EPTKnife crime and social dysfunction in Britain - Page 2
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
yn01_
Canada149 Posts
| ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On July 08 2008 08:20 yn01_ wrote: Do all poorer people in england get access to education? Just wanna know Yeah they do. State education is free up to 16 like perisie said, but state schools can be in difficult locations and are far, far, far more dangerous and rife with bullying and anti-social behaviour than private schools, which make up something like 10% of all schools in the country. Obviously state schools vary in quality. | ||
|
Plutonium
United States2217 Posts
-Cicero | ||
KwarK
United States43151 Posts
On July 08 2008 07:51 HamerD wrote: Well no that's not at all my opinion Kwark. If you seriously want to hear it rather than insult me then for the record, as I did latently express, I believe that the top cream of society should be skimmed off and cultivated, and the bottom shit should be dealt with in a way that will be sympathetic but also expedient for the people in the middle. I also believe very strongly that vocational schooling is the way forward for most people who will in reality end up quitting school at 16 and going on to grind 9-5's. The point of this discussion is: how to deal with the supposedly bad apples in society. So it would be pretty counterproductive to focus on how to make sure that clever people get the best start in life. Truly brilliant people will prevail regardless. I agree that competence should be encouraged and focused on in schools; but children aren't getting stabbed in the street because really clever kids can't get more latin text books (at least i hope not). I really think the curriculum needs to change in SO many ways. And one of the most important ways, is allowing students to focus on those vocational and physical subjects. I do most certainly NOT advocate simply leaving children by the wayside; as that is one of the biggest causes of the problems we have. But then again, I do not agree with allowing the bottom 5% to adversely affect the other 95%'s progress disproportionately. I didn't insult you. If I were to insult you I'd call you a retard. What I did was point out that you can't have special schools for nurturing the 'good' children because that in turn means that the 'bad' children are getting a worse education and therefore a worse chance in life. And don't say the other schools would be good too, but the good ones better because that means that the other schools are comparitively bad. By actively cultivating the top cream you are actively neglecting the bottom. Further more you mentioned grammar schools, not me. And by mentioning grammar schools with selective exams you automatically condemn children to the bad schools based purely upon intelligence. And that is total bs. In other criticisms. By having schools for clever hard working kids and having schools for "other" you create sink schools. If you were a young talented teacher then where would you choose to teach? This was the problem with grammar schools. Even given equal funding you end up with sink schools in which children have no prospects. As for vocational training, what is this, the 1950s. What you're saying is basically a repeat of the 1943 Butler Education Act, creating the tripartite system. However given the decline of British industry and the rise of an economy based upon the services and banking vocational training has lost it's niche. How many plumbers and builders does society need? Higher education is required for the British economy these days and by increasing vocational training you're fucking over the students. Basically what you're saying is nothing new. We've been there, done it and moved away from it because it sucked. You've written a manifesto for an outdated system. | ||
|
Plutonium
United States2217 Posts
The same thing happens all over the western world. Something grabs people's attention, and in order to sell newspapers, whatever people are scared of starts getting reported - It's not that there are more stabbings or kidnappings or shootings or whatever, it's that the media is suddenly reporting every single one of them instead of glossing them over. In your case, it's the chavs or whatever you call fuckup kids in the UK. There have always been fuckup kids, and let's face it, there always will be. They've just had different names over the past three thousand years. | ||
|
yn01_
Canada149 Posts
| ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On July 08 2008 07:43 Hippopotamus wrote: This is going to be a gun control debate isn't it? I can already predict what they will say... This is clear evidence that GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK! Look at this: you ban guns and stabbings go up sky high! See laws don't help against criminals because they won't obey them. If you take away guns all you're doing is making them use knives while innocent law-abiding citizens can't even make use of a gun to defend themselves! Had the girl who got chased down by that gang carried a gun with her, she would have easily fended them off. As a witty mockery of gun control I am going to propose that next knives get banned! After all, knives are used to kill people. If people did not have knives then no violence would ever happen. Who cares if knives have other uses? Let me make my clever debate-winning analogy! Holster your mockery until you explain the detour in logic. To your dismay, that suggestion is clearly in line with the "logic" of gun control. Of course, I point this out as an opponent of gun control, because guns/knives don't kill people. People kill people. Cliché? Sure. It's still correct, though. If you outlaw guns/knives/whatever, people are still going to find a way to kill each other. A baseball bat, a sharpened broom handle, a philips screwdriver. All deadly weapons. England has a big problem with racism, ageism, and stratified wealth distribution. These are cultural problems, and they breed violence. To contrarily state that the means for violence propagates violence itself, is ludicrous. That we have arrived at a juncture where gun control logic would literally require outlawing of knives in this case, is why you felt the need to preempt that suggestion with mockery. I say England stay the course. Outlaw knives. Please, continue to be the working example of failed gun control. | ||
|
perisie xx
429 Posts
| ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On July 08 2008 08:47 Kwark wrote: I didn't insult you. If I were to insult you I'd call you a retard. What I did was point out that you can't have special schools for nurturing the 'good' children because that in turn means that the 'bad' children are getting a worse education and therefore a worse chance in life. And don't say the other schools would be good too, but the good ones better because that means that the other schools are comparitively bad. By actively cultivating the top cream you are actively neglecting the bottom. Further more you mentioned grammar schools, not me. And by mentioning grammar schools with selective exams you automatically condemn children to the bad schools based purely upon intelligence. And that is total bs. In other criticisms. By having schools for clever hard working kids and having schools for "other" you create sink schools. If you were a young talented teacher then where would you choose to teach? This was the problem with grammar schools. Even given equal funding you end up with sink schools in which children have no prospects. As for vocational training, what is this, the 1950s. What you're saying is basically a repeat of the 1943 Butler Education Act, creating the tripartite system. However given the decline of British industry and the rise of an economy based upon the services and banking vocational training has lost it's niche. How many plumbers and builders does society need? Higher education is required for the British economy these days and by increasing vocational training you're fucking over the students. Basically what you're saying is nothing new. We've been there, done it and moved away from it because it sucked. You've written a manifesto for an outdated system. Ok well this is interesting although really off topic. While your style of debate is almost always reactionary, and I accept that; I don't want to spend ages arguing about potential educational reforms. I would rather that you posit your opinion as to a solution to the problem at hand. To outline my opinion though, I do believe that the university figures should be about 20-30% of students going to higher education, rather than the government's intended 50%. Although the country, specifically London, is focused more around tertiary employment; forcing our society into the funnel of university in the desperate attempt to create more suits and less bods; is drastically misguided (in my opinion). I wouldn't happen to know the university drop out rates, and I wouldn't particularly care. I happen to know enough shop floor workers and 9-5'ers with degrees to convince me that the government's current direction is wrong. I think A levels are too easy and GCSE's and in fact all education is too coursework-based and not problem-solving enough. Your point about vocational schooling...I guarantee that a plumbing GCSE would be more useful than a french GCSE to most people in the country. This society needs huge amounts of plumbers and builders. But regardless of that, what my point was is that no matter how good the teacher, trying to teach a lot of the standard curriculum in the basic hostile environment of a dodgy state school is bound to virtually unsolvable problems. Your point about young talented teacher choosing grammar schools is bogus. Young talented teachers choose private schools anyway. Or uni. Or high performing state schools. The fact is that there simply aren't enough talented teachers to go around. I think it's critical that more money be pumped into teaching pay, because teaching is such a vital role. Now you say that I proposed a return to the 1950's. Well I don't. I simply propose that the GCSE system be mutated to allow for less academics. In all schools. Not separate vocational schools, but definitely more funding into a vocational subject branch of the curriculum. I think that this could help turn schools into more interesting places. Let's face it, it's easier to see how you could use a course in building than how to use a course in science. The issue is dealing with not really just problem children here, but general youth disaffection with the education system. I finish by hoping that you aren't satisfied with the current education system. I truly hope that because the current education system sucks balls imo and is one of the leading contributing factors to growing disrespect and violence. | ||
|
perisie xx
429 Posts
what this means is less people are likely to be carrying a knife when a random "heated"/drunk/chav/etc situation occurs | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On July 08 2008 09:04 HeadBangaa wrote: Holster your mockery until you explain the detour in logic. To your dismay, that suggestion is clearly in line with the "logic" of gun control. Of course, I point this out as an opponent of gun control, because guns/knives don't kill people. People kill people. Cliché? Sure. It's still correct, though. If you outlaw guns/knives/whatever, people are still going to find a way to kill each other. A baseball bat, a sharpened broom handle, a philips screwdriver. All deadly weapons. England has a big problem with racism, ageism, and stratified wealth distribution. These are cultural problems, and they breed violence. To contrarily state that the means for violence propagates violence itself, is ludicrous. That we have arrived at a juncture where gun control logic would literally require outlawing of knives in this case, is why you felt the need to preempt that suggestion with mockery. I say England stay the course. Outlaw knives. Please, continue to be the working example of failed gun control. you don't seem much of an opponent of gun control. Most people in Britain openly deride the idea of having the same ridiculous gun laws of America. Headbangaa...a gun is MORE dangerous than a knife. A knife is MORE dangerous than a baseball bat. More people die from gunshots than from stabwounds. It is a GOOD idea that we have less guns in our streets. Although this isn't the topic for that, people seem desperate to avoid the actual OP. Perhaps they think it wasn't extensive enough ¬¬. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On July 08 2008 08:51 Plutonium wrote: This is called a moral panic. It pops up every once in a while when the news media latches onto something or other. The same thing happens all over the western world. Something grabs people's attention, and in order to sell newspapers, whatever people are scared of starts getting reported - It's not that there are more stabbings or kidnappings or shootings or whatever, it's that the media is suddenly reporting every single one of them instead of glossing them over. In your case, it's the chavs or whatever you call fuckup kids in the UK. There have always been fuckup kids, and let's face it, there always will be. They've just had different names over the past three thousand years. Well this is an important thing you see. Because we really have always had issues with class and violence, for example football violence used to be FAR more widespread. But any Brit will tell you, the streets are, every day, becoming more and more dangerous. This isn't, this really isn't just another manifestation of a new generation's discontent. Drugs are stronger, people are more violent and disrespectful and the streets are more dangerous than before. From the 1990's to the 2000's, where there has been just as much TV coverage and documentation, most people will agree in England that they aren't exaggerating when they say things have deteriorated. No one can really put their finger on it. I guess you have to come over here and experience it. In England, you don't so much have 'trouble kids' as clearly identifiable members of society. They will be interspersed with the normal kids who have been allured to their cause. You have big groups of kids kicking around most towns, specifically Manchester Liverpool and London; in all of the inner cities clearly, but also most of the suburban areas. Just growing amounts. This is of course a case of panic in the nation. This isn't just about stabbings and deaths though, it's about the fact that people are more likely to be crossing roads and staring at the pavement than they were years ago. I wouldn't just blank it out as nothing, in all honesty. I don't know what any other English ppl think here, but I think most of you will agree that problems with hoodies/ chavs/ townies have not stayed on a steady slope since 1990, they have been increasing everywhere. Problems used to be mostly in the inner cities. Dudes would go around with guns and knives and shit all the time yeah sure. But it's now creeping into all aspects of society. It's flooding every location except the poshest areas and the most public of locations. And people really have reached a point where they would like to sort this problem out, because parents now fear their children being mugged at knifepoint wherever they go; not just if they are heading out to brixton on a cold night. | ||
|
Plutonium
United States2217 Posts
Anyways, I actually spent my time looking up statistics on crime in the UK, and I found a nifty report right Here that says that violent crime has been pretty much steady for the past eight years. | ||
|
TrainRape
46 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43151 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43151 Posts
| ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On July 08 2008 09:16 HamerD wrote: you don't seem much of an opponent of gun control. Most people in Britain openly deride the idea of having the same ridiculous gun laws of America. Headbangaa...a gun is MORE dangerous than a knife. A knife is MORE dangerous than a baseball bat. More people die from gunshots than from stabwounds. It is a GOOD idea that we have less guns in our streets. Although this isn't the topic for that, people seem desperate to avoid the actual OP. Perhaps they think it wasn't extensive enough ¬¬. I find it interesting that "danger" is attributed to an item rather than its intended use. A gun is simply efficient when employed for dangerous purposes. More efficient than a knife, which is more efficient than a screwdriver. None of these items are "dangerous"; that is personification of an inanimate object. This alludes to my original point. So when we outlaw because their "efficiency in killing" is too high, I believe that is a very slippery slope. Chibi's suggestion that we consider incidental details is also slippery and subjective. But this isn't a gun control thread (well, it sort of is) so I'll just leave it at that. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
Regards your post plutonium, I am pretty dismayed to see that no one has really any opinion on solutions to the social situation. They all seem desperate to disprove it is the case that any action is needed at all. The problems with your post are that the facts and figures the government presents do nothing to account for the anti social behaviour, the increasing prevalence of intimidating and dangerous groups, haranguing and beatings. There is no figure indicating the amount of areas which are now dangerous to walk through. I don't even know if there's a separation between stab woundings and beating woundings. I wonder if any other English ppl have an opinion on whether this media escalation is pure hyperbole or if actually the media is finally viewing the subject in fair light (which is my opinion). | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On July 08 2008 09:54 HeadBangaa wrote: So when we outlaw because their "efficiency in killing" is too high, I believe that is a very slippery slope. regardless, that is the basic reason. Guns enable people to be more lethal than knives. Incidentally, the murder statistics would apparently be much higher if kids knew how to slash and stab arteries correctly. Sorry btw for that other guy, even if it were the case that crime and social indimidation and general disrespect and disillusion has stayed the same for 8 years; that wouldn't mean it shouldn't be dealt with and tackled and diminished. Situations like this provide cause for debate. Saying that these situations have caused the debate is pretty obvious. The thing is that problems float around society for ages until they become the most publicised, at which point even parliament gives more attention to them. So it is often healthy to follow the country's general attention, because it regularly changes and it means we all have something direct to talk about. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43151 Posts
And I grew up in the south in a middle class area (which is why we still have grammar schools) and my university, although technically part of the University of London, is in Surrey and therefore chavs can't afford the houses. | ||
| ||
