Unprovoked attack in UK

who the fug

csallmighty wrote: »

The thing is the police and the courts don't deal with these matters adequately, the "punishment" he would likely receive would be less effective than a slap on the wrist.

Then why have we got the highest prison population in Western Europe, if we are just slapping people on the wrist

csallmighty

who the fug wrote: »

Then why have we got the highest prison population in Western Europe, if we are just slapping people on the wrist

But its not working because you are putting theses criminals in an environment where they feel at home, because they are surrounded by other lowlifes. Scumbags like him can thrive in a prison and then come out a worse human being.

Nodin

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ah nodin, bet it put you right off your organic fair trade flaxseed brownies when you saw the perp was black and the victim white!

....your point?

The King of Moo

Quirk_Douglas wrote: »

Wonderful multicultural London, we can look forward to those sorts of mischievous hi-jinks happening here in Ireland as well more regularly over the next ten to fifteen years. Should they lock him up when they catch him? Why would they do that? He's enriched their country so much.

smoking gun wrote: »

Would love to be walking behind that jigaboo with a bat after he did that,let me tell ye folks.

Would only love it...

He did because he's a scary black man... sterling work gents!

Nice to see the usual rabble-rousing and righteous indignation based on a single isolated incident: hanging, the stocks, torture, maiming, vigilante justice, chemical castration - I genuinely find it hard to believe that grown adults are advocating eugenics in the 21st century.

And nice also, to see the usual attacks on liberal strawmen: "Oh right, he only did it because he had no playground and only basic Sky, bloody bleeding heart liberals! ROLL F**KING EYES!!"

As usual, no-one has suggested anything remotely resembling the sort. old hippy mentioned that one's background is often a factor in violent crime and mentioned a programme that was successful: that's the closest thing I've seen to the extreme position often attributed to "liberals" which suggests that the criminal bears no responsibility for their crime.

But you see, no-one ever suggests anything like that.

Saying that someone's background is a factor in their behaviour does not mean that they're not responsible for their actions. Not a single person in this thread has suggested that the man ought not be punished for his actions, and I can't imagine there's a single person in the world who believes he shouldn't be punished fairly severely for what he did.

It's possible to believe that he should be punished but also believe that conditions should be improved to ensure that environments which foster and reward criminal behaviour do not develop.
And I don't understand how people completely dismiss a person's background as an influence on their behaviour.
Few people would argue that growing up in a life of privilege makes a person a spoiled brat.
Few would argue that growing up in a conservative American rural area makes one more likely to be a Republican supporter.
So why then do people insist that growing up in a deprived area surrounded by violence and among a peer group who value violent and anti-social behaviour is not even a partial explanation for violent behaviour, simply because not every individual who grows up in such a situation turns out so bad?
Unfortunately, I can't help but come to the assumption that it's due to a desire to have bogeymen to hate, and sometimes even simply snobbery/racism.

And by all that I mean to say:

"Poor dote, it's not his fault, if we give him a hug and a playground he'll be ok, he's just misunderstood!!"

or

"Hang the f**ker, just give me two minutes with him... sterilise him so he can't spawn any more vermin, and kill his children if he already has any because they'll turn out EXACTLY like him, and then after sterilising him and his children and killing them all and then burning their bodies and putting their ashes in their stocks, burn the stocks and salt the earth where they stood."

because they're the only two possible positions!

GreeBo

The King of Moo wrote: »

He did because he's a scary black man... sterling work gents!

Nice to see the usual rabble-rousing and righteous indignation based on a single isolated incident: hanging, the stocks, torture, maiming, vigilante justice, chemical castration - I genuinely find it hard to believe that grown adults are advocating eugenics in the 21st century.

And nice also, to see the usual attacks on liberal strawmen: "Oh right, he only did it because he had no playground and only basic Sky, bloody bleeding heart liberals! ROLL F**KING EYES!!"

As usual, no-one has suggested anything remotely resembling the sort. old hippy mentioned that one's background is often a factor in violent crime and mentioned a programme that was successful: that's the closest thing I've seen to the extreme position often attributed to "liberals" which suggests that the criminal bears no responsibility for their crime.

But you see, no-one ever suggests anything like that.

Saying that someone's background is a factor in their behaviour does not mean that they're not responsible for their actions. Not a single person in this thread has suggested that the man ought not be punished for his actions, and I can't imagine there's a single person in the world who believes he shouldn't be punished fairly severely for what he did.

It's possible to believe that he should be punished but also believe that conditions should be improved to ensure that environments which foster and reward criminal behaviour do not develop.
And I don't understand how people completely dismiss a person's background as an influence on their behaviour.
Few people would argue that growing up in a life of privilege makes a person a spoiled brat.
Few would argue that growing up in a conservative American rural area makes one more likely to be a Republican supporter.
So why then do people insist that growing up in a deprived area surrounded by violence and among a peer group who value violent and anti-social behaviour is not even a partial explanation for violent behaviour, simply because not every individual who grows up in such a situation turns out so bad?
Unfortunately, I can't help but come to the assumption that it's due to a desire to have bogeymen to hate, and sometimes even simply snobbery/racism.

And by all that I mean to say:

"Poor dote, it's not his fault, if we give him a hug and a playground he'll be ok, he's just misunderstood!!"

or

"Hang the f**ker, just give me two minutes with him... sterilise him so he can't spawn any more vermin, and kill his children if he already has any because they'll turn out EXACTLY like him, and then after sterilising him and his children and killing them all and then burning their bodies and putting their ashes in their stocks, burn the stocks and salt the earth where they stood."

because they're the only two possible positions!

Ok so this fella potentially kills this girl, we catch him and put another playground in the area he grew up in.
This deters him and others like him how?
Do we just shrug our shoulders and accept that its going to happen until another generation grows up?

If you are part of a society then you need to live by the rules of that society. If not then you need to leave it.

Giselle

The King of Moo wrote: »

He did because he's a scary black man... sterling work gents!

Nice to see the usual rabble-rousing and righteous indignation based on a single isolated incident: hanging, the stocks, torture, maiming, vigilante justice, chemical castration - I genuinely find it hard to believe that grown adults are advocating eugenics in the 21st century.

And nice also, to see the usual attacks on liberal strawmen: "Oh right, he only did it because he had no playground and only basic Sky, bloody bleeding heart liberals! ROLL F**KING EYES!!"

As usual, no-one has suggested anything remotely resembling the sort. old hippy mentioned that one's background is often a factor in violent crime and mentioned a programme that was successful: that's the closest thing I've seen to the extreme position often attributed to "liberals" which suggests that the criminal bears no responsibility for their crime.

But you see, no-one ever suggests anything like that.

Saying that someone's background is a factor in their behaviour does not mean that they're not responsible for their actions. Not a single person in this thread has suggested that the man ought not be punished for his actions, and I can't imagine there's a single person in the world who believes he shouldn't be punished fairly severely for what he did.

It's possible to believe that he should be punished but also believe that conditions should be improved to ensure that environments which foster and reward criminal behaviour do not develop.
And I don't understand how people completely dismiss a person's background as an influence on their behaviour.
Few people would argue that growing up in a life of privilege makes a person a spoiled brat.
Few would argue that growing up in a conservative American rural area makes one more likely to be a Republican supporter.
So why then do people insist that growing up in a deprived area surrounded by violence and among a peer group who value violent and anti-social behaviour is not even a partial explanation for violent behaviour, simply because not every individual who grows up in such a situation turns out so bad?
Unfortunately, I can't help but come to the assumption that it's due to a desire to have bogeymen to hate, and sometimes even simply snobbery/racism.

And by all that I mean to say:

"Poor dote, it's not his fault, if we give him a hug and a playground he'll be ok, he's just misunderstood!!"

or

"Hang the f**ker, just give me two minutes with him... sterilise him so he can't spawn any more vermin, and kill his children if he already has any because they'll turn out EXACTLY like him, and then after sterilising him and his children and killing them all and then burning their bodies and putting their ashes in their stocks, burn the stocks and salt the earth where they stood."

because they're the only two possible positions!

This makes far too much sense to be appreciated here.

Brilliant post.

Ghost Buster

Instant sterilisation for anyone over the age of 16 who tries anything as mindless as this.
If the tendency to do this is genetic (Doubtful) then we breed it out.
If it is social/environmental we stop the scum from having kids and teaching them that this is acceptable.
Just read the post above. I do address his background. Sterilising such folk prevents their background from becoming the foreground

Giselle

GreeBo wrote: »

Ok so this fella potentially kills this girl, we catch him and put another playground in the area he grew up in.

That is absolutely the most reductive and simplistic way of seeing the post you quoted, and absolutely not what the poster was advocating.

If we at least try to understand the conditions that foster anti social and violent behaviour, we have a chance at intervening and changing those outcomes in the future.

What you seem to be saying is we shouldn't even bother trying.

Ghost Buster

Giselle wrote: »

That is absolutely the most reductive and simplistic way of seeing the post you quoted, and absolutely not what the poster was advocating.

If we at least try to understand the conditions that foster anti social and violent behaviour, we have a chance at intervening and changing those outcomes in the future.

What you seem to be saying is we shouldn't even bother trying.

I grew up in a disadvantaged setting. What prevented me from not being a nutter was my parents. They were not nutters.
If nutters are prevented from having kids PRESTO!!!! they dont raise nutters

brummytom

GreeBo wrote: »

Ok so this fella potentially kills this girl, we catch him and put another playground in the area he grew up in.
This deters him and others like him how?
Do we just shrug our shoulders and accept that its going to happen until another generation grows up?

Well done on completely missing the whole point of TKOM's post, while also managing to demonstrate exactly what he was talking about.

GreeBo

Giselle wrote: »

That is absolutely the most reductive and simplistic way of seeing the post you quoted, and absolutely not what the poster was advocating.

If we at least try to understand the conditions that foster anti social and violent behaviour, we have a chance at intervening and changing those outcomes in the future.

What you seem to be saying is we shouldn't even bother trying.

Not at all what I am saying; but we have missed the boat with this thug.
Are you saying we just ignore what he has done and try to do a better job with the next batch?

Huggles

For want of a better phrase, the thing that struck me was that he didn't even flinch.

Max Power

Give Johnny Maher 10 mins alone with him, he'll sort out the cunt.

GreeBo

Huggles wrote: »

For want of a better phrase, the thing that struck me was that he didn't even flinch.

Hopefully he was out of his head on something. I don't think I can accept that there are people out there who would act like this "as normal". Perhaps he is a psychopath.

SafeSurfer

Reminds me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uln9cwUFOs

parc

fcuk! i would seriously string that cnut up by the balls (op's video)

Huggles

Yeah, I man at the very least you'd think he'd look back to see was someone chasing.

GreeBo wrote: »

Hopefully he was out of his head on something. I don't think I can accept that there are people out there who would act like this "as normal". Perhaps he is a psychopath.

Reoil

GreeBo wrote: »

Oh its being done for comedic purposes?
Grand so. Slap away.

Happy slapping? Unfortunately it is yes. By idiots.

pragmatic1

Quirk_Douglas wrote: »

Wonderful multicultural London, we can look forward to those sorts of mischievous hi-jinks happening here in Ireland as well more regularly over the next ten to fifteen years. Should they lock him up when they catch him? Why would they do that? He's enriched their country so much.

Mod: User banned.

No need to wait dude. This sort of thing is already happening all over Ireland with white Irish people. A few months ago in quiet wee Letterkenny a man had his throat slashed in broad daylight for no reason. We aint angels ourselves.

SafeSurfer

The King of Moo wrote: »

He did because he's a scary black man... sterling work gents!

Nice to see the usual rabble-rousing and righteous indignation based on a single isolated incident: hanging, the stocks, torture, maiming, vigilante justice, chemical castration - I genuinely find it hard to believe that grown adults are advocating eugenics in the 21st century.

And nice also, to see the usual attacks on liberal strawmen: "Oh right, he only did it because he had no playground and only basic Sky, bloody bleeding heart liberals! ROLL F**KING EYES!!"

As usual, no-one has suggested anything remotely resembling the sort. old hippy mentioned that one's background is often a factor in violent crime and mentioned a programme that was successful: that's the closest thing I've seen to the extreme position often attributed to "liberals" which suggests that the criminal bears no responsibility for their crime.

But you see, no-one ever suggests anything like that.

Saying that someone's background is a factor in their behaviour does not mean that they're not responsible for their actions. Not a single person in this thread has suggested that the man ought not be punished for his actions, and I can't imagine there's a single person in the world who believes he shouldn't be punished fairly severely for what he did.

It's possible to believe that he should be punished but also believe that conditions should be improved to ensure that environments which foster and reward criminal behaviour do not develop.
And I don't understand how people completely dismiss a person's background as an influence on their behaviour.
Few people would argue that growing up in a life of privilege makes a person a spoiled brat.
Few would argue that growing up in a conservative American rural area makes one more likely to be a Republican supporter.
So why then do people insist that growing up in a deprived area surrounded by violence and among a peer group who value violent and anti-social behaviour is not even a partial explanation for violent behaviour, simply because not every individual who grows up in such a situation turns out so bad?
Unfortunately, I can't help but come to the assumption that it's due to a desire to have bogeymen to hate, and sometimes even simply snobbery/racism.

And by all that I mean to say:

"Poor dote, it's not his fault, if we give him a hug and a playground he'll be ok, he's just misunderstood!!"

or

"Hang the f**ker, just give me two minutes with him... sterilise him so he can't spawn any more vermin, and kill his children if he already has any because they'll turn out EXACTLY like him, and then after sterilising him and his children and killing them all and then burning their bodies and putting their ashes in their stocks, burn the stocks and salt the earth where they stood."

because they're the only two possible positions!

So which is it Moo playgrounds or hangin?

Giselle

GreeBo wrote: »

Are you saying we just ignore what he has done and try to do a better job with the next batch?

Nothing I've said implies or hints or expresses anything like that.

He should be punished, and the punishment should fit the crime to the fullest extent. And ideally he should then be rehabilitated so he doesn't reoffend.

People who are in circumstances that fosters or promotes that sort of behaviour should be targeted with whatever intervention shows results that lessen the tendency to violence, and improves prospects to be productive, contributing citizens, thus improving their lives and the lives of everyone else by extension.

Preferably without relying on culling, castrating, or eugenics. That sounds too much like violence again.

Guy:Incognito

Nodin wrote: »

Torture has been tried and didn't work either.

If its a choice between giving him hugs or torturing him with neither working and him still being a scummer I'd rather see him tortured for a bit.

Da Shins Kelly

The King of Moo wrote: »

He did because he's a scary black man... sterling work gents!

Nice to see the usual rabble-rousing and righteous indignation based on a single isolated incident: hanging, the stocks, torture, maiming, vigilante justice, chemical castration - I genuinely find it hard to believe that grown adults are advocating eugenics in the 21st century.

And nice also, to see the usual attacks on liberal strawmen: "Oh right, he only did it because he had no playground and only basic Sky, bloody bleeding heart liberals! ROLL F**KING EYES!!"

As usual, no-one has suggested anything remotely resembling the sort. old hippy mentioned that one's background is often a factor in violent crime and mentioned a programme that was successful: that's the closest thing I've seen to the extreme position often attributed to "liberals" which suggests that the criminal bears no responsibility for their crime.

But you see, no-one ever suggests anything like that.

Saying that someone's background is a factor in their behaviour does not mean that they're not responsible for their actions. Not a single person in this thread has suggested that the man ought not be punished for his actions, and I can't imagine there's a single person in the world who believes he shouldn't be punished fairly severely for what he did.

It's possible to believe that he should be punished but also believe that conditions should be improved to ensure that environments which foster and reward criminal behaviour do not develop.
And I don't understand how people completely dismiss a person's background as an influence on their behaviour.
Few people would argue that growing up in a life of privilege makes a person a spoiled brat.
Few would argue that growing up in a conservative American rural area makes one more likely to be a Republican supporter.
So why then do people insist that growing up in a deprived area surrounded by violence and among a peer group who value violent and anti-social behaviour is not even a partial explanation for violent behaviour, simply because not every individual who grows up in such a situation turns out so bad?
Unfortunately, I can't help but come to the assumption that it's due to a desire to have bogeymen to hate, and sometimes even simply snobbery/racism.

And by all that I mean to say:

"Poor dote, it's not his fault, if we give him a hug and a playground he'll be ok, he's just misunderstood!!"

or

"Hang the f**ker, just give me two minutes with him... sterilise him so he can't spawn any more vermin, and kill his children if he already has any because they'll turn out EXACTLY like him, and then after sterilising him and his children and killing them all and then burning their bodies and putting their ashes in their stocks, burn the stocks and salt the earth where they stood."

because they're the only two possible positions!

As good as this post is, I fear you're wasting your time. Hysteria and 'hang 'em up' attitudes always seems to trump any kind of reasoning in threads like this.

Arpa

GreeBo wrote: »

Hopefully he was out of his head on something. I don't think I can accept that there are people out there who would act like this "as normal". Perhaps he is a psychopath.

That's the problem, he's probably not on any substance or clinically psychopathic. He is just an uneducated homo sapiens with a tendency towards violence possibly for acceptance by his peers.

Just last night I was accosted by a teenager (complete scumbag townie with mandatory horizontal striped jumper) who randomly requested, "Give me yore belt". A bit surprised at being asked for a piece of attire I promptly told him where to go...What shocked me was the apparent normality in his demeanour. Scumbags think it's okay to do this, this is the norm for them, this is their life...and it all has to do with Jacinta & Anto not wearing a condom. Sterilise them. Throw yourself into the road, darling! You haven't got a chance!

GreeBo

Giselle wrote: »

Nothing I've said implies or hints or expresses anything like that.

He should be punished, and the punishment should fit the crime to the fullest extent. And ideally he should then be rehabilitated so he doesn't reoffend.

People who are in circumstances that fosters or promotes that sort of behaviour should be targeted with whatever intervention shows results that lessen the tendency to violence, and improves prospects to be productive, contributing citizens, thus improving their lives and the lives of everyone else by extension.

Preferably without relying on culling, castrating, or eugenics. That sounds too much like violence again.

How do you rehabilitate someone who thinks this is acceptable behaviour?
I dont believe its possible. I also dont understand how everyone from these backgrounds doesnt end up the same way? Personal responsibility needs to come into it. As Ive said above, this person (assuming they are not a psychopath) has made a decision about their place in our society, I believe they should be treated appropriately.

Put it this way: For a crime like this, I think its far more important that we are protected from him than he gets a chance to be rehabilitated.

The King of Moo

GreeBo wrote: »

Not at all what I am saying; but we have missed the boat with this thug.
Are you saying we just ignore what he has done and try to do a better job with the next batch?

He should be punished for his crime, as should anyone, regardless of his background.
Simultaneously, governments should work to ensure that environments that create cultures in which violence is encouraged do not develop, in order to ensure that far fewer such violent criminals emerge.

No-one's suggesting that criminals like him should be given lenient sentences because of their background.

What people are sensibly suggesting is that if governments did their job of doing their best by their citizens, there'd be far fewer criminals like this in the first place.

GreeBo

The King of Moo wrote: »

He should be punished for his crime, as should anyone, regardless of his crime.
Simultaneously, governments should work to ensure that environments that create cultures in which violence is encouraged do not develop, in order to ensure that far fewer such violent criminals emerge.

No-one's suggesting that criminals like him should be given lenient sentences because of their background.

What people are sensibly suggesting is that if governments did their job of doing their best by their citizens, there'd be far fewer criminals like this in the first place.

But why do people like him get to use the environment as an excuse?
As I said above, if its the governments fault why isnt everyone who grew up around him a thug?
I think its an excuse, but not a valid reason. (or at least not a very good one)

the_syco

mackg wrote: »

As bad as it was and all is torture/castration really a suitable punishment for punching someone?

Torture, no, castration, yeah.

=-=

Playgrounds? Why? Give playgrounds to those who who attack others, and give nothing to those who work for a living? Longterm it'll just turn relocate where the scum come from.

=-=

Give him hard (unpaid) labour in prison, in a skillset that no-one likes, so that when he leaves prison, he'll have something to do apart from beating the crap out of people.

Giselle

GreeBo wrote: »

. I also dont understand how everyone from these backgrounds doesnt end up the same way? Personal responsibility needs to come into it.

Well the punishment thing feeds into the personal responsibility thing, so thats how it comes into it

Everybody is different and have different family backgrounds, so obviously no two people are the same or will act the same, no matter where they're from. Nobody's circumstances or personal failings or personalities are identical so anyone else's.

The punishment must fit the crime, which is not to say that in cases like this it should be lenient. Far from it.

GreeBo

Giselle wrote: »

Everybody is different and have different family backgrounds, so obviously no two people are the same or will act the same, no matter where they're from. Nobody's circumstances or personal failings or personalities are identical so anyone else's.

So why is the answer to supply more amenities to the "poorer" areas?

Thugs come from everywhere, its your own responsibility if you turn out a thug.
Thugs know they are thugs.

The King of Moo

GreeBo wrote: »

But why do people like him get to use the environment as an excuse?

He doesn't. That's why I think he should be punished in the exact same way that someone from a privileged background would be.

GreeBo wrote: »

As I said above, if its the governments fault why isnt everyone who grew up around him a thug?

Because everybody's different. Not everyone who grows up in an environment surrounded by crime, drug use and domestic abuse goes down a dark path, but it's much more likely that someone who grows up in a situation where such things are normalised will fall into a life of crime, compared to someone from a more comfortable lifestyle.
Just because some individuals can rise above it doesn't mean that it's easy. To make something of yourself in spite of a disadvantaged background requires an ability to resist a tremendous amount of pressure to take the easier route of bowing to peer pressure. Not everyone is up to resisting such pressures. We're all only human and we all make mistakes and follow the crowd at times. Some people are just luckier to be born into better crowds.

But like I've said already, none of this should excuse criminals for their behaviour. Rather, I believe it illustrates the futility of some of the ridiculously extreme punishments which are invariably proposed in cases of violent crime.
The distant prospect of being put in the stocks would mean nothing to an individual with:

(a) a much greater peer pressure pushing them towards crime, and

(b) a lack of respect for the authority threatening the stocks, which has provided them with little of use or value in their lives.

This is why I think it's better to follow the law and issue severe but not absurd punishments for severe crimes, while also working to tackle the deprivation which has been shown time and again to lead to violent crime.

To put it simply: prevention is better and much safer, simpler and more humane than cure.

GreeBo

The King of Moo wrote: »

He doesn't. That's why I think he should be punished in the exact same way that someone from a privileged background would be.

Except we all know that he wont be if he comes from an under-privelidged background.

The King of Moo wrote: »

To put it simply: prevention is better and much safer, simpler and more humane than cure.

I dont think there is an disagreement on that, more so on what constitutes "prevention".

The King of Moo

the_syco wrote: »

Playgrounds? Why? Give playgrounds to those who who attack others, and give nothing to those who work for a living? Longterm it'll just turn relocate where the scum come from.

You've got it backwards: give better living conditions (and in a much broader sense increase social mobility, which is no mean feat, I grant) to people so they don't end up attacking other people in the first place.

Kev_2012

Hope he's jailed for life. You wouldn't punch another man in the back of the head during a fight let alone a teenage girl for no reason. Absolute bastard. Could've easily killed her.

The King of Moo

smoking gun wrote: »

Would love to be walking behind that RACIST SLUR REDACTED with a bat after he did that,let me tell ye folks.

Would only love it...

Mod: User Banned

A thought upon this: the fact that this user imagines beating the man after he hit the girl, rather than imagining the attack never happened in the first place, suggests to me that prejudice, perhaps, but certainly revenge is the prime motivating factor behind much of the rhetoric being spouted here, rather than genuine concern for the victims of violent crime.

The King of Moo

GreeBo wrote: »

Except we all know that he wont be if he comes from an under-privelidged background.

I'm personally not aware of any cases of judges deliberately giving a criminal a more lenient sentence because of their disadvantaged background. I'm quite confident that this is not a common phenomenon.

What I am more aware of are cases of criminals being described as being from "good families" as a mitigating factor to be considered in sentencing.

mackg

The King of Moo wrote: »

A thought upon this: the fact that this user imagines beating the man after he hit the girl, rather than imagining the attack never happened in the first place, suggests to me that prejudice, perhaps, but certainly revenge is the prime motivating factor behind much of the rhetoric being spouted here, rather than genuine concern for the victims of violent crime.

Indeed some seem more inspired by the attack than appalled.

cometogether

Jesus that was vicious. He should be up for attempted murder for that.

The King of Moo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So which is it Moo playgrounds or hangin?

Hang him from the swings!

who the fug

The King of Moo wrote: »

Hang him from the swings!

bags catering concession, now what to sell to the mob

GreeBo

The King of Moo wrote: »

You've got it backwards: give better living conditions (and in a much broader sense increase social mobility, which is no mean feat, I grant) to people so they don't end up attacking other people in the first place.

Ok, so you give everyone living conditions, some people are always, always going to have more than others.
Where does this "give people better living conditions" stop?
Some people will always be thugs no matter where or how they are brought up.
I dont think you can nurture this out of them, its just their nature.

I believe that some people need punishment as a deterrent, just being nice and giving opportunities doesnt work for everyone.

RDM_83 again

The King of Moo wrote: »

He should be punished for his crime, as should anyone, regardless of his background.
Simultaneously, governments should work to ensure that environments that create cultures in which violence is encouraged do not develop, in order to ensure that far fewer such violent criminals emerge.

No-one's suggesting that criminals like him should be given lenient sentences because of their background.

What people are sensibly suggesting is that if governments did their job of doing their best by their citizens, there'd be far fewer criminals like this in the first place.

All your stating makes complete sense however there is a problem in that these older (older than the younger kids anyway) criminals/behaviorally flawed individuals will serve probably serve relatively short spells in prison (which arguably are less effective for both rehabilitation and punishment) and return to the area where they are from perpetuating the cycle of violence.

I also think there's probably a different attitude to the poor in the UK compared to Ireland. I believe though the dole was used to buy votes and was unsustainable, during Englands booming years their payements only increased slightly (while like Ireland the country didn;t make use of restrictions on Eastern European migration as did Germany and France)

laoch na mona

am i the only one that thinks it looked fake???
not saying it is video just looks fake

Laneyh

woodoo wrote: »

YES

Why? If the man is mentally unwell then someone should be doing a better job of treating him.

I realise that is little comfort to the innocent victim but you can't equate the calculated actions of a person wilfully out to do harm with those of someone who is mentally unwell.

The King of Moo

GreeBo wrote: »

Ok, so you give everyone living conditions, some people are always, always going to have more than others.
Where does this "give people better living conditions" stop?
Some people will always be thugs no matter where or how they are brought up.
I dont think you can nurture this out of them, its just their nature.

I believe that some people need punishment as a deterrent, just being nice and giving opportunities doesnt work for everyone.

It stops at a level which provides outlets for young people other than anti-social behaviour, and at a fairly basic level of housing and infrastructure. Nothing too special, just more than bare concrete.

But that in itself isn't enough. There also needs to be a much more fundamental shift in culture which removes disadvantage and class-based stigma and leads to a far more egalitarian society, which would reduce the crime which comes from deprivation and the prejudice against those from deprived backgrounds.
This, unfortunately, is not something which happens overnight, and is too complex an issue for most politicians to deal with.

I agree that some people from all backgrounds have a natural tendency towards violence, but I also believe that there are very few of these people, and that severe punishments would not act as a deterrent for them. If they have this instinctive tendency, then the thought of punishment is probably not going to stop them acting on impulse.

But at least working to reduce disadvantage would lead to a reduction in crime from those who get involved in it for more social/cultural reasons.

Reloc8

csallmighty wrote: »

But its not working because you are putting theses criminals in an environment where they feel at home, because they are surrounded by other lowlifes. Scumbags like him can thrive in a prison and then come out a worse human being.

Well then we should ban them from prison. That'll show them.

Higher

Quirk_Douglas wrote: »

Wonderful multicultural London, we can look forward to those sorts of mischievous hi-jinks happening here in Ireland as well more regularly over the next ten to fifteen years. Should they lock him up when they catch him? Why would they do that? He's enriched their country so much.

Mod: User banned.

Yeah multiculturalism clearly isn't working in Ireland.

What with all those white, Irish knackers driving screw drivers into the heads of Polish men and kicking in the heads of Polish men on their way to work so badly that brain matter is seen protruding through the victim's skull.

GreeBo

laoch na mona wrote: »

am i the only one that thinks it looked fake???
not saying it is video just looks fake

I think thats because to most of us its incomprehensible that someone would/could do this.

Laneyh

I dunno the victim is also presumably from the same area and also from an ethnic minority - so I don't think his actions should be explained away because of either of those factors

It is hard to understand as it is a totally unprovoked attack, therefore we have no idea what motivated him to do it.

If they manage to catch him, perhaps we'll find out

There have been a number of cases where someone with a mental illness has committed an unprovoked assault or pushed someone in front of the tube but there are also some bad b@stards out there.
Thankfully the girl is ok and made a complete recovery. Very lucky they're not launching a murder inquiry tbh

Madam_X

Prevention is better than cure. A grassroots initiative that aims to steer people away from gang life would benefit society - all of us. Such a suggestion has far more substance to it than "just being peeecee". Violent retribution, not a guaranteed deterrent, will do feck all for society at large and the cycle will just continue.
In cases where the damage is done, they should get prison - for the safety of others and as punishment. Prison should not be a picnic but a brutal environment is just going to make tough ****ers even tougher; again, no use to society.
A thug can come from anywhere, yes, but there is more of a likelihood of them coming from poor, tough environments where there is little or no access to/emphasis on education, and little job prospects. It's disingenuous to deny this. And while many people who grow up in such environments break out of the cycle and make good lives for themselves and their families, it doesn't change the fact that many don't. We aren't all born with the same hand dealt to us and while ultimately a thug is responsible for being a thug, it's pointless to suggest we're all the same and our environments make no difference. Big difference between excuse and explanation.