Large majorities of women are calling for hardline measures to improve discipline in the wake of last month’s riots, supporting curfews on under-16s, the arming of police and smacking in the home.
Smacking in the home is a legitimate disciplinary measure and should be used at the parents discretion. The government should never have become involved in how parents choose to raise their children.
Smacking is not abuse, it isn't beating or hitting, it's just a way of ensuring good behaviour.
So why lump this in with curfews and armed police? This survey was done in the wake of the London riots. Armed police would not have been a feasible response to this situation, they would not have just started blowing people away. (Although I'm sure many would have understood if they did)
Armed police do not fit into any scenario in British society. Britain has very strict gun laws. No citizen is allowed to own a handgun, or even a non lethal weapon like a pepper spray. We can own shotguns or rifles but it is a difficult process to become licenced, and in the case of firearms, a good reason for owning one must be shown.
In a society where the people are not trusted to own guns, even for sport rather than defence, how can we possibly trust the police to be routinely armed?
Besides, as Captain Ranty often points out, 1000 deaths in police custody does not say, 'trustworthy'.
We say no to capital punishment because it hands the state way to much power over us and mistakes cannot be rectified. A routine arming of the police will only cause more civilian deaths rather than reduce crime.
The police do not have the monopoly on self defence. If they want to carry guns, let us do so too.
Some 87 per cent support the naming and shaming of children found guilty of a criminal offence, 72 per cent want under-16s banned from going outside after 9pm and 76 per cent say rioters should be sent to army boot camps to be disciplined.
Ok, so you want to name and shame children who commit crimes? I think I'm ok with that one. I believe the purpose of anonymity for children is the belief that when they reach adulthood they will have grown up, changed their ways and will want to leave the past behind them. That they should be given the opportunity to do so is because as children, they were not really responsible for their actions.
Children these days grow up a lot faster than when these laws were made. They know they are doing wrong, and if they commit serious crimes I would be happy for them to be named and live with the consequences.
That is of course assuming the crime they have committed warrants it. The police get involved in way too many incidents these days, that they really have no business doing. If a child is arrested for throwing a snowball at another child or for brandishing a spud gun in public, they should not be named. No, scratch that. They should not be arrested at all.
These things are never thought through are they? "Name and shame kids who commit crime!" Fair enough but first we must re-define crime. If the police only arrested children who had committed actual crimes involving assault on person or property with intent, fine, name them, but as long as they keep pinching kids for minor infractions or just having fun then no.
If the police did adopt a more responsible approach to their involvement in 'crimes', that might go towards redressing the problem of trust mentioned above.
Another glaring point that is also missed in this survey is the unavoidable fact that not all children are brain dead numbskulls who like to commit crimes for kicks. Some of them are actually quite well behaved.
If we give a curfew to all under sixteens, we are punishing the good kids for the actions of the bad.
If there was a curfew in effect when I was a young lad, my mother would not have been able to keep sending me to the top shop for a packet of fags. That would have been nice but it would also have been wrong.
We lived in a safe neighbourhood (Although it's more like Beirut now but my parents refuse to move) and I was a good kid. Believe it or not, safe neighbourhoods and good kids still exist. There may be reason to call for the police sending very young children home if they are out in town centres late at night, although they already have the power to do so and the article doesn't mention a discretionary approach, just a blanket curfew.
As for the idea of giving the feral youth to the army to sort out, I will never be in favour of that suggestion for one reason. The British army was supposed to be the best in the world. Weather that is still true I can't say, but giving them a bunch of unruly kids with no respect for authority is not going to help.
The poll found 40 per cent of women think parents should stop children wearing hoodies, 45 per cent support the use of the cane in schools and 49 per cent think parents of children caught rioting should have their benefits removed.
245,890 people believe the London rioters should loose all benefits. I personally believe many people should loose their benefits for many reasons, particularly those who breed for money and can't control their idiot spawn.
I also believe that schools should once again be allowed to practice stricter discipline. Teachers have the responsibility of parents when the children are in their care. Discipline is one of those responsibilities.
Wearing hoodies? That's just a fashion statement of sorts and I don't believe people should be banned from wearing what they want, be it hoodies or burkas. As least the poll only says that parents should stop it. As parents, that's their right if they wish to do so.
It's all very well calling for this that and the other to be done in the wake of the riots. Punishment is necessary but it's also the tip of the iceberg. We need to get to the root of the problem by rolling back all the socialist nonsense that has become societies norm for the past fourteen years.
And the last thing we need is for TPTB getting all draconian on our arses. Lets deal with societies problems, but lets think about it. Jerking knees does nobody any good.
2 Comments:
Post a Comment