The state of the nation

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by BPS666, Jul 2, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Probably gonna get flamed for this........

    After watching 'she who cast's no shadow' (C*nty Booth QC) sit and moralise over knife crime amongst our youth. I eventually managed to stop wishing her and her ilk a thousand deaths and pondered the following conundrum:

    How the f*ck did Britain get to this state of affairs? The only conclusion I can draw is that the social experiment embarked upon by Zanu NL has dry bummed the country for the last 10 years.

    There is a lot of debate on C4 at the moment asking the same questions but in true C4 style they lay blame anywhere but at the feet of the little barstewards that do this sort of kak. I am sick of being asked to fund projects (via my tax) for some scrotes offspring which may or may not deter said offspring from killing my offspring. I am also sick of being told that I can't comprehend the circumstances in which these poor little darlings are being dragged up.

    How do we deal with this, short of the usual "kill em all" response?

    We see two extremes of our society hit the headlines everyday. We have those giving everything (literally) on operations and those taking everything on our streets.

    I really am starting to hate Britain
  2. Made my mind up after seeing the Dundee Police story today. My application to emigrate to Canada will go in as soon as I've got the visda fee cheque from my bank.
  3. old_fat_and_hairy

    old_fat_and_hairy LE Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    The response to knife crime has been to stop, search and arrest anyone with a kife. Or so we are led to believe. Now I have carried a knife for years. At present it is a natty Swiss Army one, but has varied. Am I a thug ready to shank anyone who shows me disrespect? No, I'm a quite elderly chap who smokes a pipe. I suspect that every pipe smoker carries a knife, but rarely do they brawl and stab people.
    As a young lad ( we didn't have teenagers in my day, couldn't afford them) I had a folding knife. And a sheath knife. Just about every boy did. But I didn't use them on anyone until Her Maj (Gawd bless Her) employed a rather dapper little Cpl to show me how, and the even gave me a rather nice Sykes-Fairbairn to play with.
    So, what is the answer to knife crime? is it to ban them? Well, how would we cut our bread, eat our food, or lay lino? Instead, and I realise it is a hugely radical and new idea, why not severely punish those who use them illegally? Instead of ASBOs, communiti service orders or cautions, why not jail them for 10 years minimum?
    I know, the nay-sayers will say that this is no deterrent, just as they point to hanging as being no dterrent for murder, but, and this also may be a surprise, when someone is locked up for 10 years, the chance of stabbing a pensioner in the shopping precinct, by that person, decreases expotentially. Just as hanging someone for murder decreases the chances of that person being released and doing it once again.
  4. We got to this state because when Labour was elected the priority was to be re-elected, not to run the country well but to run it to the Party's advantage.
    The police have been emasculated by do-gooders insisting that there is a reason behind the bad behaviour of youth other than pure nastiness which is not controlled.
    It has been said before but in the days of Approved Schools, Borstals and without the Human Rights Act things were more peaceful. personally, I have always considered hanging as a very effective deterrent and I think that statistics (lies) will bear this out. Don't only consider murder, but also manslaughter which appears to be often used to avoid a murder conviction
  5. Grownup_Rafbrat

    Grownup_Rafbrat LE Book Reviewer Good Egg (charities)

    ofnh you have put the situation very well.

    To me the problem is the change in the definition of the word 'respect'. When my parents gave me a penknife, it came with dire warnings as to what would happen if I were caught putting it to improper use. Because I respected my parents, and they taught me to respect others and their property, the naughty uses to which I put it were quite minor, and did not involve harming other people.

    Nowadays 'respect' seems to mean 'acknowledge publicly that I'm better than you or I'll hurt you', and 'I can do what I like because it's my right, and I don't have to respect you or your property'.

    Add that to the lack of discipline, and lack of consequences to breaking the rules, and you get the current situation. To repeat a comment I made yesterday, today is the 62nd anniversary of the second day of the Battle of the Somme. Those poor men sacrificed everything so some nutter could feel like a big-man because he has a knife?

    Back on topic, if we were to cull human rights lawyers, particularly the one mentioned at the top of this thread, the little darlings wouldn't get off by claiming poor circumstances, and we might make a start in building proper respect, a sense of duty, and some responsibility to the wider community. Time to build more jails, fund them properly so that education and rehab can take place there, and start using them.
  6. This countries problems all stem from complete lack of discipline instilled at an early age, the chav parents are usually dumb teenagers with no discipline themselves, and middle class parents, I mean christ knows what they think, some bizarre melanage of trendy techniques and desperate fear of being seen as unfashionably strict or old fashioned or something. We can cuss the teachers down all we want, but its up to parents to instill basic self -discipline. How did we end up afraid of our own children as a society though? Teenagers are clueless, and usually can dish it out but can't take it, how come we're letting them rule the streets? Responsible adults could sweep the scum clear if we weren't so afraid as a group and didn't refuse to work as a community. Its like that dad who got beaten to death when remonstrating with a gang of the little sh1tes up north-where were his neighbours? These scum are very brave when theres 10 of them and one adult, they'd fcuking sh1t it like the cowardly pack of dogs they are if confronted by 10-20 grown men...
  7. My own personal opinion is probably reflective of the general consensus amongst the arrse communty.

    What really grips my toly is the fact that on the whole, the population agree that tougher measures are required, but yet again it's the liberals amongst who shout the loudest about the rights of the perps.

    Why do our politicians think they know better than the people who elected them? I am very firmly of the opinion that once you break the law of the society in which you live then you forfeit the rights that the society offers you and this includes your human rights (or do human rights extend to the animals that now dominate our headlines).

    I was deeply opposed to national service, but increasingly I find myself agreeing that some form of national community service (invariably not the armed forces) is required for all school leavers. The education system should be given back the right to conduct corporal punishment and expulsion should mean expulsion to Borstal type environments.
  8. Grownup_Rafbrat

    Grownup_Rafbrat LE Book Reviewer Good Egg (charities)

    I think, because they no longer live in the society of the people who elect them. They live in gated communities, or areas where they only meet a narrow range of other people, with the same opinions as themselves. They are no longer local union officials, shop stewards, NFU members or independently-minded others who want to 'change the world for the better'. Mostly they are career politicians, in it for the money, and relying on focus groups, policy advisors and lobbyists, all of whom are paid by vested interests to tell them what to think.

    I also believe that their morals are as bad as those of the knife-wielding chavs they despise. Like the chav, there's little a politician won't do for money (cash for questions, cash for honours, cash for second homes I own already, cash for food because my salary isn't enough, cash for my children even though they aren't earning it, etc.). Their sense of right and wrong has been corrupted, and it's no surprise that the 'unworking' class have no respect for the country, when those who lead it have none either.
  9. Was anyone else sickend to the point of projectile vomiting by the Wicked Witch faking concern for the country which SHE AND HER LYING, MONEY-GRABBING, TREACHEROUS CNUT OF A HUSBAND SPENT NEARLY 10 YEARS WRECKING!?!?!? :pissedoff: :puker:

    Must just have been me, then. :evil:
  10. never got to the 'projectile vomit stage', just the purple with apoplectic outrage - Mrs BPS has now taken the batteries out of the remote and put a code on C4 so I can't watch it anymore.

    C*nty Blair VD is top of my wish list and a .50" to the grid should sort out that ugly set of chops that spews forth so much sh1t!
  11. I couldnt watch it..... I would have been to cross to sleep....
  12. For the first half of this government they set out to systamtically wreck the police and diminish our authority on the streets. Back in about 1998 I can remember a senior PC saying "all this is going to lead to anarchy and they don't see it" well Richie, you were right son.

  13. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    It's quite simply that the emphasis has changed dramatically from the needs and rights of the majority to pandering to the whims of various minorities.

    Whereas one would think that the general public, the majority would be considered first and foremost in terms of laws, taxes and the like, it has changed. Now, all minority groups and interest sections of our national community take a far higher priority.

    Drug dealers: Rather than jail them for long periods and deny them access to drugs (you would think it would be quite easy in prison, but alas,no), they are given billions in treatment programs and kept on the streets where possible - they, not society in general are considered to be the victims.

    Criminals: Rather than jail them for lengthy periods, during which time they are given education and re-habilitation programs, they are instead pandered to during 'community' programs, or given TVs, games and access to drugs and other criminals during their short stays in prison. They are not required to learn skills or trades valuable to the greater community. They, not society or the greater law-abiding majority are treated as the victims.

    The Work-shy: Keep giving them hand-outs with no requirement to get educated so that they can better serve the working majority who keep them. They, not the tax-paying, law abiding majority are treated as victims, whilst everyone else is seen as a cash cow.

    Chavs and wasters: A dangerous, stupid and illiterate underclass that carry knives and rob people. Rather than enforce a rigorous standards-based education and trade training, they are allowed to wander around and do as they please, as to do otherwise would be an infringement of their 'umin rights. They are treated as victims of the uncaring majority, and the majority has to make allowances for that victimhood. Society in general that suffers at the hands of feral youths is considered to be at odds with the law through vigilantism if it tries to do anything about it - Tony Martin for example.

    Immigrants and ethnic minorities: Given a far higher priority to housing, access to services and benefits than the indigenous population, because, at the end of the day, THEY are the victims. Only now are they being required to understand the culture and integrate into the majority - and that only after becoming fearful of a massive backlash from the otherwise silent majority. Foreign criminals who rape, murder and rob are still, in the majority, allowed to remain in this country rather than get shipped back to their homelands on the first available flight. Many other immigrants who are denied leave to remain are being paid bribes of thousands of pounds to bugger off home, rather than simply being ejected. Far from entry into this country being seen as a privilege and and honour, it is deemed by this government to be the inalienable right of anyone who cares for it. People who's skin colour is anything but indigenous white are given a HIGHER status when looking for jobs, and thus, white people of whatever nationality can legally be discriminated against - including the indigenous peoples.

    Women: Approximately half the population of this country. Fought for, and waited a looooong time for laws that gave them equality with men. Finally get it, only to find that this gobment sees them as a 'minority' that deserve rights that are over and above those of the rest of the population - ie: males.

    White, indigenous males: As a rule, hard working, supportive of their families, many of whom have ancestors who fought and died in many government initiated wars for empire and trade. Now considered, despite being the majority along with white indigenous females to be a class of people with LESS rights, and LOWER priorities for the services of this country, despite contributing the MOST in taxes and blood over the centuries.

    The Police and Courts: Hamstrung by a load of legislation and rules designed by this government to hobble both them AND the law abiding majority in favour of minorities, foreigners, criminals and the underclasses.
  14. It is a massive failure of Government caused by a raft of muddled policies that stem from a utopian socialist view that is strongly against prison but with a political need to make the right noises about being "Tough on crime". So we end up just that: Political Noise and the rigging of Police activity by setting targets that produce figures that look good only on paper.

    Now the do-gooders will bleat that the UK imprisons more people per head of population than the rest of Europe. True, but that is meaningless unless put in the context of crime rates: a higher crime rate (as in the UK) should mean more people in jail. But not so:

    "In the EU the average number of prisoners per 100,000 population (unweighted) in 2003 was 98, compared with 139 in England and Wales.

    But if we compare the number of prisoners to the number of recorded crimes, the EU average was 17.5 and the figure for England and Wales was 12.4. In fact, 8 out of 15 EU countries had rates of imprisonment for every 1,000 crimes that were higher. Scotland also has a higher rate, 13.6 per 1,000 crimes."

    "With a prison population in England and Wales of 80,000, if we imprisoned at the same rate as France, the prison population would be 91,113. If custody were used at the same rate as in Scotland, there would be 88,142 in jail. Socialist Spain has the highest rate per 1,000 crimes and if her rate applied in England and Wales the prison population would be about 369,000."

    You end up with a very unhappy position:

    "An 18-month survey of the social science evidence on effective policies for crime reduction has reached three main conclusions about Government policy:

    • The Government has wholly or partly ignored overseas evidence of programmes that work.

    • It has implemented programmes despite evidence that they have not worked elsewhere.

    • When it has pursued evidence-based policies, it has failed to implement them effectively."


    To summarise: the Government is failing to get many simple things right.

    1. Serious and persistent offenders are not being jailed.

    2. The most basic measures necessary to encourage a law-abiding life on release are not being taken in all cases: particularly getting prisoners off drugs and providing sufficient basic and vocational skills.

    3. Efforts to reform young offenders, where hopes for reform must be the highest, are particularly inadequate, as the NAO found. Drug treatment was often not available when needed and training courses begun during the custodial part of Detention and Training Orders (DTOs) were often not continued in the community.

    4. Prisoners continue to be discharged without any sustained supervision to discourage them from resuming old habits.
  15. IMHO ETC.

    There are a number of factors.

    1. During the eighties, the message was, F*&K everyone else, as long as I'm all right. - We are now seeing the first generation of children whose parents learnt that as they grew up.

    2. Labour do not believe in personal responsibility. They believe in socialism, it is societies fault if i decide to knife someone. At least the tories in the eighties, while they put across the message "fcuk everyone else" were also saying "personal responsibility". Labour feel it is their position to enforce good behaviour on the people.

    3. As a way to enforce social policy, the labour party took direct political control of the police. Gone are the days of common sense policing. The people can no longer trust the police to ensure justice is done, so more and more are taking the law into thier own hands. (not good when points 1 and 2 are factors!)

    There is an extreme example which i believe proves the point. In Japan, law is maintained by massive social monitoring and indoctrination that you must follow 'the rules'. This is great when the individual identifies themselves as a member of that society and that those rules apply to them. When they are placed outside of the established social structure, their behaviour is no longer bound by any 'internal' moral code. they simply do whatever they want. I believe this explains their behaviour during WWII and is why I am most unhappy with their refusal to admit wrongdoing. If their society doesn't learn from it, they will repeat it.

    In the UK, we have historically been very individualistic. Our morals were our own. Yes, they were tought by our parents, but we were tought to make the right decision for ourselves, regardless of the situation. This, I believe, is why brits have tended to behave better when put in positions of power than people from many other nations. (perhaps this is learned as children by being let out in the morning to do whatever, and only called in in the evening.)

    The labour government policy is taking away these 'internalised' morals, so that, when there is no perceived threat of punishment, more people are willing to do 'whatever they please'.


    We need to get back to using common sense.

    1. Policing for the people, not the state.
    2. Develop a sense of personal responsibility in the young - Develop an internalised moral code.
    3. Develop a sense of respect for other people in the young.

    None of these things will happen while the police are serving the state, rather than social justice.

    My 2d.