Inner-city kids.

Lollymcd

Thaedydal wrote: »

It is not just the offspring of young mother, that can play a factor but one of the local undesirables was born to his mother when she was in her late 40s, so he's 15 and she's in her 60s and he does as he please after his father passed away 5 years ago.

True, true, I just have not yet come across this, good point. The whole problem makes my head hurt, what would be best, invest in the area or bomb it... arrrgh!!!

MrChavcore

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Darndale (to choose one commonly cited example of 'poverty stricken' Dublin) :



Actual poverty:



Spot the difference?

Exactly. This Irish idea of poverty has nothing on the poverty you see in some countries, my own included. Just thinking of the Indian guy who got beaten up earlier on just made me think... Here was a man who in likelihood moved to Dublin to try and forge a life for himself that he couldn't back home... to essentially feed on the fruits of Ireland's first world economy. Instead he was basically beaten because of the way he looks (and I can guarantee everyone here that he didnt do or say anything to provoke these scumbags)... What kind of message does that send out to people who want to come to this country and do an honest days work as opposed to some of these locals who want to sit on their arse all day and make the weekly trip up to the post office to collect MY tax money!? I have nothing against people actively seeking work but there is a section of this society who plead poverty whilst they harbour no ambition to actually go out into the world and find employment!

Quentinkrisp

Dudess wrote: »

I realise it's a lot easier to just type a short sentence with the rolleyes symbol, but I find elaboration's a better approach.

Right so, spoonfeeding time: you were accusing babooshka of being over analytical of your posts when you were doing the exact same with hers, and then you-get this- accused her of jumping to false conclusions and misinterpreting your postswhen you were doing the exact same also!

et voila, the evidence!:)

Er... I did absolutely no dissecting. I thought you picked me up wrongly and I elaborated further. Seems you're the one analysing stuff that's not even there. And lol at you accusing me of being patronising. The start and end of your post is passive-aggressive central.

See what i'm on about?

Oh, resort to borderline personal abuse - what strength of character.

Please, try not to equate pointing out your obvious self contradiction and backpedalling with personal abuse. Yes, the truth can hurt, but try to take it in your stride, yes?:)

If i'd wanted to resort to personal abuse, I would have, and it would be worse thatn what i've written above. but i didn't being the gentleman that I am:)

Now: "Amenities ftw" and "If there's... a lack of amenities for youngsters, well these are not justifications, but they are explanations"... these are two different phrases

Yes. I am aware that they are two different phrases. But you did use the word "amenities" in your arguments. And then you deny it, why?
Anyway, I'm going to take leave of this thread for tonight, I'm actually starting to find your arguments hilarious!:D

Scambuster

I think it is a question of breeding. Generations of poor quality humans breeding in the same area.

Lollymcd

Scambuster wrote: »

I think it is a question of breeding. Generations of poor quality humans breeding in the same area.

Unpopular thing to say...

Quentinkrisp

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Darndale (to choose one commonly cited example of 'poverty stricken' Dublin) :



Actual poverty:



Spot the difference?

This post wins the thread, easily! tbh i find that a lot of the scummers in ireland have NOTHING to be resentful or angry about- they have access to education, clean water, food and more than adequate shelter. They just act like they do simply because they have learned that they can get away with it, their worthless, deadweight parents wont do anything top stop it either. and they can count on the likes of dudess and co. to excuse their actions everytime they get caught and may actually have to face punishment (yeah right:rolleyes:)

Cavehill Red

Quentinkrisp wrote: »

This post wins the thread, easily! tbh i find that a lot of the scummers in ireland have NOTHING to be resentful or angry about- they have access to education, clean water, food and more than adequate shelter. They just act like they do simply because they have learned that they can get away with it, their worthless, deadweight parents wont do anything top stop it either. and they can count on the likes of dudess and co. to excuse their actions everytime they get caught and may actually have to face punishment (yeah right:rolleyes:)

It's why I cheered to see the end of the Combat Poverty agency. There hasn't been real poverty in Ireland for decades, outside of a very tiny cohort of homeless people, all of whom have access to a hand up if they'd sober up to take it (like some gratefully do.)

There is deprivation in Ireland, alright. There are people, more than ever, struggling to make ends meet. But there's no poverty.

I've been to India, Mozambique, Laos - places where poverty is the norm. I can tell you this, even those genuinely poverty stricken people tend to behave hugely better than Dublin skangers.

Dudess

Quentinkrisp wrote: »

See what i'm on about?

No. Because you're wrong. I can't help it if you misunderstand me.

Please, try not to equate pointing out your obvious self contradiction and backpedalling with personal abuse. Yes, the truth can hurt, but try to take it in your stride, yes?:)

Well it's not the truth, but I was referring to your very personal memory loss stuff.

Yes. I am aware that they are two different phrases. But you did use the word "amenities" in your arguments. And then you deny it, why?

I deny saying "Amenities ftw" - because I didn't say it.

Anyway, I'm going to take leave of this thread for tonight, I'm actually starting to find your arguments hilarious!:D

Ah, you're not really.
Like what?

Quentinkrisp wrote: »

they can count on the likes of dudess and co. to excuse their actions everytime they get caught and may actually have to face punishment (yeah right:rolleyes:)

Point out where I excused their actions?

Taking a dislike to someone because they disagree with you (jeez, thought only kids did that) and pouncing on every little thing you find by them to pick apart just makes you look like a harassing, childish prick.
Writing thought-out posts and actually discussing makes you look a lot better. Most of what you've contributed to this thread is just snide digs, and you've blathered on about my posts being this, that and the other, but you haven't actually gone into any specifics as to WHAT you have a problem with. Don't get so upset with me just because I have a different point of view to yours, hon.

MrChavcore

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It's why I cheered to see the end of the Combat Poverty agency. There hasn't been real poverty in Ireland for decades, outside of a very tiny cohort of homeless people, all of whom have access to a hand up if they'd sober up to take it (like some gratefully do.)

There is deprivation in Ireland, alright. There are people, more than ever, struggling to make ends meet. But there's no poverty.

I've been to India, Mozambique, Laos - places where poverty is the norm. I can tell you this, even those genuinely poverty stricken people tend to behave hugely better than Dublin skangers.

Mozambique is a wonderful country! Its amazing how there is so much poverty there yet you see kids in the streets smiling and playing and you hardly ever hear of trouble. I experienced that in Ghana too. Amazingly low crime rates for countries besieged by poverty. Poverty isnt always a valid excuse, something I've tried to point out on a few occassions here.

Cavehill Red

MrChavcore wrote: »

Mozambique is a wonderful country! Its amazing how there is so much poverty there yet you see kids in the streets smiling and playing and you hardly ever hear of trouble. I experienced that in Ghana too. Amazingly low crime rates for countries besieged by poverty. Poverty isnt always a valid excuse, something I've tried to point out on a few occassions here.

Absolutely right. I saw little crime in Mozambique, as you say a beautiful country with wonderful people who are incredibly friendly despite having so little.
I had a very similar experience in Cambodia too.
By contrast, there was enormous crime in Joburg and Bangkok, where people had so much more. It's not an urban-rural thing either. Phnom Penh and Maputo aren't villages.
I've been assisted so many times in so many incredibly poor places by local people who had no other motivation than the desire to assist a stranger who might then think well of them despite their appearance or their conditions.
I'd take the dwellers of a Mumbai slum over Dublin skangers every day of every week.

WindSock

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Darndale (to choose one commonly cited example of 'poverty stricken' Dublin) :



Actual poverty:



Spot the difference?

I do indeed

fig: 1 shows an area where someone from a lower socio economic class may experience relative poverty

fig: 2 shows absolute poverty in a 3rd world country.

There are different types of poverty. Not all of them involve wearing rags and selling your kids though.

Overature

MrChavcore wrote: »

Hey guys.

I have been living in Dublin now for 3 years and its safe to say that whilst I like the city I've failed to fall in love with it due to certain members of society. I'm originally from Cape Town in South Africa but my father is Irish and I have loads of family and spent a lot of holidays here as a kid so it kind of feels like a home from home for me.

The Irish have a reputation for being friendly people and on the whole you are generally welcoming and friendly, but there are obvious exceptions. I lived in quiet Dundrum for 3 years but wanted to move closer to the hussle and bussle of the city. For the last 3 weeks I've been living in Dublin 2, just before George's Street. One thing I have instantly noticed since living in the city is the amount of mouthy kids that walk the streets. I've confronted a fair few who, whilst petrified when confronted, will always become mouthier and braver in larger groups. I have noticed that a lot of people are willing to let these kids run amock without confronting them, which in my opinion only empowers them more. The police don't seem to give a damn and no matter how many repeated calls you make to them they never seem to do anything about these kids who harass working people, students and even tourists. To me they represent a personified version of stray dogs or ferile cats.

I've been told by mouthy little kids that they are "hard" and that they will "kick my head in" which is yet to happen, obviously. They talk the talk but always fail to walk the walk. I'd love to see these kids spend a day in the inner city of Johannesburg or the shanty towns of Cape Town and see how far their mouths get them. Whatever they've seen I've seen worse so please spare me the threats.

What can we do about these little brats!? If the police don't take them pelting cars with snow balls seriously, or throwing stones at peoples windows who do we turn to!? The parents obviously don't give a damn or are completely ignorant to what their kids get up to and it kind of leaves me wondering what can be done!? Do we just go on and accept anti-social behaviour or do we make a concerted effort to supress it!?

welcome to Ireland and the lousy **** that prowl the streets

Cavehill Red

WindSock wrote: »

I do indeed

fig: 1 shows an area where someone from a lower socio economic class may experience relative poverty

Ah yes, 'relative poverty', the phrase used by CP to justify their existence long after poverty in Ireland was eradicated. It's a magical phrase, a wonderful phrase that permits almost anyone to be described as in poverty.
I for example, am in relative poverty compared to Russian oligarchs. It's terrible! Where's my grant?
No one in Ireland experiences poverty bar a handful of homeless. Some experience deprivation. Many struggle to meet ends. But that's not poverty and you should be ashamed of yourself for pretending it is, when there is so much real poverty in the world.

WindSock wrote: »

fig: 2 shows absolute poverty in a 3rd world country.
There are different types of poverty. Not all of them involve wearing rags and selling your kids though.

No, there's actually only one type of poverty. Tragically, it's so common that a majority of the planet actually are living in it. Thankfully for us, that doesn't include anyone in Ireland bar the aforementioned few homeless.

WindSock

I am not ashamed of myself for recognising I have lived quite a privilaged existance to a lot of people in inner city Dublin. I can acknowlege that and I know people have economic struggles far greater than mine, coupled with lack of community and family ties, which are the ties that bind those in the 3rd world countries you have visited. To say it is all sunshine and lollipop behaviour there though from the kids is a bit naiive.
Every country has its scumbags. Ours are relatively less scary than others, even if they are more noticeable to us in the city.

So you honestly think punishing the parents by the pocket who already struggle to get by is a good idea? Do you not think it will further spark anti social behaviour, or push them into having to steal from shops and people (if they don't already do so)

mrsdewinter

Dudess wrote: »

Now: "Amenities ftw" and "If there's... a lack of amenities for youngsters, well these are not justifications, but they are explanations"... these are two different phrases.

you're grasping at straws now, D...

Cavehill Red

WindSock wrote: »

I am not ashamed of myself for recognising I have lived quite a privilaged existance to a lot of people in inner city Dublin.

Lucky you. I haven't. I grew up in significantly worse conditions than anyone in this city experienced. And we weren't scumbags and didn't behave like scumbags.

WindSock wrote: »

I can acknowlege that and I know people have economic struggles far greater than mine, coupled with lack of community and family ties, which are the ties that bind those in the 3rd world countries you have visited. To say it is all sunshine and lollipop behaviour there though from the kids is a bit naiive.

But I didn't say that. Let's not play the 'makey-uppy quotey' game, shall we? I said I'd take the dwellers of a Mumbai slum over Dublin skangers any day of the week. That comes from extended experience of both.

WindSock wrote: »

Every country has its scumbags. Ours are relatively less scary than others, even if they are more noticeable to us in the city.

This isn't actually true. Our scumbags are running around with semi-automatics these days.

WindSock wrote: »

So you honestly think punishing the parents by the pocket who already struggle to get by is a good idea? Do you not think it will further spark anti social behaviour, or push them into having to steal from shops and people (if they don't already do so)

We need a legitimate deterrent to prevent the anti-social behaviour. The money saved on fined welfare benefits can be diverted into makework programmes and an army initiative which would end up self-funding.

Let them try to rob shops. Shops can respond with big security men. An individual quietly walking home who gets mugged cannot. A family where people are out working during the day and get burgled cannot.

Quentinkrisp

Oh Miaoww!;):D
It's fairly obvious to everyone exactly what I have a problem with, similar to most other posters on this thread: Scummers causing hassle, to put it bluntly.

Dudess wrote: »

No. Because you're wrong. I can't help it if you misunderstand me.

Who's being childish now, hmmm?:rolleyes:

Dudess wrote: »

I deny saying "Amenities ftw" - because I didn't say it.

You did say "Amenities" though:rolleyes:

Dudess wrote: »

Taking a dislike to someone because they disagree with you (jeez, thought only kids did that) and pouncing on every little thing you find by them to pick apart just makes you look like a harassing, childish prick.

Haha, maybe I was born to be a detective then. I have a knack for noticing details, no matter how trivial. it must be the 'aul aspergers syndrome playing up again.
Disliking you? Oh yes, because right now, i'm busy constructing an effigy of your likeness to burn on a large bonfire, plus i'm putting you on my enemies list forever, rrright:rolleyes::rolleyes: Ok, so you disagree with me fine. Fair enough.

Dudess wrote: »

Writing thought-out posts and actually discussing makes you look a lot better.

Well, considering the day i've had, I think I put some thought into my last post. However, if it's a discussion you want, then it's a discussion you've got hun:)

Dudess wrote: »

Most of what you've contributed to this thread is just snide digs, and you've blathered on about my posts being this, that and the other, but you haven't actually gone into any specifics as to WHAT you have a problem with. Don't get so upset with me just because I have a different point of view to yours, hon.

If its any consolation, i agreed with part of one of your posts, this one here;)

Dudess wrote: »

All that's being said is: if you're getting lip, ignore/make a smart comment back. If you're being physically attacked or you see someone else being physically attacked, defend yourself/them or call the guards.

Originally Posted by Dudess
Now: "Amenities ftw" and "If there's... a lack of amenities for youngsters, well these are not justifications, but they are explanations"... these are two different phrases.

And you accuse me of being over analytical? Next!

mrsdewinter

Thaedydal wrote: »

The break down in community where people dont' know thier neighbours means you don't know who's kids they are so it's impossible to find the parents never mind talk to them, and even then that might not make a difference.

The breakdown in community is key, imo. It's led to children believing that nobody beyond their immediate peer group or family are worthy of respect or consideration. That's a theory of mine that's applicable across most social classes, not just inner-city teenagers.

WindSock

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Lucky you. I haven't. I grew up in significantly worse conditions than anyone in this city experienced. And we weren't scumbags and didn't behave like scumbags.

I never said people who grew up in bad conditions are scumbags, however the majority of the scumbags mentioned in this thread for instance usually do.
What is the common factor here?

But I didn't say that. Let's not play the 'makey-uppy quotey' game, shall we? I said I'd take the dwellers of a Mumbai slum over Dublin skangers any day of the week. That comes from extended experience of both.

Nothing I said was made up. I extended on what you have said. But I added there are worse scumbags in the developing world, if you scratch below the surface.

This isn't actually true. Our scumbags are running around with semi-automatics these days.

Neither are most of ours. Some are, but they are involved with each other and don't generally harrass the public with them. Except for maybe a shop robbery or so.

Most of our problems is with the attitude and general anti-social behaviour.

Sometimes there is violence too. I don't condone it but I do in some instances where a member of the public is antagonised and fights back. As long as they don't get themselves into a worse situation but manage to give the scumbag a scare to make them think twice the next time about acting the maggot.

We need a legitimate deterrent to prevent the anti-social behaviour. The money saved on fined welfare benefits can be diverted into makework programmes and an army initiative which would end up self-funding.

Sure we do. I think there are more pro active approaches than cutting benefits though. I would rather see an initiative where the family in question had to attend a class one or two nights a week to work to maintain their payments rather than out and out swiping what they had to exist on.

Let them try to rob shops. Shops can respond with big security men. An individual quietly walking home who gets mugged cannot. A family where people are out working during the day and get burgled cannot.

..OK...

Cavehill Red

WindSock wrote: »

I never said people who grew up in bad conditions are scumbags, however the majority of the scumbags mentioned in this thread for instance usually do.
What is the common factor here?

Lack of parental guidance, imho.

WindSock wrote: »

Nothing I said was made up. I extended on what you have said. But I added there are worse scumbags in the developing world, if you scratch below the surface.

If you want to look around, sure. Moscow's scumbags are worse. So are South Central LA's. Or Mexico City's. But I don't live in any of those places. I live here and here's where I'm concerned about. It's frankly a cop out to say, well, there's worse scumbags elsewhere. There are billions, literally billions of people who have almost nothing who don't behave like our scumbags do.

WindSock wrote: »

Neither are most of ours. Some are, but they are involved with each other and don't generally harrass the public with them. Except for maybe a shop robbery or so.

And ten years ago, that phenomenon didn't exist. And in ten years time, we'll be like Compton, where the streetcorner kids are packing heat, if we don't address this. That's where it's going.

WindSock wrote: »

Most of our problems is with the attitude and general anti-social behaviour.
Sometimes there is violence too. I don't condone it but I do in some instances where a member of the public is antagonised and fights back. As long as they don't get themselves into a worse situation but manage to give the scumbag a scare to make them think twice the next time about acting the maggot.

But why should it have to be like that? Why should people have to walk the streets fearing that they may have to defend themselves physically against feral gurriers? Where are the effing police? Where are the deterrents to the behaviour?

WindSock wrote: »

Sure we do. I think there are more pro active approaches than cutting benefits though. I would rather see an initiative where the family in question had to attend a class one or two nights a week to work to maintain their payments rather than out and out swiping what they had to exist on.

They wouldn't attend. If they attended, they wouldn't pay any attention. There needs to be a proper deterrent in place, and our criminal justice system doesn't offer one. If going to the Joy is no deterrent why do you think that having an evening class to attend would be?

Dudess

Quentinkrisp wrote: »

It's fairly obvious to everyone exactly what I have a problem with, similar to most other posters on this thread: Scummers causing hassle, to put it bluntly.

And I didn't defend it.

Who's being childish now, hmmm?:rolleyes:

Oh no genuinely - you do misunderstand me. All this stuff about dissecting etc... all I've done is reply.

You did say "Amenities" though:rolleyes:

So? I didn't say "amenities ftw" which is what it was suggested I was saying.

Disliking you? Oh yes, because right now, i'm busy constructing an effigy of your likeness to burn on a large bonfire, plus i'm putting you on my enemies list forever, rrright:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Well, as a poster - following me around this thread and all tha'. It's silly to get that bothered by a member of an online community forum's posts.

And you accuse me of being over analytical?

Um... no I didn't.

Make sure you don't overdose on the rolleyes symbol...

WindSock

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Lack of parental guidance, imho.

That is one factor of a few, imo.

If you want to look around, sure. Moscow's scumbags are worse. So are South Central LA's. Or Mexico City's. But I don't live in any of those places. I live here and here's where I'm concerned about. It's frankly a cop out to say, well, there's worse scumbags elsewhere. There are billions, literally billions of people who have almost nothing who don't behave like our scumbags do.

I said there are worse elsewhere to counter yours and others about elsewhere being not as bad as here?

Sure there are billions with less than us in the world, but they, as mentioned before, have stronger familial and community ties.
It's easier to know your neighbours when you are living among them in close areas and depend on each other every day. Coupled with cultures that have children respect their elders.
We don't have that here anymore.

And ten years ago, that phenomenon didn't exist. And in ten years time, we'll be like Compton, where the streetcorner kids are packing heat, if we don't address this. That's where it's going.

Of course the behaviour and spiral needs to be addressed. Cutting welfare straight out won't address the issue alone as I have said previously.

But why should it have to be like that? Why should people have to walk the streets fearing that they may have to defend themselves physically against feral gurriers? Where are the effing police? Where are the deterrents to the behaviour?

No one should. The deterrents are not working. There needs to be a fresh approach. Again, I don't think cutting welfare is the solution...

They wouldn't attend. If they attended, they wouldn't pay any attention. There needs to be a proper deterrent in place, and our criminal justice system doesn't offer one. If going to the Joy is no deterrent why do you think that having an evening class to attend would be?

And this is when you cut the welfare. If they don't attend their development or community class or whatever it is they are to attend to be educated and learn values, then they get penalised.

Cavehill Red

WindSock wrote: »

That is one factor of a few, imo.

It's the important one. The one you stress - relative deprivation - doesn't fly because in so many places already mentioned by me and others it doesn't lead to antisocial behaviour as we see here.

WindSock wrote: »

I said there are worse elsewhere to counter yours and others about elsewhere being not as bad as here?

Some places are worse. Most places are not. What's difficult to understand?

WindSock wrote: »

Sure there are billions with less than us in the world, but they, as mentioned before, have stronger familial and community ties.
It's easier to know your neighbours when you are living among them in close areas and depend on each other every day. Coupled with cultures that have children respect their elders.
We don't have that here anymore.

Important issue number 2, following parental guidance.

WindSock wrote: »

Of course the behaviour and spiral needs to be addressed. Cutting welfare straight out won't address the issue alone as I have said previously.

The threat to cut welfare is a real deterrent. The current justice system is not. It can be used to free up funds to create more real deterrents, such as workfare schemes and an army programme.

WindSock wrote: »

No one should. The deterrents are not working. There needs to be a fresh approach. Again, I don't think cutting welfare is the solution...

It's part of a solution. Look at the whole of what I'm saying.

WindSock wrote: »

And this is when you cut the welfare. If they don't attend their development or community class or whatever it is they are to attend to be educated and learn values, then they get penalised.

Now we're just in a cycle of cutting welfare. You yourself reckon that won't work. That's why I suggest a REAL deterrent. Welfare cuts coupled with workfare. Coupled with an army programme for degenerate juveniles. Those are the sort of initiatives we need.

Cianos

Quentinkrisp wrote: »

This post wins the thread, easily! tbh i find that a lot of the scummers in ireland have NOTHING to be resentful or angry about- they have access to education, clean water, food and more than adequate shelter. They just act like they do simply because they have learned that they can get away with it, their worthless, deadweight parents wont do anything top stop it either. and they can count on the likes of dudess and co. to excuse their actions everytime they get caught and may actually have to face punishment (yeah right:rolleyes:)

I disagree. You cannot point out one completely unassociated group to another group and say "Hey, they have it worse than you, so you have nothing to feel bad about!".

What one perceives to be harrowing to ones own life has little to do with the experiences of others. We perceive our life as we perceive it. This works both in the positive and the negative.

There are more requirements to human contentment than basic provisions being met. Unfortunately the penetration of family and societal disconnection isn't relinquished by having enough to eat and a warm place to sleep. These are problems that persist regardless of practical procurement.

Being on the lower rung of societies ladder can be a great motivator for some to better themselves, to better their lot,, to get out of the ghetto and to strive for greatness. Great material for feel-good movies and what not. In reality, being on the lower rung of societies ladder means that the problems you are born in to make it much harder to deal with the problems you will face. The same everyday problems that everyone faces really, except with a much bigger handicap.

I'm not excusing any behavior, or saying we should turn a blind eye or anything like that. However, making assumptions and laying expectations about the values and life experiences of those in question is just going to exasperate the problem.

WindSock

It's the important one. The one you stress - relative deprivation - doesn't fly because in so many places already mentioned by me and others it doesn't lead to antisocial behaviour as we see here.

Relative poverty/deprivation that is also coupled everything else mentioned ie parental guidance / community / lack of positive role models / abuse / neglect /and a plethora of other forms of societal ills are all contributing factors. My stance is that most of these happen to be more apparent in areas of higher poverty / deprivation.

Some places are worse. Most places are not. What's difficult to understand?

I am not having difficulty understanding that. Don't know why you are asking. I was, as I have stated before pointing out about scumbaggery all over. People were saying its not as bad in other countries. I disagreed.

Important issue number 2, following parental guidance.

Yet you don't think having money to access basic resources is as important?

The threat to cut welfare is a real deterrent. The current justice system is not. It can be used to free up funds to create more real deterrents, such as workfare schemes and an army programme.

It's part of a solution. Look at the whole of what I'm saying.

As a part of a solution, but the final part of a solution. Not just going out and threatening Margarets benefits because her Johnny threw a snowball at a car.
It should be threatened after other forms of interventions to help instil respect for their communities and self development have failed. Even then, perhaps reducing the welfare cuts to just stamps for food and other basic necessities would suffice.

Now we're just in a cycle of cutting welfare. You yourself reckon that won't work. That's why I suggest a REAL deterrent. Welfare cuts coupled with workfare. Coupled with an army programme for degenerate juveniles. Those are the sort of initiatives we need.

Ok.

Quentinkrisp

Cianos wrote: »

I disagree. You cannot point out one completely unassociated group to another group and say "Hey, they have it worse than you, so you have nothing to feel bad about!".

What one perceives to be harrowing to ones own life has little to do with the experiences of others. We perceive our life as we perceive it. This works both in the positive and the negative.

There are more requirements to human contentment than basic provisions being met. Unfortunately the penetration of family and societal disconnection isn't relinquished by having enough to eat and a warm place to sleep. These are problems that persist regardless of practical procurement.

Being on the lower rung of societies ladder can be a great motivator for some to better themselves, to better their lot,, to get out of the ghetto and to strive for greatness. Great material for feel-good movies and what not. In reality, being on the lower rung of societies ladder means that the problems you are born in to make it much harder to deal with the problems you will face. The same everyday problems that everyone faces really, except with a much bigger handicap.

I'm not excusing any behavior, or saying we should turn a blind eye or anything like that. However, making assumptions and laying expectations about the values and life experiences of those in question is just going to exasperate the problem.

TL;DR waffle,waffle,waffle........

Quentinkrisp

Dudess wrote: »

Make sure you don't overdose on the rolleyes symbol...

Aww thanks for the helpful advice, although what better way to underscore the sheer stupidity and wooly nature of your posts than a rolleyes symbol, hmmm?

Oh and I thought i might as well award you with this: http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://farm1.static.flickr.com/144/389947494_903c08251d_z.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/vegas/389947494/&usg=__xRai4f9-Czp4BigLQ944LhVdg0c=&h=530&w=640&sz=127&hl=en&start=0&sig2=c3lfPxjH_A1p-yefsNMmFw&zoom=1&tbnid=i7bWJtODcmL9cM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=162&ei=qET4TPvxGInIhAetp4CGAw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dworld%2527s%2Bbiggest%2Bbull****ter%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D575%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=513&vpy=73&dur=2052&hovh=204&hovw=247&tx=149&ty=122&oei=qET4TPvxGInIhAetp4CGAw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0

WindSock

Quentinkrisp wrote: »

Aww thanks for the helpful advice, although what better way to underscore the sheer stupidity and wooly nature of your posts than a rolleyes symbol, hmmm?

Quentinkrisp wrote: »

TL;DR waffle,waffle,waffle........

:rolleyes:

Nevyn

mrsdewinter wrote: »

The breakdown in community is key, imo. It's led to children believing that nobody beyond their immediate peer group or family are worthy of respect or consideration. That's a theory of mine that's applicable across most social classes, not just inner-city teenagers.

With more and more ways to communicate we still have society breaking into smaller and smaller groups/tribes. If you not in a certain tribe then your fair game. Doesn't matter if you have been living there 30 years, if there is enough change in the local demographic and you aren't on talking terms with your neighbours and don't know their off spring on sight or are don't have an in with the tribe they belong to then you are a target as much as anyone who wanders in from 'outside' the area.

Quentinkrisp

WindSock wrote: »

:rolleyes:

http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://farm1.static.flickr.com/144/389947494_903c08251d_z.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/vegas/389947494/&usg=__xRai4f9-Czp4BigLQ944LhVdg0c=&h=530&w=640&sz=127&hl=en&start=0&sig2=c3lfPxjH_A1p-yefsNMmFw&zoom=1&tbnid=i7bWJtODcmL9cM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=162&ei=qET4TPvxGInIhAetp4CGAw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dworld%2527s%2Bbiggest%2Bbull****ter%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D575%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=513&vpy=73&dur=2052&hovh=204&hovw=247&tx=149&ty=122&oei=qET4TPvxGInIhAetp4CGAw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0

well done. you win 1 internets :P