"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
...
In article , Baz
writes
My dad had to serve in N.I and lost his life with 1RGJ in 1982
Please do not advise me about provos, I suspect you have read a few
newspapers and stuff regarding Bobby Sands and hunger strikes. Hughes etc.

Let me tell you how the cowardly *******s killed a whole saracen
containing
a peace keeping force.



By coincidence Baz

Went all the way up to Alrewas and put a cross and some flowers on the
NI monument at the Arboretum just this afternoon for Tom...........

and though it happened later, who can forget Warrenpoint?
--
Janet Tweedy


Janet did you appreciate the ""11.11.11"" across the Wreath at the National
Memorial?

Kindest regards

Mike
ps
I doubt if many on this newsgroup/forum will :-((


--

....................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

....................................

In article , Baz wrote:

My dad had to serve in N.I and lost his life with 1RGJ in 1982
Please do not advise me about provos, I suspect you have read a few
newspapers and stuff regarding Bobby Sands and hunger strikes. Hughes etc.

You suppose wrong.

If you want to learn how people with your attitude turned a soluble
political problem into the civil war it became, you really should
read "Voices From The Grave". I knew what was happening at the time,
from contemporary reports, but obtaining them now would be very hard
work (assuming they still exist). Oh, and the period was 1968 to
1972. After the government accepted the Widgery Report, the problem
was no longer soluble without major bloodshed.

The situation in England today is not comparable, but it IS very
comparable with that which caused the rise of Malcolm X, the Black
Panthers etc. The real danger, here and now, is that disaffected
people of the calibre of those in the Baader Meinhof gang will get
involved (e.g. the unemployed graduates who realise that their
debts will buy them nothing). And a hybrid of those two is not
nice to contemplate.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 10/08/2011 17:25, in article ,
"Janet Tweedy" wrote:

In article , Kay
writes
There is the concept of relative poverty - being unable to share in the
lifestyle that all around you take for granted, or seeing any means to do
so.


Oh no Kay that's not true. If it were then lots of poor people would be
stealing and committing crimes all over the place and yet they are not.

No, that doesn't follow. Not everyone responds the same way. In anther post
I said

" It's not an excuse. When even Morrisons has ceased giving out
applications,
and a well qualified young man feels himself lucky to have secured a
temporary part time summer job at Burger King, then the law abiding young
can be forgiven for sinking into depression, and the less law abiding are
more likely to go on the rampage."

The more unequal you make a society, the greater the risk that some people
will feel that they haven't got much stake in that society and therefore no
need to behave according the rules of that society.

Janet Tweedy wrote in
:

Went all the way up to Alrewas and put a cross and some flowers on the
NI monument at the Arboretum just this afternoon for Tom...........

and though it happened later, who can forget Warrenpoint?

Who was Tom? I know you won't forget him, that is obvious.

Warren point is part of history now and the start of a shitty, almost
cynical part of our fight against demi-gods, and we all know who they are,
or were.

Baz

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:10:44 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 2011-08-10 10:46:44 +0100, Kay said:




On 09/08/2011 17:34, in article , "Sacha"
wrote:

The people in these riots and the man who attacked your
property aren't poor, they're not in real need of food or shelter which
IS poverty, they're just destructive or jealous or lazy or all those
things.

There is the concept of relative poverty - being unable to share in the
lifestyle that all around you take for granted, or seeing any means to
do
so.

Everyone knows someone with more or better than they've got. I don't
see that as an excuse. If people want more and better, find a legal
way of acquiring it. The people organising the looting in the riots,
or the riots themselves, have Blackberries, not tin cans on the end of
a string.

which were almost certainly stolen, not bought.



What on earth makes you say that? Surely that's pure speculation on your
part?





But there's no excuse for looting and violence.

Absolutely none. I can understand it better where there's real abject
poverty, allied with a repressive dictatorship. This was organised
crime for greed. A comparatively small number of feral humans have
destroyed homes, businesses, livelihoods and terrorised people on the
street or in their cars. That's a shame and disgrace upon all of us,
imo, because in one way or another, we've allowed things to reach a
pitch where it *can* happen. But we really are so far OT now that I
have to accept I'm never going to be World President and bow out
gracefully! ;-)

:-)
--

Martin

Judith in France wrote in news:330960ba-b9bf-
:




If my child had ever come home with something that had to
be paid for, serious questions would be asked, i.e. where did you get
the money to buy that?


I imagine that those questions are not asked by some parents. Those parents
are to blame, no doubt about that.

Baz

"'Mike'" wrote in message
...


"Sacha" wrote in message
...
On 2011-08-10 10:39:20 +0100, Kay said:




On 09/08/2011 17:39, in article , "Sacha"
wrote:


I appreciate what you're saying, Kay but Harry's remark was not
inclined towards working for the benefit of the community as a whole,
but more to hoping he could fool the trouble into becoming someone
else's problem. If there's a problem area, all the people in that
street, or on that estate, working *together* may produce a result.
"Pull up the ladder, Jack" won't do it. AIUI, there are areas where
crime has been pretty bad but where determined residents have managed
to clean it up and get their lives back in their own hands again.

But have they got rid of the crime or merely displaced it? Changing the
subject - we have a problem (as most places do) of where do older
teenagers
go when they want to get together with their mates? They don't want to
be
sitting under the eye of their parents - and, indeed, parents,
especially
those without large houses, don't really want half a dozen noisy young
males
in the house. So residents complain, and they get displaced from
Morrisons
car park - but they haven't decided to stay at home, instead they've
moved
to the field opposite the sheltered bungalows.

There are so many underlying problems leading to this sort of behaviour
that at present, I think people can only tackle what affects *them*. The
wider picture and - perhaps - a solution may then start to emerge. But
the first step seems to be to show people like Baz's criminal that
criminal acts won't be tolerated by anyone in that
street/estate/community.

I think what an experience such as Baz's shows us is that the softly
softly approach by politicians, who then instruct the police and the
judiciary, simply doesn't work. Back to the days of "if you can't do the
time, don't do the crime". As to what is done about youths who kicked
around, bored and so forth, I wish I had an answer. Youth Clubs used to
be a solution but no doubt these are now deeply uncool.

But it seems to me that there are two answers to this, firstly, parents
should always know where thir children are, who they're with and what
time they are expected home. And secondly, children have to learn their
place on the 'ladder' - being 'bored' or whatever the excuse is, does not
give them the right to be a damned nuisance to others. Perhaps *their*
parents have to get together and organise themselves and their children
into areas where they can enjoy each other's company without upsettinig
neighbours. I know this sounds simplistic and perhaps, idealistic but
until parents do start to demonstrate concern, interest and that actions
have consequences, why should their children think otherwise? I'm
talking about a return to basic parenting where every family has to take
responsibility for how children are raised and for teaching them how to
live within the wider world without being a pain to everyone around them.
We can all only do that in our own small way, starting with ensuring
those who cause nuisance or crime are dealt with.
--
Sacha


With so many marriages, if they bother to get married in the first place,
breaking up and couples flitting from couple to couple, how do you expect
the 'Family Home' to be a Unit? Brothers and Sisters might not even know
which 'Father' is which.

As a family which has stuck together for over 54 years, I still have the
same wife, and all of the children, all four of them, have the same Mother
and Father, I am sometimes not at all amazed that the 'Family Unit' has
gone out of the window.

How many readers of this newsgroup have the same partner they started out
with over 30 years ago?

Mike

--


Governments have been trying to destroy the family unit for years now. As
you reap...

http://www.2012theawakening.com/?cat=87

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/20...re_fatherl.php







...................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

...................................

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 17:13:24 +0100, Janet Tweedy
wrote:

In article , Sacha
writes
NS is often touted as a solution and I'm sure it would be a very
effective one. But the truth is that the services really don't want to
have to train a whole load of young people for two years and then lose
them back into civilian life.


They don't want to have to train and take care of a load of ungrateful,
ill adjusted, uncooperative yobs either. They have serious work to do
and goodness knows i would hate any soldier to have some of that looting
mob next to him when he was searching for IEDs etc.!
The police and Army aren't allowed to do much
any more and neither is any authority now we've got those in power who
think a softly softly approach will solve al issues. It won't! The
teenagers on those High Streets know there'll be very little comeback
for their actions .
Personally I'd have aimed a hose with permanent green dye on all looters
and their stolen goods, then let them pass those goods on or try !!

Yes, it would be good fun. Personally, I'd like to see costed plans
for this eventuality. Would there be permanent Green-Liquid Squirting
Officers stationed every hundred yards in every city of the United
Kingdom, ready to spring into action once every ten or twenty years?
Or would there be a Green-Liquid Flying Squad, ready to travel at a
moment's notice in order to arrive after the looting's finished? Would
they be armed to protect them from being knocked out as a preliminary
to the looting?

We're all repelled, angry, afraid, and all those feelings: I'm not
taking the, er, yellow liquid out of you, but we have to be practical.
And what the practical measures are, I'm far from certain. And if we
want it to stop, we do have to ask why it happens -- and I for one am
far from certain about that, too.

--
Mike.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:02:38 +0100, Kay
wrote:




On 10/08/2011 17:25, in article ,
"Janet Tweedy" wrote:

In article , Kay
writes
There is the concept of relative poverty - being unable to share in the
lifestyle that all around you take for granted, or seeing any means to do
so.


Oh no Kay that's not true. If it were then lots of poor people would be
stealing and committing crimes all over the place and yet they are not.

No, that doesn't follow. Not everyone responds the same way. In anther post
I said

" It's not an excuse. When even Morrisons has ceased giving out
applications,
and a well qualified young man feels himself lucky to have secured a
temporary part time summer job at Burger King, then the law abiding young
can be forgiven for sinking into depression, and the less law abiding are
more likely to go on the rampage."

The more unequal you make a society, the greater the risk that some people
will feel that they haven't got much stake in that society and therefore no
need to behave according the rules of that society.

That works for the financial wizards, after all. They're another
ingredient in the very complex mix which creates alienation.

--
Mike.

On 10/08/2011 18:41, in article , "Sacha"
wrote:


Society has *never* been equal, never in history, it's just not in the
nature of man or the scheme of things. BUT what has changed now is
peoples' sense of entitlement.

What has also changed is the level of inequality as measured for example by
the proportion of wealth owned by the richest few and the disparity between
the highest and lowest remuneration within an organisation.

On 10/08/2011 17:48, wrote:
In , wrote:

My dad had to serve in N.I and lost his life with 1RGJ in 1982
Please do not advise me about provos, I suspect you have read a few
newspapers and stuff regarding Bobby Sands and hunger strikes. Hughes etc.

You suppose wrong.

If you want to learn how people with your attitude turned a soluble
political problem into the civil war it became, you really should
read "Voices From The Grave". I knew what was happening at the time,
from contemporary reports, but obtaining them now would be very hard
work (assuming they still exist). Oh, and the period was 1968 to
1972. After the government accepted the Widgery Report, the problem
was no longer soluble without major bloodshed.

The situation in England today is not comparable, but it IS very
comparable with that which caused the rise of Malcolm X, the Black
Panthers etc. The real danger, here and now, is that disaffected
people of the calibre of those in the Baader Meinhof gang will get
involved (e.g. the unemployed graduates who realise that their
debts will buy them nothing). And a hybrid of those two is not
nice to contemplate.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick is quite right. His email address is no accident. Ability to see
the bigger picture as opposed to being "hang 'em flog 'em lock 'em all
up like" is a sign of intelligence. There is research on this!

On 10/08/2011 18:37, in article , "Sacha"
wrote:

There's a big difference there, Kay. *Those* children's parents know
where they are.

... But then they go off to university ;-)

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:41:51 +0100, "Bill Grey"
wrote:


"Martin" wrote in message
. ..
Amongst root causes are no hope of employment in some areas, the
opportunity to steal things that rioters could never afford and
"having fun".
--

Martin

Whilst agreeing with the above, I believe you haven't gone far enough.
Before the "no hope " stage arrives, people - i.e. children/youths need to
have been taught respect for their elders.

Only a small minority are out of control.

This goes even further back to
their school days where lack of discipline was / is rife.

The abolishment of corporal punishment was the start of the rot. No one
ever wanted to "beat up" children for misbehaving, but a short sharp shock
worked wonders

for the applier of corporal punishment?


Rmember Willy Whitlelaw's proposal which got nowhere ?

In retrospect we can appreciate the wisdow of our own education, I assume
we
are all well behaved pillars of society !

At the school I went to only the bad teachers resorted to corporal
punishment.
--

Martin

"Corporal Punishments" is such a strong phrase - not invented by me, but it
must be remembered that the cane never did any real harm - it did more good
than harm. One only got the cane if one misbehaved, was cheeky or rude -
tendencies which needed to be corrected. The pillars of society at the time
of its abolition had in all probability received the cane at some time. The
"do-gooders" have ruined society and we are now reaping the products of
their actions.

There were, without doubt, bad teachers who went beyond the ethos of good
discipline.

Bill

"Bill Grey" wrote in message
...

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:41:51 +0100, "Bill Grey"
wrote:


"Martin" wrote in message
...
Amongst root causes are no hope of employment in some areas, the
opportunity to steal things that rioters could never afford and
"having fun".
--

Martin

Whilst agreeing with the above, I believe you haven't gone far enough.
Before the "no hope " stage arrives, people - i.e. children/youths need
to
have been taught respect for their elders.

Only a small minority are out of control.

This goes even further back to
their school days where lack of discipline was / is rife.

The abolishment of corporal punishment was the start of the rot. No one
ever wanted to "beat up" children for misbehaving, but a short sharp
shock
worked wonders

for the applier of corporal punishment?


Rmember Willy Whitlelaw's proposal which got nowhere ?

In retrospect we can appreciate the wisdow of our own education, I assume
we
are all well behaved pillars of society !

At the school I went to only the bad teachers resorted to corporal
punishment.
--

Martin

"Corporal Punishments" is such a strong phrase - not invented by me, but
it must be remembered that the cane never did any real harm - it did more
good than harm. One only got the cane if one misbehaved, was cheeky or
rude - tendencies which needed to be corrected. The pillars of society at
the time of its abolition had in all probability received the cane at some
time. The "do-gooders" have ruined society and we are now reaping the
products of their actions.

There were, without doubt, bad teachers who went beyond the ethos of good
discipline.

Bill


I went to a Private School and the Slipper was very effective.

But here is an interesting thought, to what degree did a Private education
'implant' a different, more adult/responsible 'mind' in the body? We have
quite a 'sprinkling' of privately educated people in our family and the
thought of any of them running amok as the looters and crowds have been
doing shocks us. The resulting qualifications and professions speaks
volumes.

Mike

--

....................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

....................................

"Kay" wrote in message
...



On 10/08/2011 09:41, in article ,
"Bill Grey" wrote:

The abolishment of corporal punishment was the start of the rot.

I can't agree with that. I know people who started life as bright,
confident
primary school children, went to a secondary school with corporal
punishment, and, although never likely to deliberately break a rule, went
in
fear and emerged into adulthood with all the confidence knocked out of
them.
I wouldn't want a return to that.

Wow ! Your statement about knowing people etc...... is somewhat surreal.
Having confidence knocked out of them is certainly an exaggeration or a
distortion of the facts.

What sort of school was that ?? Life in school wasn't /that/ bad in the
19th century for goodness sake.

As far as I can recall, we didn't hear of "Corporal Punishment" until the
incident involving Sea Cadets at Dartmouth (Something like that anyway)

We're taking the occasional cane, not the ritual beating up of children.

Don't forget when referring to children, some of the rioters and miscreants
classed as children are in their early teens and well aware of the
consequences of their actions.

Bill