Spam & Scams0 min ago
Where's the respect gone?
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/polic e-attacked-by-mob-in-croydon-after-asking-teen age-girl-to-pick-up-litter-she-had-dropped/Art icle/200807315046145?lpos=UK%2BNews_2&lid=ARTI CLE_15046145_police%2Battacked%2Bby%2Bmob%2Bin %2Bcroydon%2Bafter%2Basking%2Bteenage%2Bgirl%2 Bto%2Bpick%2Bup%2Blitter%2Bshe%2Bhad%2Bdropped
Do you think we can start to turnaround the feeling of fear over tackling anti-social behaviour and regaining respect for others?
Do you think we can start to turnaround the feeling of fear over tackling anti-social behaviour and regaining respect for others?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Eve. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
naomi,
It's great that you enjoy debating so much. But I sometimes think you throw yourself too enthusiastically into churning out responses and only really bother to skim-read other people's. Fair?
I never suggested for a second that we ignore history. In fact, you'll probably remember that I actively encourage people to learn the lessons of the past.
The reason that I chose words like "tiresome fetishisation of the past" and "dress up the past as some utopian country" was because the history that you're clinging to never existed. It's like learning British history from an episode of Heartbeat.
It's not productive to demonise the present because it fails to match this warm and fuzzy version of yesteryear you're fixated with. Kids were rude back then too, crime was a problem, people complained about declining standards.
This insistence that everything was better back then is a classic sign of aging (up there with "Aren't policemen getting younger??"). And that's not a good thing when you're discussing the plight of Britain's young people.
It's great that you enjoy debating so much. But I sometimes think you throw yourself too enthusiastically into churning out responses and only really bother to skim-read other people's. Fair?
I never suggested for a second that we ignore history. In fact, you'll probably remember that I actively encourage people to learn the lessons of the past.
The reason that I chose words like "tiresome fetishisation of the past" and "dress up the past as some utopian country" was because the history that you're clinging to never existed. It's like learning British history from an episode of Heartbeat.
It's not productive to demonise the present because it fails to match this warm and fuzzy version of yesteryear you're fixated with. Kids were rude back then too, crime was a problem, people complained about declining standards.
This insistence that everything was better back then is a classic sign of aging (up there with "Aren't policemen getting younger??"). And that's not a good thing when you're discussing the plight of Britain's young people.
No apologies Vic. The liberal mentality is responsible. - so because some of my thoughts are liberal, every though must be liberal. That's a bit like saying all conservatives are Nazis. I thought better of you than that. You are accusing me of something I have never said, ever believed in and can't even apologise for an unfounded allegation. Must say I am disappointed.
Speaking of America, have you been to New York since it took up zero tolerance?
"On the historical examples of the application of zero tolerance kind of policies, all the scientific studies conclude that it didn't play a leading role in the reduction of crimes, a role which is instead claimed by its advocates. In New York, the decline of crimes rate started well before Rudolf Giuliani came to power, in 1993, and none of the decreasing processes had particular inflection under him. In the same period of time, the decrease in crime was the same in the other major US cities, even those with an opposite security policy; finally, in the years 1984-7 New York already experienced a policy similar to Giuliani's one, but it faced a crime increase instead.
Two of the best American specialists, Edward Maguire, an Administration of Justice Professor at George Mason University, and John Eck from the University of Cincinnati, rigorously evaluated all the scientific work designed to test the efficiency of the police in the fight against crime. They concluded that "neither the number of policemen engaged in the battle, or internal changes and organizational culture of law enforcement agencies (such as the introduction of community policing) have by themselves impact on the evolution of offenses."
The crime decrease was due not the work of the police and judiciary, but to economic and demographic factors. The main ones were an unprecedented economic growth with jobs for millions of young people, and a shift from the use
Speaking of America, have you been to New York since it took up zero tolerance?
"On the historical examples of the application of zero tolerance kind of policies, all the scientific studies conclude that it didn't play a leading role in the reduction of crimes, a role which is instead claimed by its advocates. In New York, the decline of crimes rate started well before Rudolf Giuliani came to power, in 1993, and none of the decreasing processes had particular inflection under him. In the same period of time, the decrease in crime was the same in the other major US cities, even those with an opposite security policy; finally, in the years 1984-7 New York already experienced a policy similar to Giuliani's one, but it faced a crime increase instead.
Two of the best American specialists, Edward Maguire, an Administration of Justice Professor at George Mason University, and John Eck from the University of Cincinnati, rigorously evaluated all the scientific work designed to test the efficiency of the police in the fight against crime. They concluded that "neither the number of policemen engaged in the battle, or internal changes and organizational culture of law enforcement agencies (such as the introduction of community policing) have by themselves impact on the evolution of offenses."
The crime decrease was due not the work of the police and judiciary, but to economic and demographic factors. The main ones were an unprecedented economic growth with jobs for millions of young people, and a shift from the use
sorry, meant to include link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance
Oh, I see. The best form of defence is attack. Well, disappointed you may be, but you're the one advocating the soft approach.
As for the success of zero tolerance in New York, if those findings are indeed correct, then I suggest you tell our government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/sep/27 /labourconference.labour1
As for the success of zero tolerance in New York, if those findings are indeed correct, then I suggest you tell our government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/sep/27 /labourconference.labour1
Hmm, the same party who said the same thing in 2001 (albeit by the then home secretary Jack Straw):
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?i d=33162
I am also determined to give greater priority to tackling the crime - for that is what it is - of domestic violence. I want zero tolerance of domestic violence.
I also want zero tolerance of crime and disorder in our neighbourhoods.
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?i d=33162
I am also determined to give greater priority to tackling the crime - for that is what it is - of domestic violence. I want zero tolerance of domestic violence.
I also want zero tolerance of crime and disorder in our neighbourhoods.
Oh, I see. The best form of defence is attack. Well, disappointed you may be, but you're the one advocating the soft approach.
You stated:
it�s your mentality that has destroyed that community
You and your kind have blighted this generation
if we continue to follow your ridiculous ethos, we will allow you to blight even more children�s lives
Luckily no attacks from you then.
Being honest, I have stated on several occasions that I respect your opinion. We have disagreed on much, but I like to debate with you.
You have now decided to attack me personally and have refused to apologise for unsubstantiated allegations.
To be honest, I really can't be bothered to debate with you anymore.
You stated:
it�s your mentality that has destroyed that community
You and your kind have blighted this generation
if we continue to follow your ridiculous ethos, we will allow you to blight even more children�s lives
Luckily no attacks from you then.
Being honest, I have stated on several occasions that I respect your opinion. We have disagreed on much, but I like to debate with you.
You have now decided to attack me personally and have refused to apologise for unsubstantiated allegations.
To be honest, I really can't be bothered to debate with you anymore.
Vic, I think you're confused. You are arguing for the soft option, and in my opinion that mentality is responsible for the problems we have with now because it clearly isn't working. Therefore my comments are not unsubstantiated.
I'm not sure what your reference to Jack Straw indicates. You tell me zero-tolerance doesn't work, and I simply thought you ought to tell our government that since they obviously don't know.
I said several posts ago that I didn't think I had anything more to add, so I'm rather pleased you can't be bothered to argue with me any more. Perhaps we can choose a different topic next time. I wonder if there's anything we might agree on? :o)
I'm not sure what your reference to Jack Straw indicates. You tell me zero-tolerance doesn't work, and I simply thought you ought to tell our government that since they obviously don't know.
I said several posts ago that I didn't think I had anything more to add, so I'm rather pleased you can't be bothered to argue with me any more. Perhaps we can choose a different topic next time. I wonder if there's anything we might agree on? :o)
Latest Posts
Reeves Is Now After Your Pension Funds
News2 mins ago
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Body & Soul3 mins ago
Shopping & Style5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
