Humodour Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 What. The. ****. Britain. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/115736...-worst-families Apparently that paper is populist garbage so a more reliable source would be good, but either way I'm bloody astonished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PoziomyPion Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 (edited) I knew Big Brother was still popular in UK, but that's pushing things a bit too far. If that law stays for good, I bet the definition of "sin bin families" will eventually broaden up. I wonder if that idea was consulted with psychologists or any other experts and I mean experts, not experts. Article from 2006 about first drafts of this Idea. http://www.wirralnews.co.uk/wirral-news/lo...80491-18220984/ April 2008 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-55...f-families.html There are other sources speaking about those sin-bins, so I guess article you posted is sadly true. Edited August 2, 2009 by PoziomyPion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord of flies Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 The reason this exists is because of an underlying ill of western society, which has plagued us for centuries. And that is the idea of the "undeserving poor." Under this theory, there is a significant subsection of the impoverished, the homeless, the jobless, et cetera, who choose to belong to that group. Societal causes and the class structure are not responsible. No, it is their personal failure to pull themselves up from abject poverty with no social safety net that resents poorly on them. It is their personal failure that their child can't attend school at all times, not because they live in such poverty that they can't do all the work that needs to be done to feed all the mouths and keep the roof over their heads. Because of this, we get the idea that we must ensure that the money goes to the right poor people, not some mythical Joe Shmoe poor person who just sits around all day and doesn't look for a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowtrain Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 I would say more A Clockwork Orange than 1984 Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humodour Posted August 2, 2009 Author Share Posted August 2, 2009 The reason this exists is because of an underlying ill of western society, which has plagued us for centuries. And that is the idea of the "undeserving poor." Under this theory, there is a significant subsection of the impoverished, the homeless, the jobless, et cetera, who choose to belong to that group. Societal causes and the class structure are not responsible. No, it is their personal failure to pull themselves up from abject poverty with no social safety net that resents poorly on them. It is their personal failure that their child can't attend school at all times, not because they live in such poverty that they can't do all the work that needs to be done to feed all the mouths and keep the roof over their heads. Because of this, we get the idea that we must ensure that the money goes to the right poor people, not some mythical Joe Shmoe poor person who just sits around all day and doesn't look for a job. But England has universal healthcare and welfare (including public schools), so that's quite a failure of a post as far as trolling goes. C for effort though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord of flies Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 But England has universal healthcare and welfare (including public schools), so that's quite a failure of a post as far as trolling goes. C for effort though. Enlighten me, then, Mr. "Krezack" (if that is your real name). What, praytell, is the reason this exists, except to ensure that the poors don't use their money the "wrong" way? The existence of a couple more public goods no more proves the idea of the "undeserving poor" doesn't exist in England any more than the prevalence of tapwater in my country proves it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowtrain Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 Based on Krezzie's link the situation appears to be mostly an attempt to deal with youth crime more than anything. Mostly by trying to keep kids in school and out of trouble. As I understand it, Britain has had a problem with youth crime for quite a few years now and they appear to be getting somewhat desperate to try and fix the problem. Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgon Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 I believe the official term is yobs and chavs. Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humodour Posted August 2, 2009 Author Share Posted August 2, 2009 But England has universal healthcare and welfare (including public schools), so that's quite a failure of a post as far as trolling goes. C for effort though. Enlighten me, then, Mr. "Krezack" (if that is your real name). What, praytell, is the reason this exists, except to ensure that the poors don't use their money the "wrong" way? The existence of a couple more public goods no more proves the idea of the "undeserving poor" doesn't exist in England any more than the prevalence of tapwater in my country proves it. Pro tip: When trolling, try and be coherent enough for people to actually get irate with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humodour Posted August 2, 2009 Author Share Posted August 2, 2009 Based on Krezzie's link the situation appears to be mostly an attempt to deal with youth crime more than anything. Mostly by trying to keep kids in school and out of trouble. As I understand it, Britain has had a problem with youth crime for quite a few years now and they appear to be getting somewhat desperate to try and fix the problem. So you think such invasive government action is justified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgon Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 This doesn't really have anything to do with denying people a serivice, however, drug users and their problem children are first on the list of 'undeserving poor', and I'll wager there are a lot of those in these intervention programmes. Of course it's staggeringly invasive, but this demographic doesn't have a lot in the way of political clout, so, they have to put up with more than anyone else. Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guard Dog Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 Over my dead twitching corpse would that go on here. I can't see any freedom loving Brit allowing this crap to take place but I fear most will think it's someone elses problem so long as it's not happening to them and the rest would demand the cameras be streamed on the web. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowtrain Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 Based on Krezzie's link the situation appears to be mostly an attempt to deal with youth crime more than anything. Mostly by trying to keep kids in school and out of trouble. As I understand it, Britain has had a problem with youth crime for quite a few years now and they appear to be getting somewhat desperate to try and fix the problem. So you think such invasive government action is justified? I don't think it will work. SO it's probably a waste of time and money. Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristes Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 I love England. I have relatives there and my family visits quite a bit. Hell, my brother goes there on business or pleasure at least six times a year. However, I can say from my only personal visit that I was chilled by the number of closed circuit cameras deployed, most specifically in London. I've heard said, and I believe it, that London employes the highest density of CCTV cameras of any city on earth. Yeah, it helps enforce traffic laws. It helps prevent theft. It helps do a lot of things, but western democracies the world over should out and out fear that this measure will hold. If the United Kingdom does not do away with this odious measure, then there it will similar movements in other countries will gain legitimacy. All it takes is one country, and a country has a long history of embracing personal freedom, to adopt this measure and it suddenly becomes far more palatable by others. "They introduced a similar program in the United Kingdom." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte Carlo Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 A few points that might assist the debate - 1. The Daily Express is an ailing dead tree press outfit that specialises in salacious, headline grabbing stories that tend to be light on actualite. 2. The current government has a definitely nasty authoritarian streak in it. People are tiring of it though, not that Mr. Balls has noticed. 3. The UK has generous welfare provision that is a talking point amongst taxpayers, focus group data will be telling the politicians that there is electoral mileage in the issue. There is, unambiguously, a problem with the economically inactive living on benefits in the UK, the data is pretty compelling to mainstream politicians of both the centre left and right. 4. The current government is heading for crushing defeat - it has about seven or eight meaningful legislative months left in it before it is utterly wiped off of the political map at the next UK General Election by the centre right Conservative Party. Therefore this is one of those scoping reports designed deliberately to get papers like The Express to crank out a front page about it. No doubt they'll also be promising free BMWs, flat screen TVs and massage therapy on the NHS next, knowing full well that it'll never happen but might save a marginal seat in some obscure East Midlands consituency. 5. Please carry on, but this is more of a bit of cynical media management by a dead government walking than 1984. Cheers MC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 Based on Krezzie's link the situation appears to be mostly an attempt to deal with youth crime more than anything. Mostly by trying to keep kids in school and out of trouble. As I understand it, Britain has had a problem with youth crime for quite a few years now and they appear to be getting somewhat desperate to try and fix the problem. So you think such invasive government action is justified? I don't think it will work. SO it's probably a waste of time and money. Seconded. The more cameras you put up, the more difficult they are to monitor. My wife teaches at a school with CCTV up around campus. It's in a rough part of town, they have a lot of gang problems. I consider them a blessing, my wife has been assaulted twice over the last 4 years and had some pretty nasty stuff written about her in graffiti. Thankfully the assaults were only a shove, but having the camera's around give me some comfort that hopefully it will never escalate past that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guard Dog Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 Based on Krezzie's link the situation appears to be mostly an attempt to deal with youth crime more than anything. Mostly by trying to keep kids in school and out of trouble. As I understand it, Britain has had a problem with youth crime for quite a few years now and they appear to be getting somewhat desperate to try and fix the problem. So you think such invasive government action is justified? I don't think it will work. SO it's probably a waste of time and money. Seconded. The more cameras you put up, the more difficult they are to monitor. My wife teaches at a school with CCTV up around campus. It's in a rough part of town, they have a lot of gang problems. I consider them a blessing, my wife has been assaulted twice over the last 4 years and had some pretty nasty stuff written about her in graffiti. Thankfully the assaults were only a shove, but having the camera's around give me some comfort that hopefully it will never escalate past that. That reminds me of a joke about teachers deserving combat pay. It's not so funny when you hear about it from somone who has actually experienced it. If I were her I'd keep a can of mace on the key chain, a stun gun in the purse and a Louisville Slugger under the desk. And a .38 in the car. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 LA teachers do actually get hazard pay, if I remember correctly. I believe you get a stipend in Oakland as well which basically is for teaching in a tough area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowtrain Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 LA teachers do actually get hazard pay, if I remember correctly. I believe you get a stipend in Oakland as well which basically is for teaching in a tough area. Are the two of you tryign to get her in a "better" teaching area? It must be a difficult thing to live with day after day. Feeling like your workplace is chronically unsafe can be pretty distracting. Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristes Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 (edited) You know, even schools where bad stuff happens don't tend to be all that bad. I mean, unless you're in a district where crime is so bad they have metal detectors and armed police roaming around, which would really suck. As I recall, Hurlshot is somewhere around Gilroy, which isn't such a bad area. I used to teach, but my students were merely misbehaved as opposed to criminal. I know someone who worked in Colton Joint Unified at the Bloomington high school. haha One of his students was young enough that her husband wrote her letters to excuse her if she were ill. Talk about a screwed up situation. You'd figure that a girl old enough to marry (with parental consent) would be emancipated. Of course, this was quite a few years back, so maybe the laws have changed. Oh, and to be on topic, I have to say that cameras in schools specifically as cameras use increasing across the board. I used to play a little game while I was in England, especially London, where I'd try to make the camera and then wink at it. Edited August 2, 2009 by Aristes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord of flies Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 Pro tip: When trolling, try and be coherent enough for people to actually get irate with you. My post is perfectly plain. If you don't understand some part of it, feel free to point it out and I'll explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 LA teachers do actually get hazard pay, if I remember correctly. I believe you get a stipend in Oakland as well which basically is for teaching in a tough area. Are the two of you tryign to get her in a "better" teaching area? It must be a difficult thing to live with day after day. Feeling like your workplace is chronically unsafe can be pretty distracting. I would rather her teach in a school with less gang problems, but she is happy there. She has taught in more suburban areas and she didn't really connect with the kids. No matter what school you are at, kids are going to have issues, but the kids that go home to million dollar houses were hard to sympathize with. So she teaches in the inner city and works hard to make a difference in the lives of kids who often have all sorts of issues at home. You can't really put a price on that. She teaches in downtown San Jose, which really isn't anywhere near as bad as some inner city areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreasyDogMeat Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Dammit Britain, stop giving Obama ideas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purkake Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 (edited) Pro tip: When trolling, try and be coherent enough for people to actually get irate with you. My post is perfectly plain. If you don't understand some part of it, feel free to point it out and I'll explain. Joke post? Edited August 3, 2009 by Purkake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 "Unworkable" comes to mind. But then again, I have no idea how far automated video surveillance can go, so what do I know. Stuff like ECHELON is pretty scary and it's been operating for decades. Nobody seems to care... which is by far the most horrific theme underlying in the novel. BTW, what do you think of Clean Feed? some mythical Joe Shmoe poor person who just sits around all day and doesn't look for a job.Are you suggesting that sloth doesn't exist? - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now