The murder of Keane Mulready Woods.

KiKi III

Mad_maxx wrote: »

You're post is a flawless on message echoing of the Liberal narative which prevails around this issue

Education is free and disadvantaged areas schools also receive extra special funding, health care is free for those who are unemployed, the problem is a law enforcement one, Ireland isn't Mexico

That seventeen year old was a predator, not an innocent lamb

Do you honestly believe that a kid born in Dalkey to two successful working parents and a kid born in Darndale to a single mother in a minimum wage job have the same shot in life?

Hector Savage

So the two lads that were shot on Friday - whats the connection ?

Effects

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Education is free and disadvantaged areas schools also receive extra special funding, health care is free for those who are unemployed, the problem is a law enforcement one, Ireland isn't Mexico
That seventeen year old was a predator, not an innocent lamb

Disadvantaged area schools get extra funding because they need it. Keeping kids in school in those areas can be really difficult.
A lot of them have parents who are just too lazy and don't care enough about their children.
If kids don't learn how to function in school/society from their parents and people around them then they are screwed and the cycle repeats.

begbysback

Mad_maxx wrote: »

You're post is a flawless on message echoing of the Liberal narative which prevails around this issue

Education is free and disadvantaged areas schools also receive extra special funding, health care is free for those who are unemployed, the problem is a law enforcement one, Ireland isn't Mexico

That seventeen year old was a predator, not an innocent lamb

The reason we don’t make progress in society would be that belief that such issues can be solved by law enforcement, build more prisons, build bigger prisons, arrest more people, detain them for longer without charge, give them longer sentences, make them do hard labor.

Beyond Asian countries, whose statistics are highly questionable, please post here any evidence (I’ll accept a smidgen), that any of the above reduces crime.

Antares35

NIMAN wrote: »

Interesting to compare the 2 recent deaths of young men:

This fella, dismembered yet a lot of people are "meh" about the case.

And we have Cameron Blair, stabbed at a house party, when most people were sympathetic.


I think the 2 personalities and how they were living their lives decide how the public react to their deaths.

On the contrary, there's been a permanent media hard on about this case since the news broke and people jumping on the bandwagon all over the place ready to blame society i.e. us, the "gubberment", the social welfare system, the marital status of his mother, the education system, the justice system etc. And the other poor lad from Cork has barely had a mention.

brendanwalsh

Was KM playing for both teams? Any further confirmation on that

lawred2

A prayer service held for that scumbag over the weekend. During the day because of people's fears of being out late at night.

Such fears the scumbag in question is directly responsible for the creation of...

lawred2

Antares35 wrote: »

On the contrary, there's been a permanent media hard on about this case since the news broke and people jumping on the bandwagon all over the place ready to blame society i.e. us, the "gubberment", the social welfare system, the marital status of his mother, the education system, the justice system etc. And the other poor lad from Cork has barely had a mention.

And the lad with the knife being just another clone of KMM

Mad_maxx

Boggles wrote: »

What's the fraction?

In 1970 we had less than 3 million people.

Many Laws were different, it was legal to rape your wife for instance. When did drink driving legislation come in?

Reporting of crime was far different, as in it wasn't reported a lot of the time and when it was it was dealt with outside the courts, etc, etc.

Now I'm sure you just didn't pick a random stat form 50 years ago and compare to today and come up with your thesis, because that would fair daft wouldn't it?

Society and the problems have changed drastically from 30 years let alone 50.

Or should we just bring institutionalization again?

What kind of institutionalisation?

Mad_maxx

KiKi III wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that a kid born in Dalkey to two successful working parents and a kid born in Darndale to a single mother in a minimum wage job have the same shot in life?

Being a single mother doesn't make someone special

KiKi III

lawred2 wrote: »

A prayer service held for that scumbag over the weekend. During the day because of people's fears of being out late at night.

Such fears the scumbag in question is directly responsible for the creation of...

Surely most prayer services would take place during the day?

Mad_maxx

Effects wrote: »

Disadvantaged area schools get extra funding because they need it. Keeping kids in school in those areas can be really difficult.
A lot of them have parents who are just too lazy and don't care enough about their children.
If kids don't learn how to function in school/society from their parents and people around them then they are screwed and the cycle repeats.

I'm well aware that children pay for the sins of their parents, i don't have a problem with it either

Natural justice

kildare lad

KiKi III wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that a kid born in Dalkey to two successful working parents and a kid born in Darndale to a single mother in a minimum wage job have the same shot in life?

No they don't have the same shot at life , but how about people make better life choices , i might sound a bit sexist but if women decide to have kids with drug dealers/ scumbags and wasters the cycle will continue. Some are attracted to " bad boys" but it's the mothers that are left to pick up the pieces when they get locked up , overdose or just get bored with them. They end up being a single mom in a rough neighbourhood with a lot more vices for young teens to pick up. I live in Kildare but there's plenty of people who've moved out here from "disadvantaged areas", because they made better life choices. My son hangs around with kids whose parents are from, tallaght ,blanch and finglas . They all work , bring their kids to football matches etc. Maybe a bit more education in school might help , I don't know.

KiKi III

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Being a single mother doesn't make someone special

I didn’t say it did.

I juxtaposed the opportunities two kids of a similar age would have if one was born in a middle to upper class area and one is born in a poor area, and you conveniently avoided answering the question.

lawred2

KiKi III wrote: »

Surely most prayer services would take place during the day?

Wakes, vigils, reposes etc are usually during the evening

either way - the priest was on the news this morning explaining that they moved this particular service from the evening to the daylight hours because people were afraid to be out after dark.

KiKi III

kildare lad wrote: »

No they don't have the same shot at life , but how about people make better life choices , i might sound a bit sexist but if women decide to have kids with drug dealers/ scumbags and wasters the cycle will continue. Some are attracted to " bad boys" but it's the mothers that are left to pick up the pieces when they get locked up , overdose or just get bored with them. They end up being a single mom in a rough neighbourhood with a lot more vices for young teens to pick up. I live in Kildare but there's plenty of people who've moved out here from "disadvantaged areas", because they made better life choices. My son hangs around with kids whose parents are from, tallaght ,blanch and finglas . They all work , bring their kids to football matches etc. Maybe a bit more education in school might help , I don't know.

Ummm there’s something in better life choices alright but it is indeed sexist to place more blame on a woman for having a relationship with a drug dealer than on the man who chooses to deal drugs. Why focus on her bad choices rather than his much worse choices?

Mad_maxx

begbysback wrote: »

The reason we don’t make progress in society would be that belief that such issues can be solved by law enforcement, build more prisons, build bigger prisons, arrest more people, detain them for longer without charge, give them longer sentences, make them do hard labor.

Beyond Asian countries, whose statistics are highly questionable, please post here any evidence (I’ll accept a smidgen), that any of the above reduces crime.

That's a liberal ideological belief, just because RTE or Ivana bacik says it's true, don't make it so

We've taken the approach espoused by the left when it comes to anti social behaviour and the culture of delinquency for decades, it's failed miserably

Mad_maxx

KiKi III wrote: »

I didn’t say it did.

I juxtaposed the opportunities two kids of a similar age would have if one was born in a middle to upper class area and one is born in a poor area, and you conveniently avoided answering the question.

It's an ideological question and serves no purpose other than that

I'm a pauper compared to someone in Kensington London, as are my children, everyone is richer or poorer than someone, instilling basic values of decency costs nothing

The vast majority of people in Ireland were poor relative to today in the 1950s yet they were still capable of instilling values in their children, both my parents grew up poor, no running water or bathroom, both worked from the age of fifteen, then the left took over media and various power structures and told people they were responsible for nothing in their lives

KiKi III

Mad_maxx wrote: »

It's an ideological question and serves no purpose other than that

You’re effectively conceding the point when you refuse to answer a simple question, because the honest answer pokes a hole in your argument.

Mad_maxx

KiKi III wrote: »

You’re effectively conceding the point when you refuse to answer a simple question, because the honest answer pokes a hole in your argument.

Hardly

kippy

Mad_maxx wrote: »

It's an ideological question and serves no purpose other than that

I'm a pauper compared to someone in Kensington London, as are my children, everyone is richer or poorer than someone, instilling basic values of decency costs nothing

The vast majority of people in Ireland were poor relative to today in the 1950s yet they were still capable of instilling values in their children, both my parents grew up poor, no running water or bathroom, both worked from the age of fifteen, then the left took over media and various power structures and told people they were responsible for nothing in their lives

I've said it earlier but this is generally a good country to live in. There are a number of safety nets that provide individuals and families with services and supports that will maintain and sustain life. There are opportunites for all, whether it be to go to a third level institution, further adult education, apprenticeship/traineeship or get a job in general.
There are no excuses for those that turn to this level of criminality, it is a combination of greed and a lack of morals coming from somewhere.
The State has to come down hard on those that make decisions to:
1. Not look after their children.
2. Chose to partake in this level of criminality.

Legalising drugs is not the answer. It might be part of the answer.

kippy

KiKi III wrote: »

Ummm there’s something in better life choices alright but it is indeed sexist to place more blame on a woman for having a relationship with a drug dealer than on the man who chooses to deal drugs. Why focus on her bad choices rather than his much worse choices?

It's a pointless debate and doesn't really help figure out why or solve the issue.
Lots of people making bad decisions, men and women and whatever other gender you wish to use.

KWAG2019

KiKi III wrote: »

I didn’t say it did.

I juxtaposed the opportunities two kids of a similar age would have if one was born in a middle to upper class area and one is born in a poor area, and you conveniently avoided answering the question.

There is a real point to your question. However, you have missed it. You need to change the word area. It’s not about an area or poverty it’s about people. Some people are utterly dysfunctional, maladjusted, incapable of parenting properly, have lifelong chips on their shoulder and resent and oppose any attempt to improve their lives.

Mad_maxx

kippy wrote: »

I've said it earlier but this is generally a good country to live in. There are a number of safety nets that provide individuals and families with services and supports that will maintain and sustain life. There are opportunites for all, whether it be to go to a third level institution, further adult education, apprenticeship/traineeship or get a job in general.
There are no excuses for those that turn to this level of criminality, it is a combination of greed and a lack of morals coming from somewhere.
The State has to come down hard on those that make decisions to:
1. Not look after their children.
2. Chose to partake in this level of criminality.

Legalising drugs is not the answer. It might be part of the answer.

This state bends over backwards for people who are classed as disadvantaged.

It's high time we expected more of people, beit travellers or people like this murder victim, they are not helpless pets as the left would have us believe

kildare lad

KiKi III wrote: »

Ummm there’s something in better life choices alright but it is indeed sexist to place more blame on a woman for having a relationship with a drug dealer than on the man who chooses to deal drugs. Why focus on her bad choices rather than his much worse choices?

I focused on her life choices because it's the women who end up bringing up the child alone in most cases. Put it this way , which child will have a better chance at life , the one where the father is a waster/drug dealer or the one where the father works .

Mad_maxx

KWAG2019 wrote: »

There is a real point to your question. However, you have missed it. You need to change the word area. It’s not about an area or poverty it’s about people. Some people are utterly dysfunctional, maladjusted, incapable of parenting properly, have lifelong chips on their shoulder and resent and oppose any attempt to improve their lives.

The left don't see people as individuals, they see categories, more than ever these days, if the individual empowers themselves, that doesn't bode well for the left

begbysback

Mad_maxx wrote: »

That's a liberal ideological belief, just because RTE or Ivana bacik says it's true, don't make it so

We've taken the approach espoused by the left when it comes to anti social behaviour and the culture of delinquency for decades, it's failed miserably

I’ll accept the lack of evidence here as an understanding that making punishment worse has zero affect.

Strangely enough I’ve never considered myself a left wing liberalist, though i can see why it’s convenient for you to categorize an argument as such, I’m more logical actually, get to the root of the problem, find an effective solution, and apply the solution, and if that solution is harsher punishment then be it so. To blast off the repetitive rhetoric of lock them up and throw away the key seems ignorant to me, but maybe some people just don’t get it, or don’t want to get it.

starbaby2003

KWAG2019 wrote: »

There is a real point to your question. However, you have missed it. You need to change the word area. It’s not about an area or poverty it’s about people. Some people are utterly dysfunctional, maladjusted, incapable of parenting properly, have lifelong chips on their shoulder and resent and oppose any attempt to improve their lives.

Area has a massive input. It is much better to be poor and dysfunctional in a middleclass/ rich area than it is to be middleclass in a poor area. This is why ex council houses in affluent areas sell for more than a four bed semi in poorer areas. Resources in Ireland are scarce, just look at waiting lists for children’s services in DunLaoighaire Versus Finglas

Mad_maxx

begbysback wrote: »

I’ll accept the lack of evidence here as an understanding that making punishment worse has zero affect.

Strangely enough I’ve never considered myself a left wing liberalist, though i can see why it’s convenient for you to categorize an argument as such, I’m more logical actually, get to the root of the problem, find an effective solution, and apply the solution, and if that solution is harsher punishment then be it so. To blast off the repetitive rhetoric of lock them up and throw away the key seems ignorant to me, but maybe some people just don’t get it, or don’t want to get it.

I wouldn't be so smug, you're approach has a dismal record.

kippy

begbysback wrote: »

I’ll accept the lack of evidence here as an understanding that making punishment worse has zero affect.

Strangely enough I’ve never considered myself a left wing liberalist, though i can see why it’s convenient for you to categorize an argument as such, I’m more logical actually, get to the root of the problem, find an effective solution, and apply the solution, and if that solution is harsher punishment then be it so. To blast off the repetitive rhetoric of lock them up and throw away the key seems ignorant to me, but maybe some people just don’t get it, or don’t want to get it.

Are you suggesting that our current regime of "light touch" sentencing in "holiday home" jails is working - or indeed the judiciarys habit of letting people off with multiple "convictions"?

Not saying that harsher sentences in harsher prisons are the only solution but they need to be part of it.