...and between those who believe that man is a moral creature versus those who subscribe to a wholly naturalistic view.highlights the difference between reality and theory
Upvote
0
Streets are safer ...my backside they are..
- Thread starter Hedgie
- Start date
You see - the 'vigilante-style' method of dealing with thugs is in my mind a totally different thing from dealing with kids.
I have no problem in knocking a thug out if he needs it - and have done on a few occasions, a pre-requisite of where I live unfortunately. I certainly cannot hit a child - although I can empathise with some people who know when they probably are best to do so.
I have no problem in knocking a thug out if he needs it - and have done on a few occasions, a pre-requisite of where I live unfortunately. I certainly cannot hit a child - although I can empathise with some people who know when they probably are best to do so.
Upvote
0
Oh yes there is:
Don't make guns
Don't make bullets
Don't sell guns
Take away the means for shooting kids and they won't get shot.
There are a million shot guns in private hands in the UK what exactly for?
they were designed to shoot something or someone.
I think the US demonstrates the effect of freely available firearms.
Now if you really feel compeled to shoot "Tweety" out of his tree a catapult will do fine
Earl
I dont know if this has already been mentioned but I dont think its the shot guns that we know about that are the problem, licenced shotguns are regulated, my dad has one and gets checked by the police.
Its the hand guns etc that no one knows who owns that are the problems - so how do you expect these guns to be removed from the hands of thugs - they arent going to admit to having them in the first place.
Upvote
0
Sure.
If we really are moral creatures and there really is a moral law underlying our world, there are clear definitions of 'right' and 'wrong'. Previous generations made this assumption, and the laws of our land are largely based on them. Some commentators might call these laws 'civilised', and they pave the way for an ordered society.
On the other hand, popular culture seems to have embraced a new view, one in which everything is naturalistic, the result of impersonal processes and philosophies based on 'survival of the fittest'. In this interpretation of life, there are no absolute rights or wrongs and there is no moral law, per se. As a result, everyone should feel free to do what they believe is right in their own eyes.
From the conflicting opinions you've expressed in this thread, those two views appear to be wrestling for contention. On the one hand, you believe that there is a long-term 'moral' solution to the problem - and I agree with you. On the other hand, you fall back to 'survival of the fittest' and beating up thugs, whether legal or not. I don't believe these two opinions are compatible; your proposed short-term solution probably excludes your long-term solution from standing a chance.
Either there is a moral law - in which case beating up thugs is as bad as beating up innocent bystanders - or there isn't - in which case you'll simply do what appears to be right in your own eyes at any point in time. Frankly, you can't have it both ways. Would the real CJD please stand up.
Upvote
0
Ok
There's nothing 'new' or 'popular culture' about it. Individuals, gangs and sub-cultures that do not want to conform to society's laws (or morals, if you prefer) have always existed - pre Darwin. So ignoring your evolutionary reference; some people do not accept society's rules and do feel they can and should do what they like. Society has always tried to prevent them.
Well no. I'm not wrestling with anything, nor do I think there are two views. I'm merely recognising, pragmatically, that some local problems might be dealt with more efficiently by some professional thuggery on behalf of the good guys. (I have to say that this is purely theoretical and more than a little tongue in cheek; I don't have a problem with gangs and I wouldn't have a clue about how to go about getting them beaten up.)
Having said that, I find no moral contradiction in saying that I am prepared to break a minor (or even major) moral code in order to prevents a criminal harming me or my family. And I doubt any sane individual would differ. If you wish to call that survival of the fittest, so be it.
They're not compatible and if applied on a large scale it would certainly fail. As I have said.
There isn't a moral law in the sense you feel there is (ie tablets of stone from god) but there are codes of behaviour that are prevalent at any point in time.
The real CJD does what he feels is right in his own eyes but he is informed by what society thinks is right and if he differs markedly from it, he suffers at the hands of society.
In other words, I am responsible for my own actions but answerable also to the rest of society.
Upvote
0
A
Admiral Collections
The fact some children have no concept of right or wrong and the value of another persons life makes pitiful reading.
Are the parents responsible? Of course they are but if they have never been taught this basic rule what chance do their children have?
My son is 12 and is currently on holiday with his friends family, usually I'm cool with him being away, fostering independence, loving the fact he is happy and content enjoying his holiday but between the Maddie McCann issue and this boy being gunned down, I just want him home.
Are the parents responsible? Of course they are but if they have never been taught this basic rule what chance do their children have?
My son is 12 and is currently on holiday with his friends family, usually I'm cool with him being away, fostering independence, loving the fact he is happy and content enjoying his holiday but between the Maddie McCann issue and this boy being gunned down, I just want him home.
Upvote
0
My son is 12 and is currently on holiday with his friends family, usually I'm cool with him being away, fostering independence, loving the fact he is happy and content enjoying his holiday but between the Maddie McCann issue and this boy being gunned down, I just want him home.
I understand your concerns but the reason that those 2 incidents made the news at all was because they are so very, very rare.
There is a far higher chance of your 12 year old being hurt by an accident in the home that by being shot or kidnapped.
It's desperately important to get these things into perspective because otherwise our kids don't get to learn about the real world and they miss out on their childhood.
Upvote
0
C
Chris Kaday
Sure we have to get the headlines in perspective but the increased potential for violence is all around us. Out trainer had his 9 year old son with him on Sunday and after we finished training we suggested we took him for some lunch as he was just moping around the gym. Seeing life through the eyes of a 9 year old for an hour or so was pure joy. However he also talked about the bullying at school (Holland Park no less) the trouble makers and the boys with knives who he avoided by staying in for an hour sometimes until they had gone. This intelligent 9 year old had a great perspective on things but one could not help thinking what a shame he has to grow up with all this so close. If we were a young couple with kids we certainly would not bring them up in the UK. The only thing you can depend on is that it will get gradually worse like everything else in this country. If you do not agree then name me three things in the UK that have actually improved.
Oh dear I sound like a Daily Mail reader
Chris Kaday
Oh dear I sound like a Daily Mail reader
Chris Kaday
Upvote
0
Agreed
1. Pubs and restaurant food
2. Air pollution
3. Holidays and travel
4. Polio, Cholera, Bronchitis, heart surgery, cancer treatment etc etc
5. Exam results
6. Unions
7. GDP. Inflation, Interest rates
8. Northern Ireland
9. Roman Catholic abuse of children
10. more meritocracy - less deference
For a start.
Upvote
0
C
Chris Kaday
Agreed
1. Pubs and restaurant food
2. Air pollution
3. Holidays and travel
4. Polio, Cholera, Bronchitis, heart surgery, cancer treatment etc etc
5. Exam results
6. Unions
7. GDP. Inflation, Interest rates
8. Northern Ireland
9. Roman Catholic abuse of children
10. more meritocracy - less deference
For a start.
OK I grant you the food has improved (at a price) but the rest?
2. You clearly do not live in London,
3. Holidays are when more and more people escape the UK.
4. Gosh some of those diseases were a long time ago and our cancer treatment is well behind many other countries,
5. Dumb down the standards and you can get any result - more and more kids are leaving school without even basic reading skills,
6. Union power was a long time ago and it is on the way back too,
7. Interest rates rising and actually higher than on the continent.
8. Northern Ireland is Northern Ireland
9. See number 8
10. Really not sure I understand no 10 but what else do you expect from a Daily Mail reader - only joking
I was surprised you did not mention the pub opening hours and no smoke filled bars!
Is there another thread here?
Chris kaday
Upvote
0
I guess you need to specify a time period.
(warning; if you want evidence of Daily Mail rantings about teenagers and 'things are getting worse' I can go back as far as Aristotle if you like)
(warning; if you want evidence of Daily Mail rantings about teenagers and 'things are getting worse' I can go back as far as Aristotle if you like)
Upvote
0
R
RayB
CJD,
There was a phone in on Talk Sport the other day about this, and a father phoned in. The nuts and bolts of it were:
Yuman Rites - it has ruined this country - big time.
Bah - blimmin liberal twits
There was a phone in on Talk Sport the other day about this, and a father phoned in. The nuts and bolts of it were:
- Respectable middle class family, children bought up properly and lovingly
- Teenage 15 year old daughter met an older boy of 17
- Parents started to get worried about the "influence" of this boy and the deteiorating attitude of daughter.
- Then they found out he was a nasty piece of work - drug dealer etc
- Tried to ground her
- He turns up one evening
- Dad forbids daughter to go with him
- She refuses
- He has to restrain her physically (note restrain - not assualt)
- He goes away
- She "escapes" from the house in the early hours to meet him when the family is in Bed
Yuman Rites - it has ruined this country - big time.
Bah - blimmin liberal twits
Upvote
0
Do you really believe this stuff? How do you know that this has any truth in it at all?
Most of Human Rights stupid stories are simply myth and exaggeration. Daily Mail types love them now that they're bored with EEC legislation covering the curvature of bananas.
If you doubt the benefit of the Human Rights Act I suggest you try living in a country that doesn't have one for a while - perspectives change when you are locked up and tortured without charge for a few years......
Upvote
0
R
RayB
You really are talking utter nonsense now - start a poll to see how many here agree with you
Yes other parts of the world suffer humans rights abuse - but we hardly had a problem that needed this ACT did we.
Now you have idiots who know their rights and have no concept of RESPONSIBILITY
Grow up
Upvote
0
In my immature way I'm trying to point out that we take an enormous amount for granted in the UK. We are the envy of most of the world - ask a Polish plumber. Fret not, I'm not going to make another list.
(And before anybody else chips in, I'm not saying we don't have problems - no country does - or even that some things are getting worse; they are.)
On the 'Yuman Rights' thing - I am personally very grateful that my rights are now protected by a legislature outside of our own.
You may remember that the UK has no written constitution and that technically, with all the talk of citizenship, we are still subjects of the queen.
The big picture is that with a bit of luck and some very grown up attention to the continual fine tuning of European legislation, we will make it into the next century without a major European war which has been the UK's fate for 500 years or more.
The more we tie our laws into those of our world partners the less chance we have of killing each other on a biblical scale and the less chance I have of having to defend myself against a rogue government taking too much power into its own hands.
I can live with the ignorant and uneducated rants of those wishing to sell newspapers (and sometimes even those that read them) so long as we get the big things right and continue to fix the small.
How soon they forget. Or in some cases, never knew to start with.
(And before anybody else chips in, I'm not saying we don't have problems - no country does - or even that some things are getting worse; they are.)
On the 'Yuman Rights' thing - I am personally very grateful that my rights are now protected by a legislature outside of our own.
You may remember that the UK has no written constitution and that technically, with all the talk of citizenship, we are still subjects of the queen.
The big picture is that with a bit of luck and some very grown up attention to the continual fine tuning of European legislation, we will make it into the next century without a major European war which has been the UK's fate for 500 years or more.
The more we tie our laws into those of our world partners the less chance we have of killing each other on a biblical scale and the less chance I have of having to defend myself against a rogue government taking too much power into its own hands.
I can live with the ignorant and uneducated rants of those wishing to sell newspapers (and sometimes even those that read them) so long as we get the big things right and continue to fix the small.
How soon they forget. Or in some cases, never knew to start with.
Upvote
0
You're right about the lack of a constitution, which I find amazing. Mind you, I'm not so happy with some of the legal statements from Europe about individual rights, but then again I'm now familiar with and used to the American versions.
It's very important to enshrine in law our individual rights so that no government can take them away. It's also important to enshrine in law our property rights, and this IMHO is where we're weak in Britain. In the US, I have the right to use force, even lethal force, to protect my home and my family. I'm not convinced that I'd be guaranteed those rights if I lived in Britain. That's very pertinent to this thread, which refers to the effects of violence against the individual.
On the whole, though, having seen how the government and the police impact negatively the daily lives of citizens of other countries, we don't know how good we have it.
It's very important to enshrine in law our individual rights so that no government can take them away. It's also important to enshrine in law our property rights, and this IMHO is where we're weak in Britain. In the US, I have the right to use force, even lethal force, to protect my home and my family. I'm not convinced that I'd be guaranteed those rights if I lived in Britain. That's very pertinent to this thread, which refers to the effects of violence against the individual.
On the whole, though, having seen how the government and the police impact negatively the daily lives of citizens of other countries, we don't know how good we have it.
Upvote
0
You absolutely have those rights in the UK. You are though, correspondingly obliged only to use reasonable force in defending them. Reasonable force can, and does, include killing them if you reasonably believe your life - or those of others - are in imminent danger.
What is reasonable is judged by '12 good men and true', most of which will be of the 'hanging is too good for them mind set' so by and large the Daily Mail will be disappointed.
You are not, unlike some US States I believe (or is this myth too?) allowed to shoot trespassers dead without just cause.
Upvote
0
If I wake up to find a stranger in my house, I have the right to shoot them - yes. It's comforting to know, and it's a real deterrent against home invasions. The law clearly protects me and my property, which is what a constitution is supposed to do.
In my case, though, my first line of defence is two very protective and big dogs.
Upvote
0
D
Dawg
The UK does have a written constitution. It does not have a codified one. There is an argument that codification can be a straitjacket; that an uncodified constitution is more adaptable, 'organic', and hence preferable.
(This is the base of the 'living constitution' argument in the USA.)
Upvote
0
R
RayB
In the UK, if a burgular breaks in and trips over on a rug inside you house, who gets prosectued?
BAH
Upvote
0
T
Tobes
So the law you refer to says you can shoot no matter what the circumstances may be? That it's not protection, it's prevention? Sounds like the Wild West to me if so
And Dawg is right, we have a constitution and also our own Bill of Rights written before the more famous American version, that version starting off with an adaption of the Magna Carta.
The cool thing about the Queen being completely apolitical is that if Gordon Brown were to go insane and force through something ridiculous like, say, hmmm what would a Western country never do oooh segregation for example, she could just go 'Not bloody likely, yah' and disolve Parliament...Like she did to Australia teehee...Of course there would then be a democratic election...I find that more comforting in some ways than a Republic.
Upvote
0
T
TSx
OK, so can you point to an example where this has happened and was successful? I did a quick google search and the majority of cases were in the Tony Martin case, and ultimately led to this. I'm sure that will lead to the wrongs and rights of the Tony Martin case, but I'll not go into that yet.
In fact, there are very few cases (and non successful) on the whole of BBC news of burglars suing victims. The rest of the page comprises of cases in America (and one in Australia) where burglars have sued victims and also been unsuccessful (see here)
Its certainly not influenced in any way by the Human Rights Act
Upvote
0
T
TSx
That news article covers an opinion-piece about the rights of homeowners to defend themselves. That for a start is fundementally different to what you posted. The law probably could do with clarifying, but if there is a universal 'right-to-kill' within your own home, murders actually become pretty easy, just by setting someone up. Sometimes, it is neccesary to prosecute a homeowner when there are suspicious circumstances (it is a right to defend yourself, not a right to extract vengence), and even then, the law most definitely errs (rightly) on the side of the victim.From the BBC I could find more if needed
So, I'll ask again, can you provide me with any evidence of a burglar tripping over or injuring himself, and the victim then being prosecuted (presumably for negligence? I'm not sure). Lawsuits are completely different and allowed by law, but I'll accept a successful lawsuit if there is one.
Upvote
0
Yes I do understand both arguments and I do love the way our law has evolved over many centuries by precedent.
A vital part of either form of law is, of course the independence of the judiciary who interpret and apply it and I dislike the way politicians in the US can influence the interpretation of even a written or, if you prefer, codified, constitution by simple appointing the judges that agree with them.
Even so, I would like my rights to be written down simply somewhere in a form I can understand. Even if this then means 10,000 amendments thereafter.
It then feels that they belong to me; not the lawyers; but then I'm young and naive ;-)
Upvote
0
T
Tobes
Chase them as they're already running, you mean.
And that telegraph article associates the removal of rights with the removal of the right to bear arms...Oooh, an American, big surprise!
If all he can do is produce one story of the homeowner getting into trouble, from 1994, without, I might add, saying what the actual result was, I will still feel safe.
And that telegraph article associates the removal of rights with the removal of the right to bear arms...Oooh, an American, big surprise!
If all he can do is produce one story of the homeowner getting into trouble, from 1994, without, I might add, saying what the actual result was, I will still feel safe.
Upvote
0
That police document, while it comes across as reasonable, reveals exactly why a clear, legal statement of individual and property rights is needed. I could summarize the police statement as follows: "Trust us."
Upvote
0
In practice, it's really makes no difference; the press just tries to whip up a frenzy now and again. The checks and balances work. Judges are respected individuals, not politicians' tools, and they've proved that many times by asserting their independence.
And I'm Oliver Cromwell.
Upvote
0
So, do you trust them?
While trust is important at the personal level, the law is the only thing that can protect the individual from corrupt or negligent behaviour. Statements that imply "you should be OK" simply will not do.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
Latest Articles
-
90,000 jobs are heading your way. Your rates bill might get there firstIf you run a business in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds or Bristol, you were probably told some...- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 8 min read
-
How to Price a New Product or Service: We Asked UKBFOn 5 August, @Data Swami posted in the General Business Forum with a question that ought to have...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
70 years of director bans in six months: Companies House has stopped asking nicelyCompanies House published a release on August 6th 2026 that every company director should read...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
MTD for Income Tax: your first quarterly update is due 7 August.If you are a sole trader or landlord and your gross income from self-employment and property was...- maka
- Updated:
- 4 min read
-
Andy Burnham's Manifesto for Small Business, and How It Stacks Up Against Count BinfaceIf all goes to plan (or rather, to Labour's timetable), Andy Burnham will be sworn in as Prime...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 5 min read