Woman screams at judge.

Chain_reaction

hondasam wrote: »

I can only imagine it was a terrifying ordeal for both of them, naturally my sympathies are for the victim.
I'm not excusing the lads behaviour, just saying he knows no better, we can only hope prison teaches him a lesson.

Surely he'd have to have noticed at some point that 90% of the population don't behave like he or his companions did?

Maybe he seen a clock work orange and decided that was the life for him.

Well maybe he missed the rehabilitation bit.

skinny90

pmcmahon wrote: »

i think the real question we all want to know without reading is,is she a single mother?

No she has 6 husbands and 3 lads on the go

benway

RachaelVO wrote: »

I don't think you can equate being unemployed with being a criminal!

Who's trying to do that?

In my opinion, poverty doesn't breed crime in itself, social exclusion does, either within particular families, or whole communities.

It's not "bleedin' heart" to take a realistic view of the crime problem - I want to see crime pretty much wiped out as much as anyone, probably more than most, but I've long since come to the conclusion that punitive approaches do more harm than good.

Yeah, prison has a role, and yeah, there are a very small number of individuals who need to be locked up for life, but you're not going to reduce the crime rate by treating criminals like they're all two-dimensional "scumbags" rather than human beings.

token101

benway wrote: »

No doubt, most foster families and social workers do great work. But I've seen plenty of the HSE system, and I would beg to differ, overall, particularly when it comes to the residential centres and the likes of Oberstown.

The HSE really fck some of these kids around, for some that I've met, it's definitely made things worse.

That could well be true. Society may not have helped effectively, I don't know I wasn't there. But ultimately it shouldn't have to. I disagree with this mentality that it's society's responsibility to raise your children. You could take that mentality and extend it to almost anything really. None of that excuses this woman. The fault lies with her. And the more excuses people make for people like this, the more it persists.

benway

token101 wrote: »

None of that excuses this woman. The fault lies with her. And the more excuses people make for people like this, the more it persists.

Ok then, what would you do about it?

EDIT: The HSE thing is definitely, definitely true. I've seen some shocking stuff, the social workers and the carers do their best, but the system isn't fit for purpose.

RachaelVO

Chain_reaction wrote: »

Most of my parents generation grew up piss poor but yet most of us are alright.

Even the richer kids I know who spent their teens watching their Mam become gin and wine soaked also don't go around being horrors.

My parents too! I know that when my Mam was growing up she had to be brough to the dispensary (which by all accounts was pretty abysmal) to get money for my Mams as she was pretty sick as a kid. My Granny had to practically beg and take a lot of humiliation to get it for her. At NO point did it enter her head to go an rob someone!

Nodin

Chain_reaction wrote: »

I will admit this is true.

Theres a good few write ups about well to do folk adopting children only to have their hearts broken on a daily basis by their childs actions even though these children had every opportunity available to them.

It all comes down to a question of ethics...

The only way to prevent issues like this arising is to prevent the child being born in the first place and you're getting into fierce dark territory at that point.

...............

I'll put it this way - in Dublin (and presumably everywhere) you get 'notorious' families. Not all of the members are bad, but most of them end up living the same lifestyle. Their parents were 'known', and their grandparents were 'known'. The idea would be - through various methods - to break that kind of cycle of dysfunction. And that doesn't mean there's no jail and everybody gets a hug.

Procasinator

hondasam wrote: »

I'm not excusing the lads behaviour, just saying he knows no better, we can only hope prison teaches him a lesson.

So you are saying he knows no better than breaking into a house, threatening someone with a knife to their neck, threatening rape of a girl unless the victims agree to co-operate in handing over their cash?

This is not petty theft. Threatening rape and holding a knife to someone's neck is not someone doesn't know better of.

hondasam

Chain_reaction wrote: »

Surely he'd have to have noticed at some point that 90% of the population don't behave like he or his companions did?

Maybe he seen a clock work orange and decided that was the life for him.

Well maybe he missed the rehabilitation bit.

Maybe if we were all perfect there would be no crime in the world. I don't know why some people turn out bad but for some it's a way of life.
It's not just kids from poor/bad backgrounds that commit crime, kids who come from good families commit crime also.

Chain_reaction

Nodin wrote: »

I'll put it this way - in Dublin (and presumably everywhere) you get 'notorious' families. Not all of the members are bad, but most of them end up living the same lifestyle. Their parents were 'known', and their grandparents were 'known'. The idea would be - through various methods - to break that kind of cycle of dysfunction. And that doesn't mean there's no jail and everybody gets a hug.

Perhaps a youth club might work.

hondasam

Procasinator wrote: »

So you are saying he knows no better than breaking into a house, threatening someone with a knife to their neck, threatening rape of a girl unless the victims agree to co-operate in handing over their cash?

This is not petty theft. Threatening rape and holding a knife to someone's neck is not someone doesn't know better of.

I honestly don't know anything about him or his background or how he was brought up or who influenced his life. I imagine he has had a troubled life as did his mother.

zenno

laoch na mona wrote: »

I'm not trying to excuse what he did. I was just making a point crime is caused by social or family conditions of course peoples own choice comes in but many don't really get a choice

Absolute bullsh1t. everyone is born with a brain and knows right from wrong even if they only spent 10 weeks in school. this is taught from a very early age so what you say is garbage.

Even myself after growing up in Darndale for 14 years always knew this and I never harmed a person in my life and it was one hell of a tough place to grow up, also all my older friends i used to know never bothered anyone and didn't turn into scumbag sh1tballs because of the area they lived in. this goes to the other poster as well. The amount of excuses being used these days is just mind-boggling.

Dudess

I'd agree tough circumstances growing up can lead to this kind of behaviour, but it doesn't excuse it, it explains it - there's a difference.
The conditions that lead to such problems really need an overhaul - the cause rather than the symptoms being addressed.

gozunda

Nodin wrote: »

I'll put it this way - in Dublin (and presumably everywhere) you get 'notorious' families. Not all of the members are bad, but most of them end up living the same lifestyle. Their parents were 'known', and their grandparents were 'known'. The idea would be - through various methods - to break that kind of cycle of dysfunction. And that doesn't mean there's no jail and everybody gets a hug.

Yeah I agree....sterlisation, lethel injection, prison terms for life (not just a couple of years) - will help prevent children being brought into 'notorious' families and will prevent kids 'inheriting' parental values and aspirations and being raised by those who choose to believe that violent crime is a lifestyle choice

up for anything

DonJose wrote: »

F**k the scumbag and the cavity he was pulled from (she doesn't deserve the title mother)

Yore Cavity! :rolleyes:

James Rooney (32) of Kelly Park, Lusk was earlier sentenced to eight years, with four suspended, for five counts of sexual abuse involving girls aged between 8 and 13.

It's all shocking but that leniancy of that sentence is the most shocking! :mad:

zenno

Dudess wrote: »

I'd agree tough circumstances growing up can lead to this kind of behaviour, but it doesn't excuse it, it explains it - there's a difference.
The conditions that lead to such problems really need an overhaul - the cause rather than the symptoms being addressed.

I totally disagree with this as well as I could tell you all about growing up in tough circumstances and that excuse is completely wrong and misleading.

Nodin

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah I agree....sterlisation, lethel injection, prison terms for life (not just a couple of years) - will prevent kids 'inheriting' parental values and aspirations and being raised by those who choose to believe that violent crime is a lifestyle choice

The last two of those are in use in the states at the moment and they've a far higher rate of violent crime than we have. All three were in use pre-WWII and funny enough, they still had crime then too.

Chain_reaction

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah I agree....sterlisation, lethel injection, prison terms for life (not just a couple of years) - will prevent kids 'inheriting' parental values and aspirations and being raised by those who choose to believe that violent crime is a lifestyle choice

Prison obviously doesn't work. Look at repeat offenders.

Sterilisation...

No.

Even the risk of lethal injection doesn't work as a deterrent in the US.

benway

Procasinator wrote: »

So you are saying he knows no better than breaking into a house, threatening someone with a knife to their neck, threatening rape of a girl unless the victims agree to co-operate in handing over their cash?

I'm don't think he knows no better, I think that a lot of these guys actively enjoy committing crimes like that, for the sense of power and control it gives them, where their lives have often been defined by a complete lack of power and control - getting bumped between residential care centres according to budget, getting placed with a foster family and moved again before getting the chance to settle, social workers pretty much running their lives. Or being the kid at school that other kids' parents don't want to see them hanging around with, who get told by the schools system that they're not as good as other kids who might have had a better early life.

In my experience of criminals, it's rarely about material gain, and more often about getting one over on straight society, who seem just to want them to take their hand-outs, sit down, shut up and stay out of sight.

These kids need to be given a sense that they're worth something, and that they have a place in mainstream society - easier said than done, granted, but just writing them off will only exacerbate the problem.

Doesn't make it any better for the victims, obviously.

Feeona

There will always be people like this woman who screamed at the judge. In her opinion it's everybody else's fault her son turned out the way he is, and she's probably had that notion in her head since before he started school. You can bet that he had the best of attention and care when he was at school, and even if he didn't go to school, tax payers money would've been spent on a home school liaison officer to ensure that the Department of Education had their arses covered.

I see it everyday in school-the kids who cause the most hassle get the most in terms of time and resources, because their parents are more likely to cause Joe Duffy type hassle for the DES if they don't. It's the same when those children become adults-government agencies are terrified of a scandal, and so bend over backwards to accommodate troublemakers.

All the while ordinary decent people are getting shafted. I get sick of seeing it.

Chain_reaction

Nodin wrote: »

I wonder why I bother betimes.....

We're on the same page.

I'm talking the mick.

Nodin

zenno wrote: »

Absolute bullsh1t. everyone is born with a brain and knows right from wrong even if they only spent 10 weeks in school. this is taught from a very early age so what you say is garbage..

There are people out there who would go into a room and shit in front of you, and should you complain, would beat the crap out of you for having a problem with it. Because they wouldn't have.

zenno wrote: »

Even myself after growing up in Darndale for 14 years always knew this and I never harmed a person in my life and it was one hell of a tough place to grow up, also all my older friends i used to know never bothered anyone and didn't turn into scumbag sh1tballs because of the area they lived in. this goes to the other poster as well. The amount of excuses being used these days is just mind-boggling.

There's a lot more to it than address and average income and I don't think anyone has said otherwise.

Nodin

Chain_reaction wrote: »

We're on the same page.

I'm talking the mick.

Soz. I'll delete that.

Logical Fallacy

laoch na mona wrote: »

I'm not trying to excuse what he did. I was just making a point crime is caused by social or family conditions of course peoples own choice comes in but many don't really get a choice

I honestly think you haven't a clue what you are trying to say. Everyone gets a choice.

token101

benway wrote: »

Ok then, what would you do about it?

EDIT: The HSE thing is definitely, definitely true. I've seen some shocking stuff, the social workers and the carers do their best, but the system isn't fit for purpose.

I'd jail her for contempt. And if she's not mentally unwell as you suggest I'd have her committed. Forcibly if necessary. And I'd jail him too. And if it's determined he's a risk, I'd have him committed upon release. Society should seek to protect the law abiding first, criminals are a distant, distant second. His rights are secondary when he has violated the rights of someone else, regardless of circumstance.

gozunda

Chain_reaction wrote: »

Prison obviously doesn't work. Look at repeat offenders.

Sterilisation...

No.

Even the risk of lethal injection doesn't work as a deterrent in the US.

Long enough sentences = no repeat offenders

Sterlisation = No Kids to be abused in a dysfunctional family system

Letal Injection = Crminal is removed permantly removed from opportunities to repeat offences (not worried about deterrent value tbh)

Nodin wrote: »

The last two of those are in use in the states at the moment and they've a far higher rate of violent crime than we have. All three were in use pre-WWII and funny enough, they still had crime then too.

There has always been crime, however treating violent criminals as victims only is preverse. Criminal activity needs to carry a serious cost to those that choose to undertake such activities. The point btw if you read the post replied to was related to what you said about generations of 'notorious families"

Chain_reaction

Nodin wrote: »

Soz. I'll delete that.

ha! Please don't I'm sure theres others thinking it. Leave it there for them.

benway

token101 wrote: »

Society should seek to protect the law abiding first, criminals are a distant, distant second.

So, you're saying treat them as second class citizens, essentially?

That's exactly what drives crime, from what I've seen.

But I'd agree with jail time for him, maybe probation and alcohol treatment for her - gonna cost a lot of money to lock them, and others like them, up indefinitely, as you seem to be suggesting.

Chain_reaction

gozunda wrote: »

Long enough sentences = no repeat offenders

Sterlisation = No Kids to be abused in a dysfunctional family system

Letal Injection = Crminal is removed permantly removed from opportunities to repeat offences (not worried about deterrent value tbh)

None of these prevent crime though.

Long enough sentances = Theres still a victim.

Steralisation - Who chooses who gets sterilised? What if the powers that be decided to sterilise you because they didn't like your beliefs etc

Open to way to much abuse.

Lethal injection = There's still a victim.

Bullseye1

benway wrote: »

So, you're saying treat them as second class citizens, essentially?

That's exactly what drives crime, from what I've seen.

What's your solution? Specifics?

Dudess

zenno wrote: »

I totally disagree with this as well as I could tell you all about growing up in tough circumstances and that excuse is completely wrong and misleading.

But I said it's not an excuse, just that it can be partially explained by it. And of course it goes without saying the majority of people who grew up in tough circumstances wouldn't dream of doing this kind of contemptible crap. And then there are people who don't grow up in tough circumstances yet still behave abhorrently.

Nodin

Chain_reaction wrote: »

ha! Please don't I'm sure theres others thinking it. Leave it there for them.

Soz again, as I binned it before I read this.

token101

Nodin wrote: »

The last two of those are in use in the states at the moment and they've a far higher rate of violent crime than we have. All three were in use pre-WWII and funny enough, they still had crime then too.

But that's nothing to do with sentences. That's to do with the huge inequality in the US. There's no comparison here. People get food stamps in the US; the mere suggestion here is greeted with uproar. People get subsidised housing here, subsidised bills, subsidised everything. It's as decent as welfare should be We have a hugely generous benefits system. They don't have anything like that in the US. We don't have the homeless problems they have and we have nowhere near the levels of barriers to education, etc. There's no comparison.

token101

benway wrote: »

So, you're saying treat them as second class citizens, essentially?

That's exactly what drives crime, from what I've seen.

But I'd agree with jail time for him, maybe probation and alcohol treatment for her - gonna cost a lot of money to lock them, and others like them, up indefinitely, as you seem to be suggesting.

Criminals are second class citizens whatever way you look at it, primarily socially. But it's of their own making. Choices are the key here. They made choices they have to live with.

token101

Dudess wrote: »

But I said it's not an excuse, just that it can be partially explained by it. And of course it goes without saying the majority of people who grew up in tough circumstances wouldn't dream of doing this kind of contemptible crap. And then there are people who don't grow up in tough circumstances yet still behave abhorrently.

But then why even mention it? Why do people even mention tough circumstances if they aren't seeking mitigation?

zenno

Nodin wrote: »

There are people out there who would go into a room and shit in front of you, and should you complain, would beat the crap out of you for having a problem with it. Because they wouldn't have.



There's a lot more to it than address and average income and I don't think anyone has said otherwise.

What sort of junk is this ? who said anything about average income ? and also what has a person that ****s in front of me got to do with anything ? as if i would still be sitting there if said person even tried this. I think you are confused. if that's all the answers you have to come up with then you need to seek more appropriate terminology in relation to you're out of place comment.

3ndahalfof6

I do think if they sent the mothers with them to do the time, it could be a massive deterent

FruitLover

laoch na mona wrote: »

but many don't really get a choice

He didn't have a choice whether or not to hold a knife to a man's throat and threaten to rape his girlfriend?? What have you been smoking?:rolleyes:

benway wrote: »

you're not going to reduce the crime rate by treating criminals like they're all two-dimensional "scumbags" rather than human beings.

You're also not going to reduce the crime rate by letting people off with 26+ crimes without punishment.

Chain_reaction wrote: »

Long enough sentances = Theres still a victim.

I don't disagree, but it'll prevent further crime while the perpetrator is in prison, at least. Had the scumbag in the original article been imprisoned for previous convictions, the victims would not have been subjected to this particular ordeal (and there's even a chance the scumbag might have learned that he can't get away with it forever).

Nodin

token101 wrote: »

But that's nothing to do with sentences. That's to do with the huge inequality in the US. There's no comparison here. People get food stamps in the US; the mere suggestion here is greeted with uproar. People get subsidised housing here, subsidised bills, subsidised everything. It's as decent as welfare should be We have a hugely generous benefits system. They don't have anything like that in the US. We don't have the homeless problems they have and we have nowhere near the levels of barriers to education, etc. There's no comparison.

So you think we should adopt what system then?

hondasam

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

I do think if they sent the mothers with them to do the time, it could be a massive deterent

This made me laugh but it could work. If my son does the crime I ain't doing the time with him.

gozunda

Chain_reaction wrote: »

None of these prevent crime though.

Long enough sentances = Theres still a victim.
Steralisation - Who chooses who gets sterilised? What if the powers that be decided to sterilise you because they didn't like your beliefs etc
Open to way to much abuse.
Lethal injection = There's still a victim.

CR - you have missed the point Again....
The reply was in relation to the generations of 'notorious families' in the post I replied to...

And yes there will always be crime and victims - But with these punishments there will be fewer actual repeat criminals and fewer potential victims of habitual criminals. And who said anything about criminalising beliefs btw? People do really get emotive when the 'right to have babies' is brought up...even where the individual would not be a fit parent

A bit more planned childbirth might mean children not being brought up in dysfunctional environments. If that needs to be sterilisation then that is a better option than a f*cked up or abused child.

3ndahalfof6

Nodin wrote: »

So you think we should adopt what system then?

arobics

Chain_reaction

FruitLover wrote: »

I don't disagree, but it'll prevent further crime while the perpetrator is in prison, at least. Had the scumbag in the original article been imprisoned for previous convictions, the victims would not have been subjected to this particular ordeal (and there's even a chance the scumbag might have learned that he can't get away with it forever).

So jail them until they're institutionalised and then release them into society again where by that time they'll be even further from living whats considered a normal civilised life.

Chain_reaction

gozunda wrote: »

And since when do individuals get jailed here for their beliefs?

Well if we're living in a society that promotes sterilisation as a cure you'd best be sure people would be jailed for their beliefs.

benway

Bullseye1 wrote: »

What's your solution? Specifics?

Off the top of my head ...

Schools - do away with exam-based and heirearchical approaches until at least 10 years of age. Half the problem as I see it is that some kids come in to school from a lower base and do worse from the start, and are treated as thickos for the rest of their school-days as a result. Also, less emphasis on academics, more on practical skills, try to find each child's strengths and work from there, before they ever sit an exam.

I'm thinking of one guy in particular I went to primary school with, has a scatter of convictions, currently in for a serious assault, I think. Will never forget him crying for his mammy on the first day ... and my mother laughing about it because he's from a known family. He was the thick kid, and he developed some chip about it. He also found out when he was 13 that his father wasn't actually dead, like his mother had told him all his life, but he was actually living in Longford. Went off the rails completely after that, but that's another story, and he was already well on his way.

Care system should be completely overhauled - we need to spend money on it, above the bare minimum for containment as we do at the moment, it's currently about keeping them under control rather than preparing them to take their place in mainstream society.

As for prisons, prison industry and education needs to become a part of the system, right now it's about warehousing.

I can't overemphasise, I think punishment is important, but not just locking them away together with a bunch of other hard cases, there needs to be a point to it as well.

Probation service needs to be totally overhauled - it's running on a shoestring anyway, think each officer has something like 250 case files, completely unmanageable. Again, at the moment it's all about monitoring and containment, filling in psychological risk assessments and not a hell of a lot else. There needs to be a comprehensive approach to reintegration following prison, the lack of it is a major reason for the amount of reoffending we see.

Deal with problem estates, the likes of Moyross, that were built to facilitate slum clearances and development. I'd like to see a certain enforceable minimum standard of housing for every child written in to the constitution.

We need to move away from a tabloid / Daily Mail idea that some people are just "scumbags" and there's nothing that can be done, or that it's not worth doing.

Reintroduce and reinforce the republican ideal of equal citizenship for every child in this country, an expectation that every child can look any other in the eye and speak to them as an equal, no matter who their parents are.

Biggest problem is that it'll take at least 20 years for this stuff to bear fruit, so it'll be politically pretty much impossible. The alternative is that we stay locked into our current cycle, as things get steadily worse.

And of course, lots of people won't like it, they'll think it's unfair to help out these people, who have done nothing to deserve it. But don't fool yourselves that there's nothing in it for us if we do.

token101

Nodin wrote: »

So you think we should adopt what system then?

Why do we have to adopt a system? Why can't we have our own? We should be seeking to eliminate criminals from society through whatever means necessary. Rehabilition works, no doubt. But not in many cases. People with multiples of convictions should be in prison for long, long times. Heinous murderers and gangland figures should die in prison. They have proven they don't belong. What do you tell victims of crime where the perpetrator has dozens of convictions, like Steve Collins? Sorry we couldn't protect you, the scumbag's rights were paramount and he needed an umpteenth chance? It's wrong.

If you want to offer people redemption, fine. If you've committed petty/ non violent crime, make it so that if you have 3/4/5 years crime free then your record is expunged and you get a clean slate. A chance to start again. People make mistakes, everyone accepts that. But not 26 mistakes. And not 26 mistakes in 5/6 years. If you're a repeat offender you belong out of society until you learn to manage like a human being. If you're violent, you belong in a cage like an animal. It's that simple.

benway

token101 wrote: »

Criminals are second class citizens whatever way you look at it, primarily socially. But it's of their own making. Choices are the key here. They made choices they have to live with.

That just ain't true. Many of them, an overwhelming majority from what I've seen, are pretty much born in to it. I've seen it myself with people I grew up with.

gozunda

Chain_reaction wrote: »

So jail them until they're institutionalised and then release them into society again where by that time they'll be even further from living whats considered a normal civilised life.

NO just dont release them...problem solved.

Chain_reaction wrote: »

Well if we're living in a society that promotes sterilisation as a cure you'd best be sure people would be jailed for their beliefs.

So its our 'rights to have babies' no matter what and letting others pick up the pieces again :rolleyes:
No it does not follow at all...No 'not promotes' as you have given rather to simply use strerilistation as a method to prevent children being brought into dysfunctinal and abusive environments
IMO having your end away does not equate with being jailed for your beliefs'....I think you have entered the realm of fantasy there tbh...

donalg1

Sure how would you expect a woman that has raised a son like that to behave he had to pick it up somewhere.

Fairly light sentence for the pervert though should've been 80 years not 8 with 4 suspended wtf is that

token101

benway wrote: »

Off the top of my head ...

Schools - do away with exam-based and heirearchical approaches until at least 10 years of age. Half the problem as I see it is that some kids come in to school from a lower base and do worse from the start, and are treated as thickos for the rest of their school-days as a result.

I'm thinking of one guy in particular I went to primary school with, has a scatter of convictions, currently in for a serious assault, I think. Will never forget him crying for his mammy on the first day ... and my mother laughing about it because he's from a known family. He was the thick kid, and he developed some chip about it. He also found out when he was 13 that his father wasn't actually dead, like his mother had told him all his life, but he was actually living in Longford. Went off the rails completely after that, but that's another story, and he was already well on his way.

Care system should be completely overhauled - we need to spend money on it, above the bare minimum for containment as we do at the moment, it's currently about keeping them under control rather than preparing them to take their place in mainstream society.

As for prisons, prison industry and education needs to become a part of the system, right now it's about warehousing.

I can't overemphasise, I think punishment is important, but not just locking them away together with a bunch of other hard cases, there needs to be a point to it as well.

Probation service needs to be totally overhauled - it's running on a shoestring anyway, think each officer has something like 250 case files, completely unmanageable. Again, at the moment it's all about monitoring and containment, filling in psychological risk assessments and not a hell of a lot else. There needs to be a comprehensive approach to reintegration following prison, the lack of it is a major reason for the amount of reoffending we see.

Deal with problem estates, the likes of Moyross, that were built to facilitate slum clearances and development. I'd like to see a certain enforceable minimum standard of housing for every child written in to the constitution.

We need to move away from a tabloid / Daily Mail idea that some people are just "scumbags" and there's nothing that can be done, or that it's not worth doing.

Reintroduce and reinforce the republican ideal of equal citizenship for every child in this country, an expectation that every child can look any other in the eye and speak to them as an equal, no matter who their parents are.

Biggest problem is that it'll take at least 20 years for this stuff to bear fruit, so it'll be politically pretty much impossible. The alternative is that we stay locked into our current cycle, as things get steadily worse.

And of course, lots of people won't like it, they'll think it's unfair to help out these people, who have done nothing to deserve it. But don't fool yourselves that there's nothing in it for us if we do.

You can look in anyone else in the eye as an equal. It's a personal problem if you can't. You can't step into every family in the country and raise the children with a certain prescribed ideal. That's fantasy stuff. Scumbags aren't some Daily Mail creation. How do you mitigate for someone who can stab two people in the head with a screwdriver? There are estates where I live which are brand new, perfect housing estates that would meet any minimum standard. The problem is that they are overrun with people who live in fear of a percentage of families who don't belong in a civilised society. It's like a cancer, if you let one family into an area, the kids befriend/bully the decent kids into being just like them. Good people don't raise the standard of scum, scum drag them down. That's why this Moyross regeneration will not work. It will spread the problem.

A lot of those ideals already exist. But this isn't a perfect world, it all costs money. And the whole thing is based on the premise that people who will always be law abiding and decent have to pay for those who feel they can't be given certain conditions. That's the crux of the entire thing. Why should the decent pay more to ensure their safety from the less decent just to give the less decent a better life?