One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
Triple murderer demands thousands of pounds from prison staff over 'breach of human rights' | Mail Online
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
hes a convicted triple muderer.............only rights he has is to a short rope and a long drop
The dogs philosophy on life. If you cant eat it, hump it or fight it,........ Pee on it and walk away!!
(/)
(-_-)
(")(")
(/)
(-_-)
(")(")
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
beowulf;1301550 wrote: hes a convicted triple muderer.............only rights he has is to a short rope and a long drop
Exactly. That's a waste of rope though. Gas Is cheaper.
What annoys me Is that no doubt the Tax payers of this country will end up paying for his Legal Aid.
Exactly. That's a waste of rope though. Gas Is cheaper.
What annoys me Is that no doubt the Tax payers of this country will end up paying for his Legal Aid.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
oscar;1301555 wrote: Exactly. That's a waste of rope though. Gas Is cheaper.
What annoys me Is that no doubt the Tax payers of this country will end up paying for his Legal Aid.
I sincerely doubt this prisoner will be awarded anything, even an apology given the "neglect" of this subject needs to be proven. Just a slot in the news.
What annoys me Is that no doubt the Tax payers of this country will end up paying for his Legal Aid.
I sincerely doubt this prisoner will be awarded anything, even an apology given the "neglect" of this subject needs to be proven. Just a slot in the news.
-
busterbloodvessel
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:07 am
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
its time to bring back executions like the states or chinas leathel injection.
there is a party thats willing but i dont know if i can mention it here.
there is a party thats willing but i dont know if i can mention it here.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
busterbloodvessel;1301712 wrote: its time to bring back executions like the states or chinas leathel injection.
there is a party thats willing but i dont know if i can mention it here. :wah:
Hi Buster. Yes you can mention them here. Let me Introduce myself to you as the FG resident BNP Parlimentary Candidate for my Constituancy. Or as some members here call me... The Neo-Nazi Fascist :wah:
there is a party thats willing but i dont know if i can mention it here. :wah:
Hi Buster. Yes you can mention them here. Let me Introduce myself to you as the FG resident BNP Parlimentary Candidate for my Constituancy. Or as some members here call me... The Neo-Nazi Fascist :wah:
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
busterbloodvessel
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:07 am
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
oscar;1301717 wrote: :wah:
Hi Buster. Yes you can mention them here. Let me Introduce myself to you as the FG resident BNP Parlimentary Candidate for my Constituancy. Or as some members here call me... The Neo-Nazi Fascist :wah:
up the nazi facists brother :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl yes im a believer too in king nick
Hi Buster. Yes you can mention them here. Let me Introduce myself to you as the FG resident BNP Parlimentary Candidate for my Constituancy. Or as some members here call me... The Neo-Nazi Fascist :wah:
up the nazi facists brother :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl yes im a believer too in king nick
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
busterbloodvessel;1301729 wrote: up the nazi facists brother :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl yes im a believer too in king nick
King Nick may well be Nick Griffin member of the British Parliment very shortly. :driving:
The policy of the BNP to execute all murderers and Peadophiles would at least stop the likes of this triple murderer claiming money because his feelings are hurt.
We've got Cameron banging on about getting tough on crime. I had to laugh when he came out with ' Under a Tory Government, Burglers will leave their human rights outside the door'. He hasn't got a clue has he? First he has to abolish the Human Rights laws that give scum like this the right to claim under the Human Rights act In the First place. That he will not do... He's all talk and too weak.
King Nick may well be Nick Griffin member of the British Parliment very shortly. :driving:
The policy of the BNP to execute all murderers and Peadophiles would at least stop the likes of this triple murderer claiming money because his feelings are hurt.
We've got Cameron banging on about getting tough on crime. I had to laugh when he came out with ' Under a Tory Government, Burglers will leave their human rights outside the door'. He hasn't got a clue has he? First he has to abolish the Human Rights laws that give scum like this the right to claim under the Human Rights act In the First place. That he will not do... He's all talk and too weak.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
You do know it is some decades since there has been a liberal government in th UK don't you oscar? Most of the recent legislation you find so offensive was introduced by your labour cronies. The ending of corporal punishment in the UK was under tory governments so why do you have this hang up about liberals?
Human rights legislation is designed to protect us from the excesses of government that it gets abused is not surprising when you have an establishment that wants to see it overturned as uit has dawned on them it interests with their right to lock people up,without trial and the number of cases going through European courts where govt bodies are being taken to task is rising.
The first criminal trial in England without a jury present took place recently. That is a damn sight more serious implication for us all than this. Though no doubt you think juries a nuisance as they don't always do as they are told.
Human rights legislation is designed to protect us from the excesses of government that it gets abused is not surprising when you have an establishment that wants to see it overturned as uit has dawned on them it interests with their right to lock people up,without trial and the number of cases going through European courts where govt bodies are being taken to task is rising.
The first criminal trial in England without a jury present took place recently. That is a damn sight more serious implication for us all than this. Though no doubt you think juries a nuisance as they don't always do as they are told.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
gmc;1301908 wrote: The first criminal trial in England without a jury present took place recently. That is a damn sight more serious implication for us all than this. Though no doubt you think juries a nuisance as they don't always do as they are told.
The case you are refering to was Indeed ruled by Judge alone but It was due to previous Juries being nobbled. The Infiltration of the Juries was so severe, It was held by Judge alone as a safe conviction was Unreliable with Jury.
Although It does set a precedent, It does not mark the end of trial by Jury... This was an exception.
The case you are refering to was Indeed ruled by Judge alone but It was due to previous Juries being nobbled. The Infiltration of the Juries was so severe, It was held by Judge alone as a safe conviction was Unreliable with Jury.
Although It does set a precedent, It does not mark the end of trial by Jury... This was an exception.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
oscar;1301929 wrote: The case you are refering to was Indeed ruled by Judge alone but It was due to previous Juries being nobbled. The Infiltration of the Juries was so severe, It was held by Judge alone as a safe conviction was Unreliable with Jury.
Although It does set a precedent, It does not mark the end of trial by Jury... This was an exception.
It sets a precedent which means they can do it again. Juries have always been at risk of being nobbled but the jury system is still the fairest way we have ever come up with.
Trial of William Penn
A jury stands between the arbitrary power of the state and the rights and liberties of individuals. All of us should appreciate the value of trial by jury and be disturbed when it is denied to anyone so entitled.
You may not like the concept of human rights and trial by jury but having been the victim of an injustice yourself surely you can appreciate the need to defend the right of anyone to a fair trail.
I have seen it suggested that some of the high court decisions with regard to human rights cases where common sense seems to have gone out the window are motivated by a desire to keep our rights in check.
You know if you are treated unfairly be a government body the only recourse you have for justice is the european courts. You cannot sue them in the UK. Why don't you have a look at some of those cases and see whether you think the EU courts are all bad. I would post a few links bit as a putative MP you should be able to do your own research. If you can't you should stand down. Unless of course you are afraid to take the chance that the facts might change your mind.
Although It does set a precedent, It does not mark the end of trial by Jury... This was an exception.
It sets a precedent which means they can do it again. Juries have always been at risk of being nobbled but the jury system is still the fairest way we have ever come up with.
Trial of William Penn
A jury stands between the arbitrary power of the state and the rights and liberties of individuals. All of us should appreciate the value of trial by jury and be disturbed when it is denied to anyone so entitled.
You may not like the concept of human rights and trial by jury but having been the victim of an injustice yourself surely you can appreciate the need to defend the right of anyone to a fair trail.
I have seen it suggested that some of the high court decisions with regard to human rights cases where common sense seems to have gone out the window are motivated by a desire to keep our rights in check.
You know if you are treated unfairly be a government body the only recourse you have for justice is the european courts. You cannot sue them in the UK. Why don't you have a look at some of those cases and see whether you think the EU courts are all bad. I would post a few links bit as a putative MP you should be able to do your own research. If you can't you should stand down. Unless of course you are afraid to take the chance that the facts might change your mind.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
gmc;1302007 wrote: It sets a precedent which means they can do it again. Juries have always been at risk of being nobbled but the jury system is still the fairest way we have ever come up with.
Trial of William Penn
You may not like the concept of human rights and trial by jury but having been the victim of an injustice yourself surely you can appreciate the need to defend the right of anyone to a fair trail.
I have seen it suggested that some of the high court decisions with regard to human rights cases where common sense seems to have gone out the window are motivated by a desire to keep our rights in check.
You know if you are treated unfairly be a government body the only recourse you have for justice is the european courts. You cannot sue them in the UK. Why don't you have a look at some of those cases and see whether you think the EU courts are all bad. I would post a few links bit as a putative MP you should be able to do your own research. If you can't you should stand down. Unless of course you are afraid to take the chance that the facts might change your mind.
I agree with you that If you are treated unfairly by a Government Body, the only recourse Is the European Courts however, that's why we so desperately need to reform our entire Policing and penal system so we have absolutely no need to to go to Europe In the first place.
As for my own Injustice... I elected to be tried by magistrates on my lawyers advice. The Magistrates were dismissed and they brought In a District Judge to try the case. We didn't ask for that nor want It and when the only reason they dismissed the Magistrates was because of Media attention and fear of a renowned Lawyer... It stunk. Another reason the entire penal system needs a complete over-haul.
Of course we need Human Rights laws, we would be a dictatorship without them, although the present Government Is beginning to look more like a Dictatorship with each passing day, but Human Rights laws that allow a triple murderer to claim compensation because his feelings were hurt by the Parole Board need to be abolished once and for all.
Trial of William Penn
You may not like the concept of human rights and trial by jury but having been the victim of an injustice yourself surely you can appreciate the need to defend the right of anyone to a fair trail.
I have seen it suggested that some of the high court decisions with regard to human rights cases where common sense seems to have gone out the window are motivated by a desire to keep our rights in check.
You know if you are treated unfairly be a government body the only recourse you have for justice is the european courts. You cannot sue them in the UK. Why don't you have a look at some of those cases and see whether you think the EU courts are all bad. I would post a few links bit as a putative MP you should be able to do your own research. If you can't you should stand down. Unless of course you are afraid to take the chance that the facts might change your mind.
I agree with you that If you are treated unfairly by a Government Body, the only recourse Is the European Courts however, that's why we so desperately need to reform our entire Policing and penal system so we have absolutely no need to to go to Europe In the first place.
As for my own Injustice... I elected to be tried by magistrates on my lawyers advice. The Magistrates were dismissed and they brought In a District Judge to try the case. We didn't ask for that nor want It and when the only reason they dismissed the Magistrates was because of Media attention and fear of a renowned Lawyer... It stunk. Another reason the entire penal system needs a complete over-haul.
Of course we need Human Rights laws, we would be a dictatorship without them, although the present Government Is beginning to look more like a Dictatorship with each passing day, but Human Rights laws that allow a triple murderer to claim compensation because his feelings were hurt by the Parole Board need to be abolished once and for all.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
oscar;1302034 wrote: I agree with you that If you are treated unfairly by a Government Body, the only recourse Is the European Courts however, that's why we so desperately need to reform our entire Policing and penal system so we have absolutely no need to to go to Europe In the first place.
As for my own Injustice... I elected to be tried by magistrates on my lawyers advice. The Magistrates were dismissed and they brought In a District Judge to try the case. We didn't ask for that nor want It and when the only reason they dismissed the Magistrates was because of Media attention and fear of a renowned Lawyer... It stunk. Another reason the entire penal system needs a complete over-haul.
Of course we need Human Rights laws, we would be a dictatorship without them, although the present Government Is beginning to look more like a Dictatorship with each passing day, but Human Rights laws that allow a triple murderer to claim compensation because his feelings were hurt by the Parole Board need to be abolished once and for all.
No that's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I think you need to look more closely at why the judge gave that ruling. It's interpretation of the law rather than the law itself that is at fault. I suspect the motives of the judge.
As for my own Injustice... I elected to be tried by magistrates on my lawyers advice. The Magistrates were dismissed and they brought In a District Judge to try the case. We didn't ask for that nor want It and when the only reason they dismissed the Magistrates was because of Media attention and fear of a renowned Lawyer... It stunk. Another reason the entire penal system needs a complete over-haul.
Of course we need Human Rights laws, we would be a dictatorship without them, although the present Government Is beginning to look more like a Dictatorship with each passing day, but Human Rights laws that allow a triple murderer to claim compensation because his feelings were hurt by the Parole Board need to be abolished once and for all.
No that's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I think you need to look more closely at why the judge gave that ruling. It's interpretation of the law rather than the law itself that is at fault. I suspect the motives of the judge.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
gmc;1302043 wrote: No that's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I think you need to look more closely at why the judge gave that ruling. It's interpretation of the law rather than the law itself that is at fault. I suspect the motives of the judge.
Again I would agree with you but what Is the answer then?
Many people do not find themselves In the position I did and had I not of seen It for myself, I'd not have believed how Judges are swayed by the Politics of a case. In my case, the Judge was happy to over-look 11 breaches of Police Proceedure, a few of them serious for starters. I won't bore you with the rest.
The Magistrates ( I was advised ) would have thrown the case out purely on so many breaches of Police Proceedure so you are left with no other conclusion as to why they were dismissed and a Judge brought In other than there was a Daily Mail reporter sat In the press gallery for every minute of every day. :sneaky:
Again I would agree with you but what Is the answer then?
Many people do not find themselves In the position I did and had I not of seen It for myself, I'd not have believed how Judges are swayed by the Politics of a case. In my case, the Judge was happy to over-look 11 breaches of Police Proceedure, a few of them serious for starters. I won't bore you with the rest.
The Magistrates ( I was advised ) would have thrown the case out purely on so many breaches of Police Proceedure so you are left with no other conclusion as to why they were dismissed and a Judge brought In other than there was a Daily Mail reporter sat In the press gallery for every minute of every day. :sneaky:
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
oscar;1302045 wrote: Again I would agree with you but what Is the answer then?
Many people do not find themselves In the position I did and had I not of seen It for myself, I'd not have believed how Judges are swayed by the Politics of a case. In my case, the Judge was happy to over-look 11 breaches of Police Proceedure, a few of them serious for starters. I won't bore you with the rest.
The Magistrates ( I was advised ) would have thrown the case out purely on so many breaches of Police Proceedure so you are left with no other conclusion as to why they were dismissed and a Judge brought In other than there was a Daily Mail reporter sat In the press gallery for every minute of every day. :sneaky:
There is no answer imo just constant vigilance especially against those who claim they have all the answers or those who claim some people should have no rights at all.
More people find themselves in your kind of position than you think you just got publicity to help you win your case, others just quietly get squashed. (I think - I don't claim to be totally familiar with your case).
But I would have thought the experience would make you more wary of making clarion calls for draconian punishment and more police powers and for the rights of prisoners to ridden over roughshod. This case doesn't highlight an issue with human rights legislation as such as it does an issue with the way the courts are choosing to interpret it. Although it was new labour that signed it in to law in the UK it has several times been used to prevent them taking away our civil rights - most notably the right NOT to be held without a charge being made. That is not something the police have asked for but the govt has tried to bring in. It would mean for instance they could arrest demonstrators and hold them under anti-terrorist laws without having to justify themselves. it's a power we should not give any government.
The root of the word liberal is the same as that of liberty. I see you are falling in to the same trap as americans do of making fun of liberty and those who have fought for it throughout the centuries and making it seem that anyone who calls for justice and equal treatment for everyone before the law is somehow bringing down society. You should know better.
Many people do not find themselves In the position I did and had I not of seen It for myself, I'd not have believed how Judges are swayed by the Politics of a case. In my case, the Judge was happy to over-look 11 breaches of Police Proceedure, a few of them serious for starters. I won't bore you with the rest.
The Magistrates ( I was advised ) would have thrown the case out purely on so many breaches of Police Proceedure so you are left with no other conclusion as to why they were dismissed and a Judge brought In other than there was a Daily Mail reporter sat In the press gallery for every minute of every day. :sneaky:
There is no answer imo just constant vigilance especially against those who claim they have all the answers or those who claim some people should have no rights at all.
More people find themselves in your kind of position than you think you just got publicity to help you win your case, others just quietly get squashed. (I think - I don't claim to be totally familiar with your case).
But I would have thought the experience would make you more wary of making clarion calls for draconian punishment and more police powers and for the rights of prisoners to ridden over roughshod. This case doesn't highlight an issue with human rights legislation as such as it does an issue with the way the courts are choosing to interpret it. Although it was new labour that signed it in to law in the UK it has several times been used to prevent them taking away our civil rights - most notably the right NOT to be held without a charge being made. That is not something the police have asked for but the govt has tried to bring in. It would mean for instance they could arrest demonstrators and hold them under anti-terrorist laws without having to justify themselves. it's a power we should not give any government.
The root of the word liberal is the same as that of liberty. I see you are falling in to the same trap as americans do of making fun of liberty and those who have fought for it throughout the centuries and making it seem that anyone who calls for justice and equal treatment for everyone before the law is somehow bringing down society. You should know better.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
gmc;1302072 wrote: There is no answer imo just constant vigilance especially against those who claim they have all the answers or those who claim some people should have no rights at all.
More people find themselves in your kind of position than you think you just got publicity to help you win your case, others just quietly get squashed. (I think - I don't claim to be totally familiar with your case).
But I would have thought the experience would make you more wary of making clarion calls for draconian punishment and more police powers and for the rights of prisoners to ridden over roughshod. This case doesn't highlight an issue with human rights legislation as such as it does an issue with the way the courts are choosing to interpret it. Although it was new labour that signed it in to law in the UK it has several times been used to prevent them taking away our civil rights - most notably the right NOT to be held without a charge being made. That is not something the police have asked for but the govt has tried to bring in. It would mean for instance they could arrest demonstrators and hold them under anti-terrorist laws without having to justify themselves. it's a power we should not give any government.
The root of the word liberal is the same as that of liberty. I see you are falling in to the same trap as americans do of making fun of liberty and those who have fought for it throughout the centuries and making it seem that anyone who calls for justice and equal treatment for everyone before the law is somehow bringing down society. You should know better.
The Party I support ( dispite media rubbish), Is not for bringing In draconian powers and a Police State. The entire Policing Issue would be over-hauled to start. Police Corruption Is rife and that is some-thing that has to be changed. The BNP want to see a return to the old style Policing where they are there to serve the public and not notch up their targets to Impress the boys back at the Nick. If Government text book targets were removed, we could go back to 'Crime Prevention' Instead of some Hitler In a Uniform turning up when It's all too late and going for a quick caution to rack up their targets, ( Although that some-times back-fires Big Time on the arresting Officer :sneaky:. What sort of Police State do you think we already have when you have cases where the public has In-Undated the Police with calls about a particular problem, only to have them do nothing for years but to then arrest the public who has been reporting the crimes to them for years? I'm not saying for a moment any-one Is Immune to prosecution but Common Sense Policing Is long gone and It needs to be re-Instated. Cutting out targets would see a dramatic decline In Police Officers systematically lying under oath and corrupting a case to get a result IMHO.
More people find themselves in your kind of position than you think you just got publicity to help you win your case, others just quietly get squashed. (I think - I don't claim to be totally familiar with your case).
But I would have thought the experience would make you more wary of making clarion calls for draconian punishment and more police powers and for the rights of prisoners to ridden over roughshod. This case doesn't highlight an issue with human rights legislation as such as it does an issue with the way the courts are choosing to interpret it. Although it was new labour that signed it in to law in the UK it has several times been used to prevent them taking away our civil rights - most notably the right NOT to be held without a charge being made. That is not something the police have asked for but the govt has tried to bring in. It would mean for instance they could arrest demonstrators and hold them under anti-terrorist laws without having to justify themselves. it's a power we should not give any government.
The root of the word liberal is the same as that of liberty. I see you are falling in to the same trap as americans do of making fun of liberty and those who have fought for it throughout the centuries and making it seem that anyone who calls for justice and equal treatment for everyone before the law is somehow bringing down society. You should know better.
The Party I support ( dispite media rubbish), Is not for bringing In draconian powers and a Police State. The entire Policing Issue would be over-hauled to start. Police Corruption Is rife and that is some-thing that has to be changed. The BNP want to see a return to the old style Policing where they are there to serve the public and not notch up their targets to Impress the boys back at the Nick. If Government text book targets were removed, we could go back to 'Crime Prevention' Instead of some Hitler In a Uniform turning up when It's all too late and going for a quick caution to rack up their targets, ( Although that some-times back-fires Big Time on the arresting Officer :sneaky:. What sort of Police State do you think we already have when you have cases where the public has In-Undated the Police with calls about a particular problem, only to have them do nothing for years but to then arrest the public who has been reporting the crimes to them for years? I'm not saying for a moment any-one Is Immune to prosecution but Common Sense Policing Is long gone and It needs to be re-Instated. Cutting out targets would see a dramatic decline In Police Officers systematically lying under oath and corrupting a case to get a result IMHO.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
oscar;1302078 wrote: The Party I support ( dispite media rubbish), Is not for bringing In draconian powers and a Police State. The entire Policing Issue would be over-hauled to start. Police Corruption Is rife and that is some-thing that has to be changed. The BNP want to see a return to the old style Policing where they are there to serve the public and not notch up their targets to Impress the boys back at the Nick. If Government text book targets were removed, we could go back to 'Crime Prevention' Instead of some Hitler In a Uniform turning up when It's all too late and going for a quick caution to rack up their targets, ( Although that some-times back-fires Big Time on the arresting Officer :sneaky:. What sort of Police State do you think we already have when you have cases where the public has In-Undated the Police with calls about a particular problem, only to have them do nothing for years but to then arrest the public who has been reporting the crimes to them for years? I'm not saying for a moment any-one Is Immune to prosecution but Common Sense Policing Is long gone and It needs to be re-Instated. Cutting out targets would see a dramatic decline In Police Officers systematically lying under oath and corrupting a case to get a result IMHO.
The British National Party — Blog
Methinks you misunderstand what draconian means. It is a fundamental basis of our laws that the circumstances and motives are taken in to consideration. maybe you should read a wee bit about the history of how we got to that position and what it took to get there.
Make joint custody of children the norm in divorce cases;
Bet you like that one, so if a woman flees her abusive husband she is going to have to allow him access? Not really in to womens rights are they the BNP.
The British National Party — Blog
Methinks you misunderstand what draconian means. It is a fundamental basis of our laws that the circumstances and motives are taken in to consideration. maybe you should read a wee bit about the history of how we got to that position and what it took to get there.
Make joint custody of children the norm in divorce cases;
Bet you like that one, so if a woman flees her abusive husband she is going to have to allow him access? Not really in to womens rights are they the BNP.
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
gmc;1302191 wrote: Bet you like that one, so if a woman flees her abusive husband she is going to have to allow him access? Not really in to womens rights are they the BNP.
This is completely irrelevant...
Abuse can either be proven or not and any stance otherwise is the suggestion children should never be aloud to see their fathers based off of the "possibility" of assault and battery. Anything else would be suggesting that the BNP would willingly place a mother and her child in harms way simply to appease a doctrine, and that's just propaganda tactics
This is completely irrelevant...
Abuse can either be proven or not and any stance otherwise is the suggestion children should never be aloud to see their fathers based off of the "possibility" of assault and battery. Anything else would be suggesting that the BNP would willingly place a mother and her child in harms way simply to appease a doctrine, and that's just propaganda tactics
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
K.Snyder;1302218 wrote: This is completely irrelevant...
Abuse can either be proven or not and any stance otherwise is the suggestion children should never be aloud to see their fathers based off of the "possibility" of assault and battery. Anything else would be suggesting that the BNP would willingly place a mother and her child in harms way simply to appease a doctrine, and that's just propaganda tactics Thanks Kev... The rubbish gmc wrote above Is Indeed propoganda. For one, the BNP will be extremely hard on domestic violence by either partner. Domestic Violence Is Violence full stop. It would never be excused and to suggest the BNP would give access of vulnerable children to Violent fathers Is just lies. If anything... Under a BNP Government, if a father Is violent, he will lose all rights to his children.
Abuse can either be proven or not and any stance otherwise is the suggestion children should never be aloud to see their fathers based off of the "possibility" of assault and battery. Anything else would be suggesting that the BNP would willingly place a mother and her child in harms way simply to appease a doctrine, and that's just propaganda tactics Thanks Kev... The rubbish gmc wrote above Is Indeed propoganda. For one, the BNP will be extremely hard on domestic violence by either partner. Domestic Violence Is Violence full stop. It would never be excused and to suggest the BNP would give access of vulnerable children to Violent fathers Is just lies. If anything... Under a BNP Government, if a father Is violent, he will lose all rights to his children.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
K.Snyder;1302218 wrote: This is completely irrelevant...
Abuse can either be proven or not and any stance otherwise is the suggestion children should never be aloud to see their fathers based off of the "possibility" of assault and battery. Anything else would be suggesting that the BNP would willingly place a mother and her child in harms way simply to appease a doctrine, and that's just propaganda tactics
What do you think their web site is? It's just propaganda you need to look at what those kind of policies will lead to. It's taken a long time in this country for the acceptance of the idea that a divorced woman should have any right to custody of her children, domestic abuse is notoriously hard to prove their should be no automatic assumption that both parties should get equal custody. They are a backward looking right wing political party and are by nature a sexist party one of their economic policies is to re-introduce the married man's tax allowance, note, not the married couple's. They also want to interfere in the independence of the justiciary to decide the sentence - the very thing they are complaining about when they make issue of light sentences being handed down by judges hamstrung by sentence tariffs and guidelines imposed on them by the home office.
It's not completely irrelevant though I will concede it's not a major point. The BNP are the present day manifestation of the nazi party, with none of the charisma.
Abuse can either be proven or not and any stance otherwise is the suggestion children should never be aloud to see their fathers based off of the "possibility" of assault and battery. Anything else would be suggesting that the BNP would willingly place a mother and her child in harms way simply to appease a doctrine, and that's just propaganda tactics
What do you think their web site is? It's just propaganda you need to look at what those kind of policies will lead to. It's taken a long time in this country for the acceptance of the idea that a divorced woman should have any right to custody of her children, domestic abuse is notoriously hard to prove their should be no automatic assumption that both parties should get equal custody. They are a backward looking right wing political party and are by nature a sexist party one of their economic policies is to re-introduce the married man's tax allowance, note, not the married couple's. They also want to interfere in the independence of the justiciary to decide the sentence - the very thing they are complaining about when they make issue of light sentences being handed down by judges hamstrung by sentence tariffs and guidelines imposed on them by the home office.
It's not completely irrelevant though I will concede it's not a major point. The BNP are the present day manifestation of the nazi party, with none of the charisma.
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
gmc;1302279 wrote: What do you think their web site is? It's just propaganda you need to look at what those kind of policies will lead to. It's taken a long time in this country for the acceptance of the idea that a divorced woman should have any right to custody of her children, domestic abuse is notoriously hard to prove their should be no automatic assumption that both parties should get equal custody. They are a backward looking right wing political party and are by nature a sexist party one of their economic policies is to re-introduce the married man's tax allowance, note, not the married couple's. They also want to interfere in the independence of the justiciary to decide the sentence - the very thing they are complaining about when they make issue of light sentences being handed down by judges hamstrung by sentence tariffs and guidelines imposed on them by the home office.
It's not completely irrelevant though I will concede it's not a major point. The BNP are the present day manifestation of the nazi party, with none of the charisma.
My point specifically is that the BNP would serve no different in this consideration unless you were suggesting the BNP alone would willingly place a mother and child in harms way knowing of the potential for assault and battery. Like I said it's something that is either proven or not and no other party holds a monopoly on the fact divorces automatically assume equal custody rights and placing "party" in the middle of that notion is an outright resentment toward those referenced.
The BNP could be Hemophiliac vampires for all I know. No party is cynical enough to assume all men beat their wives and children.
It's not completely irrelevant though I will concede it's not a major point. The BNP are the present day manifestation of the nazi party, with none of the charisma.
My point specifically is that the BNP would serve no different in this consideration unless you were suggesting the BNP alone would willingly place a mother and child in harms way knowing of the potential for assault and battery. Like I said it's something that is either proven or not and no other party holds a monopoly on the fact divorces automatically assume equal custody rights and placing "party" in the middle of that notion is an outright resentment toward those referenced.
The BNP could be Hemophiliac vampires for all I know. No party is cynical enough to assume all men beat their wives and children.
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
K.Snyder;1302356 wrote: My point specifically is that the BNP would serve no different in this consideration unless you were suggesting the BNP alone would willingly place a mother and child in harms way knowing of the potential for assault and battery. Like I said it's something that is either proven or not and no other party holds a monopoly on the fact divorces automatically assume equal custody rights and placing "party" in the middle of that notion is an outright resentment toward those referenced.
The BNP could be Hemophiliac vampires for all I know. No party is cynical enough to assume all men beat their wives and children.
there are many who think people should stay married no matter what and lament the detrimental effect easy divorce has had on society - as they see it. There are still those who think a man has a right to chastise his wife and children whenever they do anything wrong. Your own liberal views are becoming more common. The BNP want to bring back corporal punishment, i.e. they advocate the beating of children. My contention is they have the kind of right wing mindset favouring strict punishment and discipline that will inevitable lead to just that kind of scenario. It's actually incredibly difficulty to leave an abusive relationship, there have been many instances where women's support groups have been attacked both physically and verbally for encouraging the breakup of families.
However it is a minor point and I am beginning to wish I hadn't made it although i do think it says a lot about their mindset.
As well as being racist and favouring draconian criminal justice systems their economic and constitutional policies are ludicrous. They intend, for instance, to try and re-unite southern ireland with mainland UK. It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.
The BNP could be Hemophiliac vampires for all I know. No party is cynical enough to assume all men beat their wives and children.
there are many who think people should stay married no matter what and lament the detrimental effect easy divorce has had on society - as they see it. There are still those who think a man has a right to chastise his wife and children whenever they do anything wrong. Your own liberal views are becoming more common. The BNP want to bring back corporal punishment, i.e. they advocate the beating of children. My contention is they have the kind of right wing mindset favouring strict punishment and discipline that will inevitable lead to just that kind of scenario. It's actually incredibly difficulty to leave an abusive relationship, there have been many instances where women's support groups have been attacked both physically and verbally for encouraging the breakup of families.
However it is a minor point and I am beginning to wish I hadn't made it although i do think it says a lot about their mindset.
As well as being racist and favouring draconian criminal justice systems their economic and constitutional policies are ludicrous. They intend, for instance, to try and re-unite southern ireland with mainland UK. It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
gmc;1302366 wrote: there are many who think people should stay married no matter what and lament the detrimental effect easy divorce has had on society - as they see it. There are still those who think a man has a right to chastise his wife and children whenever they do anything wrong. Your own liberal views are becoming more common. The BNP want to bring back corporal punishment, i.e. they advocate the beating of children. My contention is they have the kind of right wing mindset favouring strict punishment and discipline that will inevitable lead to just that kind of scenario. It's actually incredibly difficulty to leave an abusive relationship, there have been many instances where women's support groups have been attacked both physically and verbally for encouraging the breakup of families.
However it is a minor point and I am beginning to wish I hadn't made it although i do think it says a lot about their mindset.
As well as being racist and favouring draconian criminal justice systems their economic and constitutional policies are ludicrous. They intend, for instance, to try and re-unite southern ireland with mainland UK. It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.
Your point could only have been made upon using this post in your initial response toward the BNP. This sort of clarification allows one to understand the context of "beat" when you'd used it and we can begin from there.
Corporal punishment can easily be effective when teaching children the importance of moral values. Some call it unnecessary, others consider it to be crucial in preventing a much more escalated spoiled result in the form of those kids' virtues.
I personally witness my 3 year old nephew walk all over my sister and he plays her like a fiddle. The kid's going to be a complete handful when he gets older simply because she's too chicken **** to bust the kid's ***.
I've had my *** beat on countless occasion and I'm certainly glad too because otherwise I'd probably be in prison or shot somewhere.
My question is how there can be such a significant majority of people that is thankful their parents whipped their ***es because it taught them the worth of respect and dignity yet there are so many that feel it's a form of torture? Perhaps religion has a significant role? Not as if religion doesn't change like that of a dirty diaper
However it is a minor point and I am beginning to wish I hadn't made it although i do think it says a lot about their mindset.
As well as being racist and favouring draconian criminal justice systems their economic and constitutional policies are ludicrous. They intend, for instance, to try and re-unite southern ireland with mainland UK. It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.
Your point could only have been made upon using this post in your initial response toward the BNP. This sort of clarification allows one to understand the context of "beat" when you'd used it and we can begin from there.
Corporal punishment can easily be effective when teaching children the importance of moral values. Some call it unnecessary, others consider it to be crucial in preventing a much more escalated spoiled result in the form of those kids' virtues.
I personally witness my 3 year old nephew walk all over my sister and he plays her like a fiddle. The kid's going to be a complete handful when he gets older simply because she's too chicken **** to bust the kid's ***.
I've had my *** beat on countless occasion and I'm certainly glad too because otherwise I'd probably be in prison or shot somewhere.
My question is how there can be such a significant majority of people that is thankful their parents whipped their ***es because it taught them the worth of respect and dignity yet there are so many that feel it's a form of torture? Perhaps religion has a significant role? Not as if religion doesn't change like that of a dirty diaper
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
K.Snyder;1302465 wrote: Your point could only have been made upon using this post in your initial response toward the BNP. This sort of clarification allows one to understand the context of "beat" when you'd used it and we can begin from there.
Corporal punishment can easily be effective when teaching children the importance of moral values. Some call it unnecessary, others consider it to be crucial in preventing a much more escalated spoiled result in the form of those kids' virtues.
I personally witness my 3 year old nephew walk all over my sister and he plays her like a fiddle. The kid's going to be a complete handful when he gets older simply because she's too chicken **** to bust the kid's ***.
I've had my *** beat on countless occasion and I'm certainly glad too because otherwise I'd probably be in prison or shot somewhere.
My question is how there can be such a significant majority of people that is thankful their parents whipped their ***es because it taught them the worth of respect and dignity yet there are so many that feel it's a form of torture? Perhaps religion has a significant role? Not as if religion doesn't change like that of a dirty diaper
Oscar and I share a common perspective and she is also a member of the BNP. I was winding her up.
The corporal punishment they refer to is the flogging with a birch rod of petty criminals, a practice ended in 1948 because it was viewed as barbaric as well as ineffective. Perhaps also having lived through the violence of war there was less tolerance for punishment meted out at home. As usual with such things it was invariably the children form poor homes that got punished that way. borstals were also ended (special prisons for delinquent children) also ended because they didn't work and demonstrably created an alienated underclass
Right wing parties like to call for it to be brought back as a cure all for delinquency. they also like to pretend that the ending of it was due to softie liberals when in fact it was nothing of the kind. They also have this delusion that the past was somehow much better and less violent than now. Again the reality is very different with gang warfare in the inner cities and running battles between police and supporters at football matches.
Let me put it this way, are you prepared to have the police given the authority to flog your children for petty offence with no scope for mitigation? or is there a better alternative. We are not talking about parents spanking their naughty children.
Corporal punishment in schools was usually caning on the backside in england and in Scotland they used a leather strap across the hands called a tawse. You would get belted for the stupidest of things. It wasn't the ending of corporal punishment that caused discipline problems Unfortunately while banning corporal punishment they also made it impossible for schools to expel unruly pupils and also children with serious social behavioural problems are now in ordinary classes - to save money they shut down all the special support classes they used to have.
In other words it's a bit more complicated than a simplistic let's flog all the scroats and everything will be OK. Having come from the end of the social spectrum where I was from the kind of background that is blamed causing all the problems (single parent, council housing scheme) I hate the likes of the BNP and their simplistic stupidity with a passion.
My question is how there can be such a significant majority of people that is thankful their parents whipped their ***es because it taught them the worth of respect and dignity yet there are so many that feel it's a form of torture? Perhaps religion has a significant role? Not as if religion doesn't change like that of a dirty diaper
Depends what you mean by whipped their arses. their is a world of difference between a child smacked occasionally in exceptionally circumstances and one that gets belted for the least infraction. Your society has the harshest penal system in the western world, it is also one of the most violent with the highest levels of crime. You are not really in a good position to offer guidance to other nations.
Corporal punishment can easily be effective when teaching children the importance of moral values. Some call it unnecessary, others consider it to be crucial in preventing a much more escalated spoiled result in the form of those kids' virtues.
I personally witness my 3 year old nephew walk all over my sister and he plays her like a fiddle. The kid's going to be a complete handful when he gets older simply because she's too chicken **** to bust the kid's ***.
I've had my *** beat on countless occasion and I'm certainly glad too because otherwise I'd probably be in prison or shot somewhere.
My question is how there can be such a significant majority of people that is thankful their parents whipped their ***es because it taught them the worth of respect and dignity yet there are so many that feel it's a form of torture? Perhaps religion has a significant role? Not as if religion doesn't change like that of a dirty diaper
Oscar and I share a common perspective and she is also a member of the BNP. I was winding her up.
The corporal punishment they refer to is the flogging with a birch rod of petty criminals, a practice ended in 1948 because it was viewed as barbaric as well as ineffective. Perhaps also having lived through the violence of war there was less tolerance for punishment meted out at home. As usual with such things it was invariably the children form poor homes that got punished that way. borstals were also ended (special prisons for delinquent children) also ended because they didn't work and demonstrably created an alienated underclass
Right wing parties like to call for it to be brought back as a cure all for delinquency. they also like to pretend that the ending of it was due to softie liberals when in fact it was nothing of the kind. They also have this delusion that the past was somehow much better and less violent than now. Again the reality is very different with gang warfare in the inner cities and running battles between police and supporters at football matches.
Let me put it this way, are you prepared to have the police given the authority to flog your children for petty offence with no scope for mitigation? or is there a better alternative. We are not talking about parents spanking their naughty children.
Corporal punishment in schools was usually caning on the backside in england and in Scotland they used a leather strap across the hands called a tawse. You would get belted for the stupidest of things. It wasn't the ending of corporal punishment that caused discipline problems Unfortunately while banning corporal punishment they also made it impossible for schools to expel unruly pupils and also children with serious social behavioural problems are now in ordinary classes - to save money they shut down all the special support classes they used to have.
In other words it's a bit more complicated than a simplistic let's flog all the scroats and everything will be OK. Having come from the end of the social spectrum where I was from the kind of background that is blamed causing all the problems (single parent, council housing scheme) I hate the likes of the BNP and their simplistic stupidity with a passion.
My question is how there can be such a significant majority of people that is thankful their parents whipped their ***es because it taught them the worth of respect and dignity yet there are so many that feel it's a form of torture? Perhaps religion has a significant role? Not as if religion doesn't change like that of a dirty diaper
Depends what you mean by whipped their arses. their is a world of difference between a child smacked occasionally in exceptionally circumstances and one that gets belted for the least infraction. Your society has the harshest penal system in the western world, it is also one of the most violent with the highest levels of crime. You are not really in a good position to offer guidance to other nations.
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
gmc;1302493 wrote: Depends what you mean by whipped their arses. their is a world of difference between a child smacked occasionally in exceptionally circumstances and one that gets belted for the least infraction. Your society has the harshest penal system in the western world, it is also one of the most violent with the highest levels of crime. You are not really in a good position to offer guidance to other nations.
It's a hard question for me to answer because I know I will raise my children to respect people as people and if that means to spank their *** then that's what will be done. Obviously spanking my child will be of the last resort but that's a hell of alot better than repeating myself to no avail. At least that way I'm not laughed at and called an *** myself, by my own damn kid :wah:(Anyone that thinks they don't then "you" need to think again)
The point being that I need not contemplate what anyone else would do to my child because they would never have to.
On that, the only conclusion of this mindset is that I do not offer guidance to countries, I offer guidance to people. The very same people that may or may not be required to spank their kids. What's so blatantly obscure about this position is that not every parent needs to spank their kids. This statement also reads "Not everyone needs not spank their children", it's that simple
On a side note, our countries have grown up very, very different and has led to a far different social structure so our imprisoned statistics will by default be different from yours with the obvious being the inability to suggest there's a relevant reason for it by comparison.
It's a hard question for me to answer because I know I will raise my children to respect people as people and if that means to spank their *** then that's what will be done. Obviously spanking my child will be of the last resort but that's a hell of alot better than repeating myself to no avail. At least that way I'm not laughed at and called an *** myself, by my own damn kid :wah:(Anyone that thinks they don't then "you" need to think again)
The point being that I need not contemplate what anyone else would do to my child because they would never have to.
On that, the only conclusion of this mindset is that I do not offer guidance to countries, I offer guidance to people. The very same people that may or may not be required to spank their kids. What's so blatantly obscure about this position is that not every parent needs to spank their kids. This statement also reads "Not everyone needs not spank their children", it's that simple
On a side note, our countries have grown up very, very different and has led to a far different social structure so our imprisoned statistics will by default be different from yours with the obvious being the inability to suggest there's a relevant reason for it by comparison.
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
posted by k snyder
The point being that I need not contemplate what anyone else would do to my child because they would never have to.
The point is would you give someone the right to administer corporal punishment to your child without any reference to you? Because that is what is proposed. With corporal punishment what the parent may or may not think about it doesn't come in to it it what matters is what is judged a sufficient offence for corporal punishment to be administered. Forgetting that days' homework for instance, being cheeky - which is relative - some teachers take pupils asking questions as a challenge to their authority (I bet you've known one or two that were like that) being late, not wearing the school uniform the number of petty infractions you could get belted for was amazing. How about kids at primary school are you happy to seem them smacked by another adult. What if a policeman decides he has it in for your children because he views all teenagers in groups as being delinquent do you really want him to have that kind of draconian authority?
If you object to corporal punishment you are probably the source of the problem for not being strict enough at home. That is the kind of attitude behind these calls for the return of corporal punishment. The parents may indeed be the problem but it's a fairly safe bet beating their children for them won't help anybody. If you look at the BNP site they are also calling for the saying of christian prayers in schools, they don't state what kind of christian prayer, what if you object to that? Again they are not talking about letting people off with not conforming. They really are a backward looking bunch.
The point being that I need not contemplate what anyone else would do to my child because they would never have to.
The point is would you give someone the right to administer corporal punishment to your child without any reference to you? Because that is what is proposed. With corporal punishment what the parent may or may not think about it doesn't come in to it it what matters is what is judged a sufficient offence for corporal punishment to be administered. Forgetting that days' homework for instance, being cheeky - which is relative - some teachers take pupils asking questions as a challenge to their authority (I bet you've known one or two that were like that) being late, not wearing the school uniform the number of petty infractions you could get belted for was amazing. How about kids at primary school are you happy to seem them smacked by another adult. What if a policeman decides he has it in for your children because he views all teenagers in groups as being delinquent do you really want him to have that kind of draconian authority?
If you object to corporal punishment you are probably the source of the problem for not being strict enough at home. That is the kind of attitude behind these calls for the return of corporal punishment. The parents may indeed be the problem but it's a fairly safe bet beating their children for them won't help anybody. If you look at the BNP site they are also calling for the saying of christian prayers in schools, they don't state what kind of christian prayer, what if you object to that? Again they are not talking about letting people off with not conforming. They really are a backward looking bunch.
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
gmc;1302621 wrote: posted by k snyder
The point is would you give someone the right to administer corporal punishment to your child without any reference to you? Because that is what is proposed. With corporal punishment what the parent may or may not think about it doesn't come in to it it what matters is what is judged a sufficient offence for corporal punishment to be administered. Forgetting that days' homework for instance, being cheeky - which is relative - some teachers take pupils asking questions as a challenge to their authority (I bet you've known one or two that were like that) being late, not wearing the school uniform the number of petty infractions you could get belted for was amazing. How about kids at primary school are you happy to seem them smacked by another adult. What if a policeman decides he has it in for your children because he views all teenagers in groups as being delinquent do you really want him to have that kind of draconian authority?
If you object to corporal punishment you are probably the source of the problem for not being strict enough at home. That is the kind of attitude behind these calls for the return of corporal punishment. The parents may indeed be the problem but it's a fairly safe bet beating their children for them won't help anybody. If you look at the BNP site they are also calling for the saying of christian prayers in schools, they don't state what kind of christian prayer, what if you object to that? Again they are not talking about letting people off with not conforming. They really are a backward looking bunch.
Well, so long as we're speaking in the hypothetical, my answer would be that I am for what works. If my spanking my children were not to work then not only do I not see someone else doing it of no help but would by default make the situation worse.
Ironically, if a population of unruly children ever passed the 50% mark, I would know corporal punishment to be very disastrous considering once this point is achieved most of society, as defined, would be those very same unruly "children" beating children only doing so as adults. As I've said spanking children is necessary in my view on a number of occasions as equally as I feel spanking a child is boldly cruel on others.
Because of this I feel spanking children would best be implemented within people's homes, as well as a parent having the knowledge that spanking a child should ALWAYS be the last resort, otherwise it's just an all out battle of confusion and unnecessary pain both physically and mentally.
"Last resort" does not meet the public agenda at all. It's not a good idea to throw around a doctrine when suggestions are better served on a case by case basis.
It also appears very domineering when not applied correctly and runs the potential of completely ruining a parent-child relationship. Just as ironic is that love is the best form of intelligence which means wholeheartedly that love is the best method of teaching.
Quite frankly the concept of corporal punishment is very well but not applied as a form of indoctrinated love, not in the least.
I know all too well about people that are far too overbearing and demanding. A fellow student of mine filed a physical assault charge against an instructor at my school because she'd allegedly hit her with a book when she'd demanded a better response( know she hadn't meant to hit the student but as with anything what initiated the potential concern is what's to be questioned). The irony being I assume her wish to educate these kids is as much love as anyone can show and she's being reamed for it.
I feel ANYTHING should be implemented if it divinely works because the end result will ALWAYS justify the means. If the end result cannot justify the means then what "you" have is a skewed interpretation of the end result(Assuming people like/love what's good in life).
Quite frankly if people knew how to achieve a better result with unruly youths we would be using it. Therefore, it must be concluded that if corporal punishment has been overruled then by default corporal punishment is to never be reinstated. Otherwise we contradict the very logic of "community" and serve to worsen the current state, the only difference lying in how "you'd" define "good" and "evil"
The point is would you give someone the right to administer corporal punishment to your child without any reference to you? Because that is what is proposed. With corporal punishment what the parent may or may not think about it doesn't come in to it it what matters is what is judged a sufficient offence for corporal punishment to be administered. Forgetting that days' homework for instance, being cheeky - which is relative - some teachers take pupils asking questions as a challenge to their authority (I bet you've known one or two that were like that) being late, not wearing the school uniform the number of petty infractions you could get belted for was amazing. How about kids at primary school are you happy to seem them smacked by another adult. What if a policeman decides he has it in for your children because he views all teenagers in groups as being delinquent do you really want him to have that kind of draconian authority?
If you object to corporal punishment you are probably the source of the problem for not being strict enough at home. That is the kind of attitude behind these calls for the return of corporal punishment. The parents may indeed be the problem but it's a fairly safe bet beating their children for them won't help anybody. If you look at the BNP site they are also calling for the saying of christian prayers in schools, they don't state what kind of christian prayer, what if you object to that? Again they are not talking about letting people off with not conforming. They really are a backward looking bunch.
Well, so long as we're speaking in the hypothetical, my answer would be that I am for what works. If my spanking my children were not to work then not only do I not see someone else doing it of no help but would by default make the situation worse.
Ironically, if a population of unruly children ever passed the 50% mark, I would know corporal punishment to be very disastrous considering once this point is achieved most of society, as defined, would be those very same unruly "children" beating children only doing so as adults. As I've said spanking children is necessary in my view on a number of occasions as equally as I feel spanking a child is boldly cruel on others.
Because of this I feel spanking children would best be implemented within people's homes, as well as a parent having the knowledge that spanking a child should ALWAYS be the last resort, otherwise it's just an all out battle of confusion and unnecessary pain both physically and mentally.
"Last resort" does not meet the public agenda at all. It's not a good idea to throw around a doctrine when suggestions are better served on a case by case basis.
It also appears very domineering when not applied correctly and runs the potential of completely ruining a parent-child relationship. Just as ironic is that love is the best form of intelligence which means wholeheartedly that love is the best method of teaching.
Quite frankly the concept of corporal punishment is very well but not applied as a form of indoctrinated love, not in the least.
I know all too well about people that are far too overbearing and demanding. A fellow student of mine filed a physical assault charge against an instructor at my school because she'd allegedly hit her with a book when she'd demanded a better response( know she hadn't meant to hit the student but as with anything what initiated the potential concern is what's to be questioned). The irony being I assume her wish to educate these kids is as much love as anyone can show and she's being reamed for it.
I feel ANYTHING should be implemented if it divinely works because the end result will ALWAYS justify the means. If the end result cannot justify the means then what "you" have is a skewed interpretation of the end result(Assuming people like/love what's good in life).
Quite frankly if people knew how to achieve a better result with unruly youths we would be using it. Therefore, it must be concluded that if corporal punishment has been overruled then by default corporal punishment is to never be reinstated. Otherwise we contradict the very logic of "community" and serve to worsen the current state, the only difference lying in how "you'd" define "good" and "evil"
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
K.Snyder;1303136 wrote: Well, so long as we're speaking in the hypothetical, my answer would be that I am for what works. If my spanking my children were not to work then not only do I not see someone else doing it of no help but would by default make the situation worse.
Ironically, if a population of unruly children ever passed the 50% mark, I would know corporal punishment to be very disastrous considering once this point is achieved most of society, as defined, would be those very same unruly "children" beating children only doing so as adults. As I've said spanking children is necessary in my view on a number of occasions as equally as I feel spanking a child is boldly cruel on others.
Because of this I feel spanking children would best be implemented within people's homes, as well as a parent having the knowledge that spanking a child should ALWAYS be the last resort, otherwise it's just an all out battle of confusion and unnecessary pain both physically and mentally.
"Last resort" does not meet the public agenda at all. It's not a good idea to throw around a doctrine when suggestions are better served on a case by case basis.
It also appears very domineering when not applied correctly and runs the potential of completely ruining a parent-child relationship. Just as ironic is that love is the best form of intelligence which means wholeheartedly that love is the best method of teaching.
Quite frankly the concept of corporal punishment is very well but not applied as a form of indoctrinated love, not in the least.
I know all too well about people that are far too overbearing and demanding. A fellow student of mine filed a physical assault charge against an instructor at my school because she'd allegedly hit her with a book when she'd demanded a better response( know she hadn't meant to hit the student but as with anything what initiated the potential concern is what's to be questioned). The irony being I assume her wish to educate these kids is as much love as anyone can show and she's being reamed for it.
I feel ANYTHING should be implemented if it divinely works because the end result will ALWAYS justify the means. If the end result cannot justify the means then what "you" have is a skewed interpretation of the end result(Assuming people like/love what's good in life).
Quite frankly if people knew how to achieve a better result with unruly youths we would be using it. Therefore, it must be concluded that if corporal punishment has been overruled then by default corporal punishment is to never be reinstated. Otherwise we contradict the very logic of "community" and serve to worsen the current state, the only difference lying in how "you'd" define "good" and "evil"
It's a fundamental principle of out justice system that the motives and reasons behind an action be taken in to account. Harsh punishment may have a place but when applied in a draconian fashion justice goes out the window. We don't have corporal punishment any more because it was found not to work and was invariably applied in an unfair manner. It's the draconian nature of the BNP proposals that is backward looking and simplistic and ignores the facts and reality of history. Our society is less violent now than it was in the past. We don't beat he **** out of children as a basic principle any more. Nor do we tolerate casual bullying in quite the same way although you will still get those who argue it is part of life and a good thing that people should learn to cope with it. Perhaps it is to some extent, but accepting that someone can be terrorised for being a bit different is not, I would suggest, good for society as a whole.
With divorce it was always seen as the woman's fault when a marriage broke up and she should stay no matter what. There are still a lot of people who think that and that a husband should have a right to see his children no matter what he has done to them. To make it law that he must have access leaves no scope for looking at each case on it's merits. Black and white solutions just don't work and usually make things worse.
Ironically, if a population of unruly children ever passed the 50% mark, I would know corporal punishment to be very disastrous considering once this point is achieved most of society, as defined, would be those very same unruly "children" beating children only doing so as adults. As I've said spanking children is necessary in my view on a number of occasions as equally as I feel spanking a child is boldly cruel on others.
Because of this I feel spanking children would best be implemented within people's homes, as well as a parent having the knowledge that spanking a child should ALWAYS be the last resort, otherwise it's just an all out battle of confusion and unnecessary pain both physically and mentally.
"Last resort" does not meet the public agenda at all. It's not a good idea to throw around a doctrine when suggestions are better served on a case by case basis.
It also appears very domineering when not applied correctly and runs the potential of completely ruining a parent-child relationship. Just as ironic is that love is the best form of intelligence which means wholeheartedly that love is the best method of teaching.
Quite frankly the concept of corporal punishment is very well but not applied as a form of indoctrinated love, not in the least.
I know all too well about people that are far too overbearing and demanding. A fellow student of mine filed a physical assault charge against an instructor at my school because she'd allegedly hit her with a book when she'd demanded a better response( know she hadn't meant to hit the student but as with anything what initiated the potential concern is what's to be questioned). The irony being I assume her wish to educate these kids is as much love as anyone can show and she's being reamed for it.
I feel ANYTHING should be implemented if it divinely works because the end result will ALWAYS justify the means. If the end result cannot justify the means then what "you" have is a skewed interpretation of the end result(Assuming people like/love what's good in life).
Quite frankly if people knew how to achieve a better result with unruly youths we would be using it. Therefore, it must be concluded that if corporal punishment has been overruled then by default corporal punishment is to never be reinstated. Otherwise we contradict the very logic of "community" and serve to worsen the current state, the only difference lying in how "you'd" define "good" and "evil"
It's a fundamental principle of out justice system that the motives and reasons behind an action be taken in to account. Harsh punishment may have a place but when applied in a draconian fashion justice goes out the window. We don't have corporal punishment any more because it was found not to work and was invariably applied in an unfair manner. It's the draconian nature of the BNP proposals that is backward looking and simplistic and ignores the facts and reality of history. Our society is less violent now than it was in the past. We don't beat he **** out of children as a basic principle any more. Nor do we tolerate casual bullying in quite the same way although you will still get those who argue it is part of life and a good thing that people should learn to cope with it. Perhaps it is to some extent, but accepting that someone can be terrorised for being a bit different is not, I would suggest, good for society as a whole.
With divorce it was always seen as the woman's fault when a marriage broke up and she should stay no matter what. There are still a lot of people who think that and that a husband should have a right to see his children no matter what he has done to them. To make it law that he must have access leaves no scope for looking at each case on it's merits. Black and white solutions just don't work and usually make things worse.
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
Yeah, my reaction to this thread title was, "Why is he blaming liberals? I'm a liberal, but I still don't believe that murderers should be given perks."
Be careful of stereotyping everyone, you'll find that most do not fit your mold. Besides, it's just devisive and counterproductive. Did I mention rude?
Be careful of stereotyping everyone, you'll find that most do not fit your mold. Besides, it's just devisive and counterproductive. Did I mention rude?
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
Saint_;1303243 wrote: Yeah, my reaction to this thread title was, "Why is he blaming liberals? I'm a liberal, but I still don't believe that murderers should be given perks."
Be careful of stereotyping everyone, you'll find that most do not fit your mold. Besides, it's just devision and counterproductive. Did I mention rude?
It also shows considerable ignorance and a desire to destroy liberty by somehow making liberal values something to be ashamed of. Think nazi propaganda and you get the idea. The first people hitler set out to silence were the liberal politicians because it was them he was most afraid of. All the communists, socialists and some of the SD deputies had already been arrested but the remaining social democrats were the only ones that voted against him despite intimidation by the SA. The BNP are the pathetic inheritors of moseley.
Be careful of stereotyping everyone, you'll find that most do not fit your mold. Besides, it's just devision and counterproductive. Did I mention rude?
It also shows considerable ignorance and a desire to destroy liberty by somehow making liberal values something to be ashamed of. Think nazi propaganda and you get the idea. The first people hitler set out to silence were the liberal politicians because it was them he was most afraid of. All the communists, socialists and some of the SD deputies had already been arrested but the remaining social democrats were the only ones that voted against him despite intimidation by the SA. The BNP are the pathetic inheritors of moseley.
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
gmc;1302621 wrote: posted by k snyder
The point is would you give someone the right to administer corporal punishment to your child without any reference to you? Because that is what is proposed. With corporal punishment what the parent may or may not think about it doesn't come in to it it what matters is what is judged a sufficient offence for corporal punishment to be administered. Forgetting that days' homework for instance, being cheeky - which is relative - some teachers take pupils asking questions as a challenge to their authority (I bet you've known one or two that were like that) being late, not wearing the school uniform the number of petty infractions you could get belted for was amazing. How about kids at primary school are you happy to seem them smacked by another adult. What if a policeman decides he has it in for your children because he views all teenagers in groups as being delinquent do you really want him to have that kind of draconian authority?
If you object to corporal punishment you are probably the source of the problem for not being strict enough at home. That is the kind of attitude behind these calls for the return of corporal punishment. The parents may indeed be the problem but it's a fairly safe bet beating their children for them won't help anybody. If you look at the BNP site they are also calling for the saying of christian prayers in schools, they don't state what kind of christian prayer, what if you object to that? Again they are not talking about letting people off with not conforming. They really are a backward looking bunch.
Would I hell. If anyone is going to smack my children it will be me! I don't agree with corporal punishment in schools as I think the teaching staff can bring their bad tempers into school and take it out on the children in their care!
The point is would you give someone the right to administer corporal punishment to your child without any reference to you? Because that is what is proposed. With corporal punishment what the parent may or may not think about it doesn't come in to it it what matters is what is judged a sufficient offence for corporal punishment to be administered. Forgetting that days' homework for instance, being cheeky - which is relative - some teachers take pupils asking questions as a challenge to their authority (I bet you've known one or two that were like that) being late, not wearing the school uniform the number of petty infractions you could get belted for was amazing. How about kids at primary school are you happy to seem them smacked by another adult. What if a policeman decides he has it in for your children because he views all teenagers in groups as being delinquent do you really want him to have that kind of draconian authority?
If you object to corporal punishment you are probably the source of the problem for not being strict enough at home. That is the kind of attitude behind these calls for the return of corporal punishment. The parents may indeed be the problem but it's a fairly safe bet beating their children for them won't help anybody. If you look at the BNP site they are also calling for the saying of christian prayers in schools, they don't state what kind of christian prayer, what if you object to that? Again they are not talking about letting people off with not conforming. They really are a backward looking bunch.
Would I hell. If anyone is going to smack my children it will be me! I don't agree with corporal punishment in schools as I think the teaching staff can bring their bad tempers into school and take it out on the children in their care!
One for The Bleeding Heart Liberals of England..
Skylark;1308800 wrote: Would I hell. If anyone is going to smack my children it will be me! I don't agree with corporal punishment in schools as I think the teaching staff can bring their bad tempers into school and take it out on the children in their care!
Not to mention influencing completely unbalanced people to gain those jobs enabling them to fulfill their sick desires under protection of the "law". It's not good to apply this publicly. Far worse is it to deny it on a familial basis.
Not to mention influencing completely unbalanced people to gain those jobs enabling them to fulfill their sick desires under protection of the "law". It's not good to apply this publicly. Far worse is it to deny it on a familial basis.