I thought I'd better fight fire with fire:
"James is not a real boy, but he is an accurate composite of the 572 young offenders aged 14 or less highlighted by Barnardo's in their report Locking Up or Giving Up? revealing the barbaric truth about our approach to child criminals in England and Wales..."A composite, eh? Sounds like a game we could all play:
'George and Gracie are in their 70s, and live next door to James' family. They are sick and tired of the screaming and shouting that disturbs their sleep whenever James' father is released (yet again) from prison, They can't enjoy their neat, tidy little garden since James was excluded and now finds 'work for his idle hands' in destroying it, or inviting his friends round to stand drinking, smoking cannabis and swearing outside their front gate. When the local authority obtained an Asbo against him, they were jubilant at first - but then, of course, they soon realised that despite breaching it many times, the judge never takes any action, as there are always excuses made for his behaviour, and a legion of social workers (who don't have to live near James, of course...) ready to whine about how badly society treats thugs like James.
George and Gracie would like to move, but who'd buy a house next to James? And they can't afford to move, because their pensions are a pittance, compared to the money spent by a 'charity' like Barnardos on wining and dining politicians to keep their cash cow (criminal children like James) grazing happily in the fields...'
Wonder how long that comment will stay up...?
6 comments:
Fair point. Charities always need to maintain a steady flow of income, hence the ridiculous bias of environmental charities towards the EU.
I was writing a long and no doubt boring comment here but I feel it would make an excellent post of my own; and I remembered that I promised to "sell" LPUK as a party to you a few articles ago - will answer and link to both this weekend.
Good points, but I remain concerned at ASBOs - a civil instrument - being used to enable imprisonment which normally can only come when you've been found guilty on criminal terms.
This is not to excuse little scrotes; only to note that civil law works on a lower balance of probability and is gradually seeping towards a situation where it is up to the respondent to prove they haven't done the alleged things*. We are increasingly treating accusation as if it were proven fact, when it has never even been through any recognized judicial process.
The danger is that if we make it too easy to dispatch James, it will become just as easy to lock up old George, on the balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt, or make him leave his home simply because James has made an accusation about him. (I believe we've already gone too far down that road, but it's arguable.)
My main thought on Ally Fogg's figures was that for 60K you could buy a decent private education at boarding school for the next 4 years and take the strain off his family whilst doing nothing ethically questionable. They'd be nuts to turn down a benefit transfer like that.
The 60K to do not very wonderful work in school for a year or two years' fostering which is not, despite what Ally claims, all that much cop, is not a good use of the money and will not give Bright Imaginary James the way out of his background and in to well-paid employment - which is his only long-term solution. If he leaves at age 16 he'd still have a clutch of GCSEs, a possible apprenticeship, or he might find a scholarship if he fancies going on.
*This already applies in libel and at Industrial Tribunal - may apply other areas, but those are the ones I know offhand.
Of course, you can take this on consider the case of 'Ally', an elderly adolescent who finding himself unemployable in any sane sector of the economy carves out a niche for himself as a poverty pimp...
"I remain concerned at ASBOs - a civil instrument - being used to enable imprisonment which normally can only come when you've been found guilty on criminal terms."
I think they're a bad answer to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place. If discipline had been maintained in schools, and the social policies of the left hadn't been followed slavishly with regards to families, welfare, policing, etc, there'd be no need for such potentially illiberal options.
But I can't blame the Georges and Gracies out there who see them as some way of getting the torment to stop, even if only for a while...
"for 60K you could buy a decent private education at boarding school for the next 4 years and take the strain off his family whilst doing nothing ethically questionable."
Well, apart from the ethically questionable action of rewarding bad behaviour, that is...
joseph1832 has the solution, but it will, of course, never be implemented:
"A better variant. Rehouse them next to Guardian writers, educationalists, criminologists and assorted bleeding heart liberals."
To bring home the reality of the problem to our Establishment would be a political and moral cardiac arrest to them, and so will be resisted at all costs.
Meanwhile, millions of humans these 'humanists' profess to care about live lives of endless, untold misery at the hands of the 'victims' of the Left's fantasies. This is a social catastrophe, and I don't think I am indulging in hyperbole here. However, there are no highly visible minorities here, and it cannot easily and conveniently be laid at the door of capitalism, so therefore a veil must be drawn over.
Post a Comment