are rolling and felt by more people, ironically the level of crime reduces. Weird isn’t it? Why are crime levels in poor and deprived areas higher than in affluent areas? Why is school truancy higher in poor and deprived areas and poor performing schools than in wealthier areas with good performing schools? Conversely, why should having less money make people have less respect, and make them more likely to commit crime? Are they criminals because they live there or do they live there because they are criminals? Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. Society seems to accept low level criminality as normal. For example someone was killed riding a private e scooter last week. In the news his wife pleaded with people to wear helmets (he wasn't). But the scooters are illegal, so nobody should wear a helmet as they shouldn't be riding them anyway. Simple, black and white. All interesting points/questions and I am sure there are subject matter experts on social-demographic research who are better placed than me to respond. However, when you say… Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. I don’t agree. We already know that if you are better off, live in a better area, go to a better school (or Grammar or Pvt Sch) then you immediately have improved chances over someone living in an inner city sink estate. But is that genetics or "deprivation"? And would National Service improve things? Genetics do not determine where you live! Weird thing to say? Not weird at all. Genetics have a lot of influence on life chances as they determine health and intelligence to a large extent. There are some outliers but offspring of intelligent people are more likely to inherit intelligence, and the parents are more likely to nurture that. Therefore better life chances, and more likelihood of having a choice of where to live. The state gives everyone the same chance, arguably more "deprived" areas get more help. What people do with that is what determines their progress, and genetics play a large part in that." I knew you'd contradict yourself (exactly same chances vs better life chances). It's just the old nature nurture debate stated in a weird way. And both matter. Do you know how hard it is to lift yourself out of the poverty cycle? Even with a high intelligence? I could write a book. | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly. I find statements like this genuinely depressing. Such a generalised sweeping statement that implies everyone is the same. It is the whole nature vs nurture argument (IMO both are what creates a well rounded person). Plenty of people transcend their environment and upbringing, but not all. Why is that? The statement applies to enough people to make it valid. Genetics play a big part in life prospects, as does the attitude and support of the parents. There are way too many people who don't respect this country, its laws and the environment we live in. Evidence is everywhere: "Petty" crimes such as littering, illegal parking, riding bikes on the pavement, riding private e scooters, illegal off road motorcycles and other anti social behaviour are endemic and rarely punished. Truancy and absenteeism from school is rising. Most schools have to spend a considerable amount of time chasing some pupils to try and get them to attend. Again the pupils and parents are rarely punished. More serious crime is also on the rise. Shoplifting, drug use, burglary and theft. Gang violence mostly linked to drugs. All partly driven by the general lack of respect for our society. National service may be one way of improving the situation. And what is driving the increases in anti-social behaviour and petty crime (and more serious crime)? There is a correlation between economic hardship and increases crime rates. When the good times are rolling and felt by more people, ironically the level of crime reduces. Weird isn’t it? Why are crime levels in poor and deprived areas higher than in affluent areas? Why is school truancy higher in poor and deprived areas and poor performing schools than in wealthier areas with good performing schools? Conversely, why should having less money make people have less respect, and make them more likely to commit crime? Are they criminals because they live there or do they live there because they are criminals? Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. Society seems to accept low level criminality as normal. For example someone was killed riding a private e scooter last week. In the news his wife pleaded with people to wear helmets (he wasn't). But the scooters are illegal, so nobody should wear a helmet as they shouldn't be riding them anyway. Simple, black and white. All interesting points/questions and I am sure there are subject matter experts on social-demographic research who are better placed than me to respond. However, when you say… Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. I don’t agree. We already know that if you are better off, live in a better area, go to a better school (or Grammar or Pvt Sch) then you immediately have improved chances over someone living in an inner city sink estate. But is that genetics or "deprivation"? And would National Service improve things? Genetics do not determine where you live! Weird thing to say? Not weird at all. Genetics have a lot of influence on life chances as they determine health and intelligence to a large extent. There are some outliers but offspring of intelligent people are more likely to inherit intelligence, and the parents are more likely to nurture that. Therefore better life chances, and more likelihood of having a choice of where to live. The state gives everyone the same chance, arguably more "deprived" areas get more help. What people do with that is what determines their progress, and genetics play a large part in that." id love to see actual evidmece of genetics playing such a role and to what extent. | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly. I find statements like this genuinely depressing. Such a generalised sweeping statement that implies everyone is the same. It is the whole nature vs nurture argument (IMO both are what creates a well rounded person). Plenty of people transcend their environment and upbringing, but not all. Why is that? The statement applies to enough people to make it valid. Genetics play a big part in life prospects, as does the attitude and support of the parents. There are way too many people who don't respect this country, its laws and the environment we live in. Evidence is everywhere: "Petty" crimes such as littering, illegal parking, riding bikes on the pavement, riding private e scooters, illegal off road motorcycles and other anti social behaviour are endemic and rarely punished. Truancy and absenteeism from school is rising. Most schools have to spend a considerable amount of time chasing some pupils to try and get them to attend. Again the pupils and parents are rarely punished. More serious crime is also on the rise. Shoplifting, drug use, burglary and theft. Gang violence mostly linked to drugs. All partly driven by the general lack of respect for our society. National service may be one way of improving the situation. And what is driving the increases in anti-social behaviour and petty crime (and more serious crime)? There is a correlation between economic hardship and increases crime rates. When the good times are rolling and felt by more people, ironically the level of crime reduces. Weird isn’t it? Why are crime levels in poor and deprived areas higher than in affluent areas? Why is school truancy higher in poor and deprived areas and poor performing schools than in wealthier areas with good performing schools? Conversely, why should having less money make people have less respect, and make them more likely to commit crime? Are they criminals because they live there or do they live there because they are criminals? Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. Society seems to accept low level criminality as normal. For example someone was killed riding a private e scooter last week. In the news his wife pleaded with people to wear helmets (he wasn't). But the scooters are illegal, so nobody should wear a helmet as they shouldn't be riding them anyway. Simple, black and white. All interesting points/questions and I am sure there are subject matter experts on social-demographic research who are better placed than me to respond. However, when you say… Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. I don’t agree. We already know that if you are better off, live in a better area, go to a better school (or Grammar or Pvt Sch) then you immediately have improved chances over someone living in an inner city sink estate. But is that genetics or "deprivation"? And would National Service improve things? Genetics do not determine where you live! Weird thing to say? Not weird at all. Genetics have a lot of influence on life chances as they determine health and intelligence to a large extent. There are some outliers but offspring of intelligent people are more likely to inherit intelligence, and the parents are more likely to nurture that. Therefore better life chances, and more likelihood of having a choice of where to live. The state gives everyone the same chance, arguably more "deprived" areas get more help. What people do with that is what determines their progress, and genetics play a large part in that. I knew you'd contradict yourself (exactly same chances vs better life chances). It's just the old nature nurture debate stated in a weird way. And both matter. Do you know how hard it is to lift yourself out of the poverty cycle? Even with a high intelligence? I could write a book." All you need to do is stop subscribing to sky TV, stop smoking and stop buying Xboxes. Sorted. | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly. I find statements like this genuinely depressing. Such a generalised sweeping statement that implies everyone is the same. It is the whole nature vs nurture argument (IMO both are what creates a well rounded person). Plenty of people transcend their environment and upbringing, but not all. Why is that? The statement applies to enough people to make it valid. Genetics play a big part in life prospects, as does the attitude and support of the parents. There are way too many people who don't respect this country, its laws and the environment we live in. Evidence is everywhere: "Petty" crimes such as littering, illegal parking, riding bikes on the pavement, riding private e scooters, illegal off road motorcycles and other anti social behaviour are endemic and rarely punished. Truancy and absenteeism from school is rising. Most schools have to spend a considerable amount of time chasing some pupils to try and get them to attend. Again the pupils and parents are rarely punished. More serious crime is also on the rise. Shoplifting, drug use, burglary and theft. Gang violence mostly linked to drugs. All partly driven by the general lack of respect for our society. National service may be one way of improving the situation. And what is driving the increases in anti-social behaviour and petty crime (and more serious crime)? There is a correlation between economic hardship and increases crime rates. When the good times are rolling and felt by more people, ironically the level of crime reduces. Weird isn’t it? Why are crime levels in poor and deprived areas higher than in affluent areas? Why is school truancy higher in poor and deprived areas and poor performing schools than in wealthier areas with good performing schools? Conversely, why should having less money make people have less respect, and make them more likely to commit crime? Are they criminals because they live there or do they live there because they are criminals? Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. Society seems to accept low level criminality as normal. For example someone was killed riding a private e scooter last week. In the news his wife pleaded with people to wear helmets (he wasn't). But the scooters are illegal, so nobody should wear a helmet as they shouldn't be riding them anyway. Simple, black and white. All interesting points/questions and I am sure there are subject matter experts on social-demographic research who are better placed than me to respond. However, when you say… Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. I don’t agree. We already know that if you are better off, live in a better area, go to a better school (or Grammar or Pvt Sch) then you immediately have improved chances over someone living in an inner city sink estate. But is that genetics or "deprivation"? And would National Service improve things? Genetics do not determine where you live! Weird thing to say? Not weird at all. Genetics have a lot of influence on life chances as they determine health and intelligence to a large extent. There are some outliers but offspring of intelligent people are more likely to inherit intelligence, and the parents are more likely to nurture that. Therefore better life chances, and more likelihood of having a choice of where to live. The state gives everyone the same chance, arguably more "deprived" areas get more help. What people do with that is what determines their progress, and genetics play a large part in that. I knew you'd contradict yourself (exactly same chances vs better life chances). It's just the old nature nurture debate stated in a weird way. And both matter. Do you know how hard it is to lift yourself out of the poverty cycle? Even with a high intelligence? I could write a book. All you need to do is stop subscribing to sky TV, stop smoking and stop buying Xboxes. Sorted." Not getting a first class honours degree then? | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly. I find statements like this genuinely depressing. Such a generalised sweeping statement that implies everyone is the same. It is the whole nature vs nurture argument (IMO both are what creates a well rounded person). Plenty of people transcend their environment and upbringing, but not all. Why is that? The statement applies to enough people to make it valid. Genetics play a big part in life prospects, as does the attitude and support of the parents. There are way too many people who don't respect this country, its laws and the environment we live in. Evidence is everywhere: "Petty" crimes such as littering, illegal parking, riding bikes on the pavement, riding private e scooters, illegal off road motorcycles and other anti social behaviour are endemic and rarely punished. Truancy and absenteeism from school is rising. Most schools have to spend a considerable amount of time chasing some pupils to try and get them to attend. Again the pupils and parents are rarely punished. More serious crime is also on the rise. Shoplifting, drug use, burglary and theft. Gang violence mostly linked to drugs. All partly driven by the general lack of respect for our society. National service may be one way of improving the situation. And what is driving the increases in anti-social behaviour and petty crime (and more serious crime)? There is a correlation between economic hardship and increases crime rates. When the good times are rolling and felt by more people, ironically the level of crime reduces. Weird isn’t it? Why are crime levels in poor and deprived areas higher than in affluent areas? Why is school truancy higher in poor and deprived areas and poor performing schools than in wealthier areas with good performing schools? Conversely, why should having less money make people have less respect, and make them more likely to commit crime? Are they criminals because they live there or do they live there because they are criminals? Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. Society seems to accept low level criminality as normal. For example someone was killed riding a private e scooter last week. In the news his wife pleaded with people to wear helmets (he wasn't). But the scooters are illegal, so nobody should wear a helmet as they shouldn't be riding them anyway. Simple, black and white. All interesting points/questions and I am sure there are subject matter experts on social-demographic research who are better placed than me to respond. However, when you say… Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. I don’t agree. We already know that if you are better off, live in a better area, go to a better school (or Grammar or Pvt Sch) then you immediately have improved chances over someone living in an inner city sink estate. But is that genetics or "deprivation"? And would National Service improve things? Genetics do not determine where you live! Weird thing to say? Not weird at all. Genetics have a lot of influence on life chances as they determine health and intelligence to a large extent. There are some outliers but offspring of intelligent people are more likely to inherit intelligence, and the parents are more likely to nurture that. Therefore better life chances, and more likelihood of having a choice of where to live. The state gives everyone the same chance, arguably more "deprived" areas get more help. What people do with that is what determines their progress, and genetics play a large part in that. I knew you'd contradict yourself (exactly same chances vs better life chances). It's just the old nature nurture debate stated in a weird way. And both matter. Do you know how hard it is to lift yourself out of the poverty cycle? Even with a high intelligence? I could write a book. All you need to do is stop subscribing to sky TV, stop smoking and stop buying Xboxes. Sorted. Not getting a first class honours degree then? "“You don't have to go to university to succeed in life.” - Sunak. Coming from an weathly family and marrying a multi-billionaire helps though. | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly. I find statements like this genuinely depressing. Such a generalised sweeping statement that implies everyone is the same. It is the whole nature vs nurture argument (IMO both are what creates a well rounded person). Plenty of people transcend their environment and upbringing, but not all. Why is that? The statement applies to enough people to make it valid. Genetics play a big part in life prospects, as does the attitude and support of the parents. There are way too many people who don't respect this country, its laws and the environment we live in. Evidence is everywhere: "Petty" crimes such as littering, illegal parking, riding bikes on the pavement, riding private e scooters, illegal off road motorcycles and other anti social behaviour are endemic and rarely punished. Truancy and absenteeism from school is rising. Most schools have to spend a considerable amount of time chasing some pupils to try and get them to attend. Again the pupils and parents are rarely punished. More serious crime is also on the rise. Shoplifting, drug use, burglary and theft. Gang violence mostly linked to drugs. All partly driven by the general lack of respect for our society. National service may be one way of improving the situation. And what is driving the increases in anti-social behaviour and petty crime (and more serious crime)? There is a correlation between economic hardship and increases crime rates. When the good times are rolling and felt by more people, ironically the level of crime reduces. Weird isn’t it? Why are crime levels in poor and deprived areas higher than in affluent areas? Why is school truancy higher in poor and deprived areas and poor performing schools than in wealthier areas with good performing schools? Conversely, why should having less money make people have less respect, and make them more likely to commit crime? Are they criminals because they live there or do they live there because they are criminals? Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. Society seems to accept low level criminality as normal. For example someone was killed riding a private e scooter last week. In the news his wife pleaded with people to wear helmets (he wasn't). But the scooters are illegal, so nobody should wear a helmet as they shouldn't be riding them anyway. Simple, black and white. All interesting points/questions and I am sure there are subject matter experts on social-demographic research who are better placed than me to respond. However, when you say… Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. I don’t agree. We already know that if you are better off, live in a better area, go to a better school (or Grammar or Pvt Sch) then you immediately have improved chances over someone living in an inner city sink estate. But is that genetics or "deprivation"? And would National Service improve things? Genetics do not determine where you live! Weird thing to say? Not weird at all. Genetics have a lot of influence on life chances as they determine health and intelligence to a large extent. There are some outliers but offspring of intelligent people are more likely to inherit intelligence, and the parents are more likely to nurture that. Therefore better life chances, and more likelihood of having a choice of where to live. The state gives everyone the same chance, arguably more "deprived" areas get more help. What people do with that is what determines their progress, and genetics play a large part in that. I knew you'd contradict yourself (exactly same chances vs better life chances). It's just the old nature nurture debate stated in a weird way. And both matter. Do you know how hard it is to lift yourself out of the poverty cycle? Even with a high intelligence? I could write a book. All you need to do is stop subscribing to sky TV, stop smoking and stop buying Xboxes. Sorted. Not getting a first class honours degree then?
“You don't have to go to university to succeed in life.” - Sunak.
Coming from an weathly family and marrying a multi-billionaire helps though.
"If you want to have a profession it does. OK I failed at coming from a wealthy or even adequate income family, so where do I find myself a billionaire (I'm happy to downgrade to a millionaire)  | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly. I find statements like this genuinely depressing. Such a generalised sweeping statement that implies everyone is the same. It is the whole nature vs nurture argument (IMO both are what creates a well rounded person). Plenty of people transcend their environment and upbringing, but not all. Why is that? The statement applies to enough people to make it valid. Genetics play a big part in life prospects, as does the attitude and support of the parents. There are way too many people who don't respect this country, its laws and the environment we live in. Evidence is everywhere: "Petty" crimes such as littering, illegal parking, riding bikes on the pavement, riding private e scooters, illegal off road motorcycles and other anti social behaviour are endemic and rarely punished. Truancy and absenteeism from school is rising. Most schools have to spend a considerable amount of time chasing some pupils to try and get them to attend. Again the pupils and parents are rarely punished. More serious crime is also on the rise. Shoplifting, drug use, burglary and theft. Gang violence mostly linked to drugs. All partly driven by the general lack of respect for our society. National service may be one way of improving the situation. And what is driving the increases in anti-social behaviour and petty crime (and more serious crime)? There is a correlation between economic hardship and increases crime rates. When the good times are rolling and felt by more people, ironically the level of crime reduces. Weird isn’t it? Why are crime levels in poor and deprived areas higher than in affluent areas? Why is school truancy higher in poor and deprived areas and poor performing schools than in wealthier areas with good performing schools? Conversely, why should having less money make people have less respect, and make them more likely to commit crime? Are they criminals because they live there or do they live there because they are criminals? Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. Society seems to accept low level criminality as normal. For example someone was killed riding a private e scooter last week. In the news his wife pleaded with people to wear helmets (he wasn't). But the scooters are illegal, so nobody should wear a helmet as they shouldn't be riding them anyway. Simple, black and white. All interesting points/questions and I am sure there are subject matter experts on social-demographic research who are better placed than me to respond. However, when you say… Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. I don’t agree. We already know that if you are better off, live in a better area, go to a better school (or Grammar or Pvt Sch) then you immediately have improved chances over someone living in an inner city sink estate. But is that genetics or "deprivation"? And would National Service improve things? Genetics do not determine where you live! Weird thing to say? Not weird at all. Genetics have a lot of influence on life chances as they determine health and intelligence to a large extent. There are some outliers but offspring of intelligent people are more likely to inherit intelligence, and the parents are more likely to nurture that. Therefore better life chances, and more likelihood of having a choice of where to live. The state gives everyone the same chance, arguably more "deprived" areas get more help. What people do with that is what determines their progress, and genetics play a large part in that. I knew you'd contradict yourself (exactly same chances vs better life chances). It's just the old nature nurture debate stated in a weird way. And both matter. Do you know how hard it is to lift yourself out of the poverty cycle? Even with a high intelligence? I could write a book. All you need to do is stop subscribing to sky TV, stop smoking and stop buying Xboxes. Sorted. Not getting a first class honours degree then?
“You don't have to go to university to succeed in life.” - Sunak.
Coming from an weathly family and marrying a multi-billionaire helps though.
If you want to have a profession it does.
OK I failed at coming from a wealthy or even adequate income family, so where do I find myself a billionaire (I'm happy to downgrade to a millionaire) "Apparently you need to have enough wedge to get yourself over to Stanford university in the US as Rishi did. | |||
| |||
"Folks, don't let the green-eyed monster eat you from within." Are you suggesting we're envious of Rishi Sunak? | |||
"Folks, don't let the green-eyed monster eat you from within. Are you suggesting we're envious of Rishi Sunak?" Well, son of immigrants, Head Boy at Winchester, Oxford, Stanford the in the City with Goldman Sachs to make his own fortune. Married a heiress. In the US that would be upheld as the American Dream. In UK everybody grumbles. | |||
"Folks, don't let the green-eyed monster eat you from within. Are you suggesting we're envious of Rishi Sunak? Well, son of immigrants, Head Boy at Winchester, Oxford, Stanford the in the City with Goldman Sachs to make his own fortune. Married a heiress. In the US that would be upheld as the American Dream. In UK everybody grumbles. " I got you. I think you're confusing calling out privilege with being envious. | |||
"Folks, don't let the green-eyed monster eat you from within. Are you suggesting we're envious of Rishi Sunak? Well, son of immigrants, Head Boy at Winchester, Oxford, Stanford the in the City with Goldman Sachs to make his own fortune. Married a heiress. In the US that would be upheld as the American Dream. In UK everybody grumbles. I got you. I think you're confusing calling out privilege with being envious. " Hmmmm, perhaps you're confusing being successful with privilege. | |||
"Folks, don't let the green-eyed monster eat you from within." Envious of? I see tongue in cheek in the last half a dozen posts | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly. I find statements like this genuinely depressing. Such a generalised sweeping statement that implies everyone is the same. It is the whole nature vs nurture argument (IMO both are what creates a well rounded person). Plenty of people transcend their environment and upbringing, but not all. Why is that? The statement applies to enough people to make it valid. Genetics play a big part in life prospects, as does the attitude and support of the parents. There are way too many people who don't respect this country, its laws and the environment we live in. Evidence is everywhere: "Petty" crimes such as littering, illegal parking, riding bikes on the pavement, riding private e scooters, illegal off road motorcycles and other anti social behaviour are endemic and rarely punished. Truancy and absenteeism from school is rising. Most schools have to spend a considerable amount of time chasing some pupils to try and get them to attend. Again the pupils and parents are rarely punished. More serious crime is also on the rise. Shoplifting, drug use, burglary and theft. Gang violence mostly linked to drugs. All partly driven by the general lack of respect for our society. National service may be one way of improving the situation. And what is driving the increases in anti-social behaviour and petty crime (and more serious crime)? There is a correlation between economic hardship and increases crime rates. When the good times are rolling and felt by more people, ironically the level of crime reduces. Weird isn’t it? Why are crime levels in poor and deprived areas higher than in affluent areas? Why is school truancy higher in poor and deprived areas and poor performing schools than in wealthier areas with good performing schools? Conversely, why should having less money make people have less respect, and make them more likely to commit crime? Are they criminals because they live there or do they live there because they are criminals? Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. Society seems to accept low level criminality as normal. For example someone was killed riding a private e scooter last week. In the news his wife pleaded with people to wear helmets (he wasn't). But the scooters are illegal, so nobody should wear a helmet as they shouldn't be riding them anyway. Simple, black and white. All interesting points/questions and I am sure there are subject matter experts on social-demographic research who are better placed than me to respond. However, when you say… Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. I don’t agree. We already know that if you are better off, live in a better area, go to a better school (or Grammar or Pvt Sch) then you immediately have improved chances over someone living in an inner city sink estate. But is that genetics or "deprivation"? And would National Service improve things? Genetics do not determine where you live! Weird thing to say? Not weird at all. Genetics have a lot of influence on life chances as they determine health and intelligence to a large extent. There are some outliers but offspring of intelligent people are more likely to inherit intelligence, and the parents are more likely to nurture that. Therefore better life chances, and more likelihood of having a choice of where to live. The state gives everyone the same chance, arguably more "deprived" areas get more help. What people do with that is what determines their progress, and genetics play a large part in that. I knew you'd contradict yourself (exactly same chances vs better life chances). It's just the old nature nurture debate stated in a weird way. And both matter. Do you know how hard it is to lift yourself out of the poverty cycle? Even with a high intelligence? I could write a book. All you need to do is stop subscribing to sky TV, stop smoking and stop buying Xboxes. Sorted. Not getting a first class honours degree then?
“You don't have to go to university to succeed in life.” - Sunak.
Coming from an weathly family and marrying a multi-billionaire helps though.
If you want to have a profession it does.
OK I failed at coming from a wealthy or even adequate income family, so where do I find myself a billionaire (I'm happy to downgrade to a millionaire) "Downgrade away! I’d wave except that would be crass (oops I did it!) | |||
"Folks, don't let the green-eyed monster eat you from within. Are you suggesting we're envious of Rishi Sunak? Well, son of immigrants, Head Boy at Winchester, Oxford, Stanford the in the City with Goldman Sachs to make his own fortune. Married a heiress. In the US that would be upheld as the American Dream. In UK everybody grumbles. I got you. I think you're confusing calling out privilege with being envious. Hmmmm, perhaps you're confusing being successful with privilege." Privilege is a leg up to being successful (although not guaranteed). Deprivation is an impediment to success , but not a certainty. | |||
"When I mean kids of today I mean the minority of kids who are a menace to society, I'm not talking about the marjority who are law abiding here's a controversial take... Any kid who has either in trouble with the police (above and beyond a given level) or has truancy above and beyond a given level, goes into NS... What say ye fabbers? Nope, I would suggest these kids have been let down by society, rather than being ‘bad’. Once we’ve addressed issues like poverty and underfunding of schools, lack of youth clubs and community centres etc. then we can start think about punishing kids for their behaviour. I was going to say there'll be a correlation between deprivation and truancy. What is this "deprivation" people keep referring to? Modern life has so many more material things than 50 or 100 years ago yet behaviour, respect of the world we live in etc. are much worse. Now an education is provided for all, but people don't care. The welfare state picks up the tab, but people don't care. So people have more, but behave more badly. I find statements like this genuinely depressing. Such a generalised sweeping statement that implies everyone is the same. It is the whole nature vs nurture argument (IMO both are what creates a well rounded person). Plenty of people transcend their environment and upbringing, but not all. Why is that? The statement applies to enough people to make it valid. Genetics play a big part in life prospects, as does the attitude and support of the parents. There are way too many people who don't respect this country, its laws and the environment we live in. Evidence is everywhere: "Petty" crimes such as littering, illegal parking, riding bikes on the pavement, riding private e scooters, illegal off road motorcycles and other anti social behaviour are endemic and rarely punished. Truancy and absenteeism from school is rising. Most schools have to spend a considerable amount of time chasing some pupils to try and get them to attend. Again the pupils and parents are rarely punished. More serious crime is also on the rise. Shoplifting, drug use, burglary and theft. Gang violence mostly linked to drugs. All partly driven by the general lack of respect for our society. National service may be one way of improving the situation. And what is driving the increases in anti-social behaviour and petty crime (and more serious crime)? There is a correlation between economic hardship and increases crime rates. When the good times are rolling and felt by more people, ironically the level of crime reduces. Weird isn’t it? Why are crime levels in poor and deprived areas higher than in affluent areas? Why is school truancy higher in poor and deprived areas and poor performing schools than in wealthier areas with good performing schools? Conversely, why should having less money make people have less respect, and make them more likely to commit crime? Are they criminals because they live there or do they live there because they are criminals? Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. Society seems to accept low level criminality as normal. For example someone was killed riding a private e scooter last week. In the news his wife pleaded with people to wear helmets (he wasn't). But the scooters are illegal, so nobody should wear a helmet as they shouldn't be riding them anyway. Simple, black and white. All interesting points/questions and I am sure there are subject matter experts on social-demographic research who are better placed than me to respond. However, when you say… Everyone has exactly the same chances, the same education, and has to make the same choices in life. I don't understand why people think that the law doesn't apply to them. I don’t agree. We already know that if you are better off, live in a better area, go to a better school (or Grammar or Pvt Sch) then you immediately have improved chances over someone living in an inner city sink estate. But is that genetics or "deprivation"? And would National Service improve things? Genetics do not determine where you live! Weird thing to say? Not weird at all. Genetics have a lot of influence on life chances as they determine health and intelligence to a large extent. There are some outliers but offspring of intelligent people are more likely to inherit intelligence, and the parents are more likely to nurture that. Therefore better life chances, and more likelihood of having a choice of where to live. The state gives everyone the same chance, arguably more "deprived" areas get more help. What people do with that is what determines their progress, and genetics play a large part in that. I knew you'd contradict yourself (exactly same chances vs better life chances). It's just the old nature nurture debate stated in a weird way. And both matter. Do you know how hard it is to lift yourself out of the poverty cycle? Even with a high intelligence? I could write a book. All you need to do is stop subscribing to sky TV, stop smoking and stop buying Xboxes. Sorted. Not getting a first class honours degree then?
“You don't have to go to university to succeed in life.” - Sunak.
Coming from an weathly family and marrying a multi-billionaire helps though.
If you want to have a profession it does.
OK I failed at coming from a wealthy or even adequate income family, so where do I find myself a billionaire (I'm happy to downgrade to a millionaire)
Downgrade away! I’d wave except that would be crass (oops I did it!)" | |||
"Folks, don't let the green-eyed monster eat you from within. Are you suggesting we're envious of Rishi Sunak? Well, son of immigrants, Head Boy at Winchester, Oxford, Stanford the in the City with Goldman Sachs to make his own fortune. Married a heiress. In the US that would be upheld as the American Dream. In UK everybody grumbles. I got you. I think you're confusing calling out privilege with being envious. Hmmmm, perhaps you're confusing being successful with privilege. Privilege is a leg up to being successful (although not guaranteed). Deprivation is an impediment to success , but not a certainty." Sure, that's undeniable. In a perfect world, we'd have equality of opportunity for all. But it's far from perfect. We have 'privileged' people ending up in the gutter and those from humble beginnings becoming billionaires. It's a wonderful life. | |||
"Folks, don't let the green-eyed monster eat you from within. Are you suggesting we're envious of Rishi Sunak? Well, son of immigrants, Head Boy at Winchester, Oxford, Stanford the in the City with Goldman Sachs to make his own fortune. Married a heiress. In the US that would be upheld as the American Dream. In UK everybody grumbles. I got you. I think you're confusing calling out privilege with being envious. Hmmmm, perhaps you're confusing being successful with privilege." Nope. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Discussing NS QT. Pierce Morgan states we should "serve" this group before we ask service from those who had their so much disruption dye to lockdowns (agreeing with Wes Streeting)." Fuck me hell just froze over - I agree with Piers Morgan  | |||
"Folks, don't let the green-eyed monster eat you from within. Are you suggesting we're envious of Rishi Sunak? Well, son of immigrants, Head Boy at Winchester, Oxford, Stanford the in the City with Goldman Sachs to make his own fortune. Married a heiress. In the US that would be upheld as the American Dream. In UK everybody grumbles. " I think it's more a case of not being able to relate to him, how can anyone. He makes decisions about issues that affect everyone without having a clue how it will impact on them because he's got no empathy for the struggle people face...He didn't even know how to pay for fuel in a petrol station. Look at his address to Royal Tunbridge Wells, he is bragging about taking money from deprived areas and putting back into more affluent places..... This is the issue I have with the man, he is so far removed from reality it's unreal | |||
