Welcome to Scumtown... Mod warning Post 8

Tombi! · 04-12-2012 03:32PM

I think I worked it out.
Dark Crystal said (and rightfully) said that: I often find the people who like to take a softly-softly approach to criminals, don't usually have to live next to them.

So hooradiation took as she (DC) was saying that unless you lived next to the criminals then you've never lived beside them and you're supposed to shut up.

Except DC wasn't saying that, she was saying something based on her experiences and hooradiation took it to mean something else.

Esoteric_ · 04-12-2012 03:34PM

Ah sure just give them all a random weapon, throw them on an empty island and let the real life Battle Royale commence.

Seriously though, if monitored and policed really stringently, I don't see any harm in at least trying it. If you've lived next door to scum and have seen people being shot, hear of rapes and murders every few nights in your area, see burned out cars all the time, I can understand why people would want this implemented in Ireland. I live in a 'bad' area and have seen or heard all of what I mentioned above and it'd be nice to not see that anymore!

tallaghtmick · 04-12-2012 03:38PM

El Weirdo wrote: »

Same goes for bashing of any particular ethnic or cultural groupings - you know exactly who I'm talking about.

Yeh those dirty thieving mods! :pac:

dark crystal · 04-12-2012 03:47PM

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I think I worked it out.
Dark Crystal said (and rightfully) said that: I often find the people who like to take a softly-softly approach to criminals, don't usually have to live next to them.

So hooradiation took as she (DC) was saying that unless you lived next to the criminals then you've never lived beside them and you're supposed to shut up.

Except DC wasn't saying that, she was saying something based on her experiences and hooradiation took it to mean something else.

Is that it??!

A few people thanked his post, so maybe they could enlighten us as to the meaning. While they're at it, perhaps they could also enlighten me as to what my fantasy was and the fatal flaw in it...that one's killing me! :P

Tombi! · 04-12-2012 03:58PM

dark crystal wrote: »

Is that it??!

A few people thanked his post, so maybe they could enlighten us as to the meaning. While they're at it, perhaps they could also enlighten me as to what my fantasy was and the fatal flaw in it...that one's killing me! :P

I think so. Assuming it is, the fantasy is that you can disregard anyone's argument if you feel like it by the thoughts they don't live next to criminals. The flaw is that it's stupid to do that.

But none of that matters since you weren't dismissing everyone at all.

inforfun · 04-12-2012 04:26PM

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Funny thing is, it being Holland, most if not all of these people will be immigrants, mostly Moroccans I'd say. This will annoy liberals all over the place.

Spot on.
Country is again in shock for a few days after countless "incidents" like this one

TL;DR version
Linesman is kicked to death by at least 3 15/16 year old kids after a game of football.

And btw, the man coming up with this plan is the mayor of Amsterdam, Eberhard van der Laan from the PVDA.
And the PVDA are the socialist party in Holland, pretty left wing.

Spiritual · 04-12-2012 04:30PM

PauloMN wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Nobody would be "lined up" to be moved into such a place. Quite the contrary, I'd imagine that only those involved in persistent and serious anti-social behaviour i.e. damage to property, threats, physical violence, bullying etc.. would be even considered for such a move, and after numerous interventions from social services.

Do not try and paint this as something which it is not. This idea is being mooted so that decent people who play by the rules can have a method by which scumbags can be moved elsewhere temporarily, rather than the decent people being driven out of an area. Somewhere they can be punished to an extent, somewhere they can maybe learn how to live like considerate people and somewhere away from decent people while they sort themselves out.

Of course it will be people from a lower socio-economic background that end up in such a place - that's as obvious as the nose on your face. It's a proposal to deal with anti-social behaviour in council estates, so of course the demographic of people who end up being moved will be from a lower socio-econmic background. To hint that that is some sort of right wing agenda targetting everyone who lives in council housing is absolutely pathetic tbh.

So the proposal is to make Ghettos out of the Ghettos, so the filter continues until when? Is it you create a new town, a no go area?

The proposal is to herd the anti-social together, the lower socio-economic end up their too as it stands today. It is how we structure our society.

The idea is to now go another layer down and seclude the anti-social from the lower socio economic. Anti-social behaviour is a crime. Prison the price.

Isn't prison suppose to be the form of rehabilitation, what prison does it puts people of the same mind set together away from society. These proposed scum towns are basically doing the same, just pushing the problem down the line. It seems a little short-sighted that this move would engage people's minds enough for them to change their ways and return to the lower socio economic environment that is generally believed to cause the anti social issues in the first place.

What about my question on the anti-social in suits that in my personal experience have caused me more problems through their criminal activities, do we temporarily move them to the "scum towns" so they can see the error of their ways to eventually return to their place in society?

What are the factors that decide which direction you take with a person.
Wealth, social standing or the class of people they have affected with their actions?

Prison or scum town,text in to decide, sure we could make a game show out of it.

hooradiation · 04-12-2012 04:47PM

dark crystal wrote: »

I'm afraid you'll have to spell it out for me. All I know is that you quoted a paragraph of mine about people taking a softly softly approach towards criminals often never having lived next to one and you made some ambiguous statement about disregarding entire arguments based on what I imagine a person's experience to be.

Also, dial down the condescending tone please. It's easier to make a point when you just say what you mean instead of making pointed little digs.

looksee wrote: »

I don't have the faintest idea what hooradiation is talking about either, I read the 'disregard entire arguments' sentence and thought I must be having a brain fuse because I totally could not make out the meaning.

dark crystal wrote: »

Is that it??!

A few people thanked his post, so maybe they could enlighten us as to the meaning. While they're at it, perhaps they could also enlighten me as to what my fantasy was and the fatal flaw in it...that one's killing me! :P

Well, if you're done circle jerking over how awesome it is that ye seem to have difficulties reading simple sentences.

Brutal Deluxe touched on it, but was far kinder than you deserve in their interpretation.
Your idea that anyone who disagrees with your stance is
A] Advocating a 'softly softly approach' which is shit in and of itself and
B] has never lived beside "these people" and therefore their opinion is worthless.
is the fantasy you're labouring under.

And i know you might be tempted to go "bu-bu i ddin't mean that, that's just my opinion" but that's a lie and you know it. There was no point bringing that little nugget of "wisdom" up only for to try and make the connection between people who disagree with you being of a sheltered existence.
It's called using weasel words or to tergiversate.

See.
It's all quite simple.

Spiritual · 04-12-2012 04:49PM

inforfun wrote: »

Spot on.
Country is again in shock for a few days after countless "incidents" like this one

TL;DR version
Linesman is kicked to death by at least 3 15/16 year old kids after a game of football.

And btw, the man coming up with this plan is the mayor of Amsterdam, Eberhard van der Laan from the PVDA.
And the PVDA are the socialist party in Holland, pretty left wing.

I have been at GAA games where attacks that if happened on the streets would get you prison time. Luckily no one has been killed and I can assure you that many of the attackers would never fall into someone's idea of your typical anti-social practitioner.

Tombi! · 04-12-2012 04:53PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Well, if you're done circle jerking over how awesome it is that ye seem to have difficulties reading simple sentences.

Brutal Deluxe touched on it, but was far kinder than you deserve in their interpretation.
Your idea that anyone who disagrees with your stance is
A] Advocating a 'softly softly approach' which is shit in and of itself and
B] has never lived beside "these people" and therefore their opinion is worthless.
is the fantasy you're labouring under.

And i know you might be tempted to go "bu-bu i ddin't mean that, that's just my opinion" but that's a lie and you know it. There was no point bringing that little nugget of "wisdom" up only for to try and make the connection between people who disagree with you being of a sheltered existence.
It's called using weasel words or to tergiversate.

See.
It's all quite simple.

Except... her point is completely valid. Most people who say "ah bless, leave him alone" usually have never been affected by scum at all.

PauloMN · 04-12-2012 04:56PM

Spiritual wrote: »

So the proposal is to make Ghettos out of the Ghettos, so the filter continues until when? Is it you create a new town, a no go area?

The proposal is to herd the anti-social together, the lower socio-economic end up their too as it stands today. It is how we structure our society.

The idea is to now go another layer down and seclude the anti-social from the lower socio economic. Anti-social behaviour is a crime. Prison the price.

Isn't prison suppose to be the form of rehabilitation, what prison does it puts people of the same mind set together away from society. These proposed scum towns are basically doing the same, just pushing the problem down the line. It seems a little short-sighted that this move would engage people's minds enough for them to change their ways and return to the lower socio economic environment that is generally believed to cause the anti social issues in the first place.

What about my question on the anti-social in suits that in my personal experience have caused me more problems through their criminal activities, do we temporarily move them to the "scum towns" so they can see the error of their ways to eventually return to their place in society?

What are the factors that decide which direction you take with a person.
Wealth, social standing or the class of people they have affected with their actions?

Prison or scum town,text in to decide, sure we could make a game show out of it.

I don't think you're getting this at all. The proposal is to take troublesome people out of an area where they are causing problems for others trying to get on with their lives. The socio-economic class of people does not come into it, I don't know why you keep bringing this up. Whether people are rich or poor, there's decent people in all classes just trying to get on with their lives.

Prison does not happen for anti-social behaviour, anyone can see that. Prison does not even happen for those with multiple serious offences, so it won't be an option for anti-social behaviour. This proposal is a radical approach to a problem currently not being addressed at all, and is something worth looking at here in Ireland imo.

To answer your question, anyone guilty of crime whether in a suit or in a track suit should be dealt with appropriately. Deflecting the conversation into a discussion about "wealthy" criminals isn't helpful - that's a different discussion altogether.

Would like to hear how you would address the lower socio-economic environment that you seem to think is at the root of everything (which I actually think is insulting to the many good decent people who have to cope with the same socio-economic environment as the scumbags). Would you throw even more money at it via welfare? Are we not enough of a welfare state for you as it stands?

keithclancy · 04-12-2012 04:58PM

Terrible lazy reporting:

The Article by the Indo is taken from UK Newspaper "The Telegraph" which in turn badly interpreted it from Het Parool, which I believe got the jist of it from "Spits"

Spits is a free newspaper that you get on the train.

A. In the Dutch article I read the Mayor didn't ever refer to them as Scum Villages

B. I've seen the Container houses they were on about at the Dutch Design Week, their part of the sustainable affordable living project, students live in them and theres a few sites around the country.

C. Its people in Social housing, its not like in the UK, people on a Normal Income here can apply for them, however the waiting list is years, its not like council estates, their usually next to owner occupiers, people renting in the normal market.

D. I wouldn't say its possible to have minimal services either (within Amsterdam) ... I don't know what that means, maybe theres no bus/tram service or something.

I seriously doubt the City of Amsterdam would be able to dump them in another Cities boundaries either.
Or they could just go rent in the Private Market ... if anyone would have them.

I don't understand the association with Geert Wilders either ... I believe his idea was to have a halaalville i.e. stick all the Muslims / Black (or whatever he thinks foreigners are) all in one place.

Essentially you go on a waiting list for affordable housing, which is in the same places as privately owned housing, the idea is to move serious long term offenders out of their housing rather than evict them.

Heres a link to the 'Caravans' their on about, which a lot of people live in already, Students etc.
http://www.spacebox.nl/index.cfm?lng=nl&mi=3&pmi=33

Article is a total fail imho, they didn't even research it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/9719247/Amsterdam-to-create-scum-villages.html

RainMaker · 04-12-2012 04:59PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Your idea that anyone who disagrees with your stance is
A] Advocating a 'softly softly approach' which is shit in and of itself and
B] has never lived beside "these people" and therefore their opinion is worthless.
is the fantasy you're labouring under.

Softly, softly is crap and everybody knows it. It may ultimately deal with the causes, but doesn't deal with the immediate problem.
Put in a playground and facilities to improve conditions for future generations, but those facilities will be burnt down overnight by the current generation! Current situation has to be dealt with before planning for the future...

It was never said that you had to live beside these people in order to have a worthwhile opinion, it was pointed out that most people with a "softly, softly" approach are far removed from the problem and don't have to deal with it on a daily basis - if they did, they might have a different opinion.

Spiritual · 04-12-2012 05:31PM

PauloMN wrote: »

I don't think you're getting this at all. The proposal is to take troublesome people out of an area where they are causing problems for others trying to get on with their lives. The socio-economic class of people does not come into it, I don't know why you keep bringing this up. Whether people are rich or poor, there's decent people in all classes just trying to get on with their lives.

You don't seem to getting it either, we live in a society founded an a set of laws and if the laws are broken then prison should be the deterrent. It is easy to say that this is not working, but to me the proposed alternative is not going to work because it is one and the same.

This is already happening, elements of the ant-social behaviour being filtered out of estates in a city in Ireland, the are transferring the problem to other parts of the country, that is all that is being achieved. The problems in the estates they are being moved from continue to happen. It is directly connected the socio-economic factors and are a direct connection to the anti-social behaviour. It seems to me that the attempt is to dilute the problems, not fix them long term.

Building ghettoes disenfranchises people from the rest of society, it creates a them and us attitude, this proposal is a continuation of this practise.

Yes there are good and bad people everywhere but you cannot argue that most of the issues arise in these lower socio-economic areas, a show of short-sightedness by the decision makers.

Prison does not happen for anti-social behaviour, anyone can see that. Prison does not even happen for those with multiple serious offences, so it won't be an option for anti-social behaviour. This proposal is a radical approach to a problem currently not being addressed at all, and is something worth looking at here in Ireland imo.

And what makes you think this will work any better? What do you propose is done to tether these people found to merit a stay in "scum town". Where do they go when they are deemed to be of suitable status to return to a free society. Is it not prison in another guise?

To answer your question, anyone guilty of crime whether in a suit or in a track suit should be dealt with appropriately. Deflecting the conversation into a discussion about "wealthy" criminals isn't helpful - that's a different discussion altogether.

To you maybe but to me, as you say "should be dealt with appropriately". Appropriately is by the rule of law.

Would like to hear how you would address the lower socio-economic environment that you seem to think is at the root of everything (which I actually think is insulting to the many good decent people who have to cope with the same socio-economic environment as the scumbags). Would you throw even more money at it via welfare? Are we not enough of a welfare state for you as it stands?

Education and a concerted effort to not put people in segregated areas because of their socio-economic situation. This can be seen all over the world as a major factor in creating anti-social behaviour.

If it means building more Prisons build them, give appropriate sentences, it is bad enough that Prison is seen as a badge of honour among many disengaged youths, the creation of "scum towns" will just be more of the same.

I would appreciate you not using my argument to make it seem that I don't believe there are good people in the estates of Ireland getting on with their lives. I am one of them and I live everyday watching the long term affects of societies decisions to place people in these ghettoes.

Job opportuinities and even education opportunities are being denied to many in this area solely by the postal address and the already existing perception that it is a "scum town"

PauloMN · 04-12-2012 05:57PM

Spiritual wrote: »

You don't seem to getting it either, we live in a society founded an a set of laws and if the laws are broken then prison should be the deterrent. It is easy to say that this is not working, but to me the proposed alternative is not going to work because it is one and the same.

This is already happening, elements of the ant-social behaviour being filtered out of estates in a city in Ireland, the are transferring the problem to other parts of the country, that is all that is being achieved. The problems in the estates they are being moved from continue to happen. It is directly connected the socio-economic factors and are a direct connection to the anti-social behaviour. It seems to me that the attempt is to dilute the problems, not fix them long term.

Building ghettoes disenfranchises people from the rest of society, it creates a them and us attitude, this proposal is a continuation of this practise.

Yes there are good and bad people everywhere but you cannot argue that most of the issues arise in these lower socio-economic areas, a show of short-sightedness by the decision makers.

And what makes you think this will work any better? What do you propose is done to tether these people found to merit a stay in "scum town". Where do they go when they are deemed to be of suitable status to return to a free society. Is it not prison in another guise?

To you maybe but to me, as you say "should be dealt with appropriately". Appropriately is by the rule of law.

Education and a concerted effort to not put people in segregated areas because of their socio-economic situation. This can be seen all over the world as a major factor in creating anti-social behaviour.

If it means building more Prisons build them, give appropriate sentences, it is bad enough that Prison is seen as a badge of honour among many disengaged youths, the creation of "scum towns" will just be more of the same.

I would appreciate you not using my argument to make it seem that I don't believe there are good people in the estates of Ireland getting on with their lives. I am one of them and I live everyday watching the long term affects of societies decisions to place people in these ghettoes.

Job opportuinities and even education opportunities are being denied to many in this area solely by the postal address and the already existing perception that it is a "scum town"

I think we could argue until the cows come home, it's obvious we have a completely different outlook on life.

Prison will not work for anti-social behaviour though, because it's too expensive to put people in prison for such crimes, and there's not enough places even for hardened criminals who are walking out of courts and going straight back into crime.

I totally agree on education though. We don't get enough (any?) social education in schools. It should start from early primary school and continue right up to the end of secondary. Teach respect right from the offset.

However, I don't know what the alternative is to what you refer to as "societies decisions to place people in these ghettoes". I've seen attempts by local councils to mix council tenants in with private tenants, which has been as much of a failure as segregating people. What do you suggest to avoid placing people in ghettos? People make areas ghettos, not society.

Lawrence1895 · 04-12-2012 06:04PM

Don't think, creating ghettos for the low-lifes in society is the right solution, it only creates this 'We against them' situation, which is counter productive.

Laws against anti social behavior though should be tightened and enforced with all possible means, for example taking away guardianship of parents, who are not able or willing to look after their children properly (not as a punishment, but to help them to get back on track, ie. to look after their children properly)

Or community work instead of prison, any person old enough to understand his/her wrong doing (14 in Germany, btw), should work for the common good.

uberalles · 04-12-2012 06:06PM

PauloMN wrote: »

Agreed. The very same people who don't want these "ghettos" fail to realise that we already have ghettos - where 95% of the decent people in those estates have to put up with ongoing anti-social behaviour from the 5% of scumbags running the place.

+1

Too much carrot and too little stick is being used in Ireland.

Spiritual · 04-12-2012 06:10PM

PauloMN wrote: »

I think we could argue until the cows come home, it's obvious we have a completely different outlook on life.

Yes and I am right

:pac:

Prison will not work for anti-social behaviour though, because it's too expensive to put people in prison for such crimes, and there's not enough places even for hardened criminals who are walking out of courts and going straight back into crime.

I would like to see a study on the cost to society of a "scum town" against the cost of prison. Anyway we agree the outcome will be the same whether the rehabilitation takes place in prison or the hypothetical "scum town".

Those that want to change will change but those who know no better due to their socio-economic and educational opportunities will return to their stomping ground to continue their ways.

I still argue that this proposal would just be a mechanism to filter the ghettos into other ghettoes and create other long term issues for any society willing to engage in this.

MaxSteele · 04-12-2012 06:12PM

I don't get people's problem with this. It's just another form of an open air prison. I don't know why any of you care about what happens to the scum minority and their useless existences.

This proposal separates the degenerates and the anti-social filth unable to be rehabilitated from 99.9% of hard working, decent society. Keep them under constant surveillance and away from everyone else and hopefully they just die off. A town run by scum for scum. Let's see how long they last without handouts and Prison chefs to look after them.

Take away any children and give them to deserving parents.

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

Dartz · 04-12-2012 06:14PM

touts wrote: »

Why is it that anytime someone proposes a slightly rightwing approach to solving societies problems the lefties fall back on their broken record of quoting Facists or Star Wars.

Punishing people properly doesn't automatically end up with gassing them or blowing up their planet.

I just thought it was funny because someone mentioned fear keeping people on line.

In truth, fear of punishment doesn't really come in to the decision to commit a crime, just in the desire to get away with it. It does sweet **** all really....

If fear of punishment did anything the US would be drug-free.

Besides, the fascists didn't believe in fear keeping the people in-line.... it was the idea that they were all stronger together, that as a united force they could move the world, and that anyone who wasn't a part of the united movement was against it, so if you didn't want to be shunned and beaten maybe you should come and join us heiling and marching together instead of being alone and different.

MaxSteele · 04-12-2012 06:14PM

Spiritual wrote: »

Yes and I am right :pac:

I would like to see a study on the cost to society of a "scum town" against the cost of prison. Anyway we agree the outcome will be the same whether the rehabilitation takes place in prison or the hypothetical "scum town".

Those that want to change will change but those who know no better due to their socio-economic and educational opportunities will return to their stomping ground to continue their ways.

I still argue that this proposal would just be a mechanism to filter the ghettos into other ghettoes and create other long term issues for any society willing to engage in this.

If these "towns" were strictly monitored and kept at bay from mainstream society, how would it be a problem for the rest of us ?

flas · 04-12-2012 06:19PM

The funny thing about those affordable housing is they are better than the majority of affoddable "apartments" we have here in dublin...it really does show how crap accomodation is here in this city!why in the name of God are landlords allowed get away with it!?

geeky · 04-12-2012 06:21PM

MaxSteele wrote: »

I don't get people's problem with this. It's just another form of an open air prison. I don't know why any of you care about what happens to the scum minority and their useless existences.

Er....

1) Humanity
2) Practicality. Treat people like animals and they'll act like that.

Mr Freeze · 04-12-2012 06:26PM

FatherLen wrote: »

fooking prauns

^
Post of the Decade.

MaxSteele · 04-12-2012 06:26PM

geeky wrote: »

Er....

1) Humanity
2) Practicality. Treat people like animals and they'll act like that.

People with 50, 100+ convictions ? Sorry but my humanity for these vermin automatically goes out the window when I hear that.

I know what you mean regardless.

PauloMN · 04-12-2012 06:29PM

geeky wrote: »

Er....

1) Humanity
2) Practicality. Treat people like animals and they'll act like that.

1) How about showing humanity to the victims of these people?
2) They are already acting like animals.

dark crystal · 04-12-2012 06:33PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Well, if you're done circle jerking over how awesome it is that ye seem to have difficulties reading simple sentences.

I see that condescending attitude hasn't abated. Treating people as if they're stupid really doesn't make your points any more valid.

Brutal Deluxe touched on it, but was far kinder than you deserve in their interpretation.
Your idea that anyone who disagrees with your stance is
A] Advocating a 'softly softly approach' which is shit in and of itself and
B] has never lived beside "these people" and therefore their opinion is worthless.
is the fantasy you're labouring under.

I made a perfectly valid point that many people who advocate a liberal approach where it comes to crime and anti-social behaviour (softly-softly), don't actually live with the consequences of it on a daily basis. Do you see many politicians, judges or middle class liberals living in council estates? Do you heck.
I'd honestly love to hear from anyone who lives with constant anti-social behaviour and still thinks the law is adequate in this area.

Never once did I say anyone's opinion was worthless - it's you that's taking that particular stance here.

And i know you might be tempted to go "bu-bu i ddin't mean that, that's just my opinion" but that's a lie and you know it. There was no point bringing that little nugget of "wisdom" up only for to try and make the connection between people who disagree with you being of a sheltered existence.

It's called using weasel words or to tergiversate.

Don't presume to tell me what I'm thinking. I know exactly what I meant and said it very clearly, so don't try and make out that I'm backtracking on anything, or a liar. I am stating quite clearly that many people who advocate a 'liberal' approach to anti-social behaviour don't have to live with it on a daily basis - no bullsh!t, no weasel words there.

If you disagree with me fine, like I said, I'm not making any statements about anyone's opinion being worthless.

See.
It's all quite simple.

Do you mean for your posts to come off this patronising, or is it just a habit you've formed without knowing it?

Latchy · 04-12-2012 06:46PM

In the uk their are laws to evict people for anti social behavior and some after repeated warnings have .In some case these would be people who have had every opportunity to live by the same rules as everybody else but there is only so much you can tolerate from people ,who by their own choice become anti-social ,with no regard or respect for their neighbors and others in the community .

04-12-2012 06:53PM

MaxSteele wrote: »

People with 50, 100+ convictions ? Sorry but my humanity for these vermin automatically goes out the window when I hear that.

I know what you mean regardless.

It's easy for humanity to go 'out the window' when specific groups of people are referred to as 'vermin'.

MaxSteele · 04-12-2012 06:58PM

9959 wrote: »

It's easy for humanity to go 'out the window' when specific groups of people are referred to as 'vermin'.

Yes, aggressive, repeat offending, refusal to rehabilitate, anti-social vermin.

Welcome to Scumtown... **Mod warning Post 8**

Comments

Welcome to Scumtown... Mod warning Post 8