ABERS:

If the state can do what it likes with me, then I'll do what I like with the state became the norm, and the advent of the Human Rights Act has almost given that attitude some credibility.

How on earth did you work that one out?

---

BPitW 9-10 June 2007.
My website My flickr

Valentinecook:

My dad is a policeman, and many people who get arrested, say its "only cause im black", maby 50 years ago yes, but come on grow up.

I blame poor spelling for the breakdown in society

I'm afraid its still a big issue, people from ethnic minorities being far more likely to be stopped and searched and arrested. Racism in the police is still a live issue, witness the Stephen Lawrence enquiry and that BBC doc of police trainees in Manchester a few years back.

---

BPitW 9-10 June 2007.
My website My flickr

I'm sure that it's not possible to get to the bottom of this issue in a few short paragraphs. But I'm not going to let that stop me putting in my few pence worth.

A lot of the more considered statements that have been made before make sense in isolation, but what it seems to me everyone is trying to reach for is the one cause, or shortlist of causes for what appears to be a malfunctioning society.

I don't think this is an achievable aim. The causes will be many, varied and quite possibly impossible to fully establish.

It seems to me that the drivers of this apparent social collapse lie not with the failures of institutions, but firmly with the individuals concerned - and in the case of this debate that means just about everyone inhabiting the island.

For what it's worth, to my mind three of the main causes of antisocial behaviour at all levels (from playground yobs to politicians with their snouts in the trough) are:
1) The catastrophic collapse in the concept of personal and collective responsibility.
2) The idiocy behind the stricture that every individual is 'special'.
3) The criminalisation of normal (or at least median) behaviour.

This is necessarily a simplistic way of stating the situation.

I'm sure that all of us can find dozens of examples that support these three summaries.

Why did these things happen? A whole host of reasons from the need for politicians to keep the population in a permanent state of fear, to the ideas of political correctness -the truth must not be spoken in case it cause offence, to the success of capitalism in creating sufficient prosperity that enable minds to turn from life essential questions like 'how willl I eat today?' to facile shallow ones like 'I think I'll buy the organic sundried tomatoes'.

From these three main drivers many of the observed consquences flow.

Road rage for instance; It's not my fault, because I am 'special' and perfect I must be right, I am already a criminal, so what the heck? (I think this might be along the lines that Abers is driving at, if not, apologies).

The lack of educational rigour now being seen simply exacerbates the problems; gullibility leads to belief in all kinds of half-baked and unspportable ideas which by turns become laws.

I don't visit the UK very often these days; I know that France is far from perfect (I suspect everywhere is, and we definitely have a daft laws problem - difference is that here hardly anyone obeys them) but I do know that my daughter is safe and well educated at school, and that if I don't take a video camera to a school show they'll think I am an uncaring parent.

I know that I don't have to lock my house or my car for fear of theft, and that strangers on the street or in a shop will have a ready 'bonjour' and mean it.

I know that my government can pay lip service to the great carbon dioxide hoax and I will still have power because we're 75% nuclear.

As a parting thought, I reckon that the reason the UK binge drinks is because almost everything has become illegal and it's the handiest way of escaping the total emasculation of the individual.

These thoughts are necessarily brief and therefore general. It would take a good sized book to expand them satisfactorily.

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire anyone? A beautifully written book, if you ever get the chance - not read it for years, but jolly good.

Collapse follows decline follows decdadence follows prosperity - can't be stopped. Maybe it's our turn now . .

---

BPITW 5 times
Tringle WP Gallery
Hinfrance on flickr

Ive heard in the news today about raising the age for buying alcahol from 18-21...

how does anybody else feel about this??

Personally, again being young i can see the younger side of this argument! but lowering the age WILL NOT eliminate binge drinking! yes it will stop 18yr old lads buying booze and taking it out with their underage mates and getting wrecked! but then they will just go to older friends to buy it instead!! and if 14-15yr old kids can get old of alcahol now and get hammered, they will be able to get hold of it if the age limit moves or not!

Surely the problem that should be tackled is how are underage kids getting hold of alcahol in the first place? and why do young people binge drink?

Im a firm believer in the saying 'finding the cause to a problem is half way to the solution' by banging up the age limit and hoping the problem will go away is not the answer! they need to talk to young people and ask why they drink, and then ask what would help them stop, or at least help them drink responsibly?

Not only this but not all underage drinkers are binge drinkers, many such as myself enjoy a few with friends at a family party, just because we drink doesnt mean to say we are going to go out causing havoc and robbing old ladies, i think again all youth is being tarnished with the same brush because of the minority.

Maybe the problems are kids are bored? to stressed with no outlets? unresponsbile parents? and obvious lack of education!

of course upping the age limit to 21 will make it harder for kids to drink, but look at smoking, they upped the age to 18, it hasnt stopped any younger kids who want to smoke, from smoking! however the level of education on the subject has had results in stopping the amount of people from smoking!

and is this fair? if an 18 year old is allowed to drive, vote, get married, smoke, work, pay taxes and fight for his country is it fair he cant buy alcahol?

well this is my view on it anyway! how does everyone else feel about it?

---

Alex

Amature Alex:

Ive heard in the news today about raising the age for buying alcahol from 18-21...

Its probably the most effective way of solving the alleged problem of young adults not bothering to vote...

---

BPitW 9-10 June 2007.
My website My flickr

Tringle WP:

I'm sure that it's not possible to get to the bottom of this issue in a few short paragraphs. But I'm not going to let that stop me putting in my few pence worth. A lot of the more considered statements that have been made before make sense in isolation, but what it seems to me everyone is trying to reach for is the one cause, or shortlist of causes for what appears to be a malfunctioning society. I don't think this is an achievable aim. The causes will be many, varied and quite possibly impossible to fully establish. It seems to me that the drivers of this apparent social collapse lie not with the failures of institutions, but firmly with the individuals concerned - and in the case of this debate that means just about everyone inhabiting the island. For what it's worth, to my mind three of the main causes of antisocial behaviour at all levels (from playground yobs to politicians with their snouts in the trough) are: 1) The catastrophic collapse in the concept of personal and collective responsibility. 2) The idiocy behind the stricture that every individual is 'special'. 3) The criminalisation of normal (or at least median) behaviour. This is necessarily a simplistic way of stating the situation. I'm sure that all of us can find dozens of examples that support these three summaries. Why did these things happen? A whole host of reasons from the need for politicians to keep the population in a permanent state of fear, to the ideas of political correctness -the truth must not be spoken in case it cause offence, to the success of capitalism in creating sufficient prosperity that enable minds to turn from life essential questions like 'how willl I eat today?' to facile shallow ones like 'I think I'll buy the organic sundried tomatoes'. From these three main drivers many of the observed consquences flow. Road rage for instance; It's not my fault, because I am 'special' and perfect I must be right, I am already a criminal, so what the heck? (I think this might be along the lines that Abers is driving at, if not, apologies). The lack of educational rigour now being seen simply exacerbates the problems; gullibility leads to belief in all kinds of half-baked and unspportable ideas which by turns become laws. I don't visit the UK very often these days; I know that France is far from perfect (I suspect everywhere is, and we definitely have a daft laws problem - difference is that here hardly anyone obeys them) but I do know that my daughter is safe and well educated at school, and that if I don't take a video camera to a school show they'll think I am an uncaring parent. I know that I don't have to lock my house or my car for fear of theft, and that strangers on the street or in a shop will have a ready 'bonjour' and mean it. I know that my government can pay lip service to the great carbon dioxide hoax and I will still have power because we're 75% nuclear. As a parting thought, I reckon that the reason the UK binge drinks is because almost everything has become illegal and it's the handiest way of escaping the total emasculation of the individual. These thoughts are necessarily brief and therefore general. It would take a good sized book to expand them satisfactorily. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire anyone? A beautifully written book, if you ever get the chance - not read it for years, but jolly good. Collapse follows decline follows decdadence follows prosperity - can't be stopped. Maybe it's our turn now . .

It all comes down to selfishness and bad manners.

---

SK
The Best Photographer in the world 4th November - 5th November 2006 & 17th-18 November 2007
Oldboy’s Gallery

Hi Alex,

I wouldn't get too stoked up about it if I was you, from what I heard it is only the Scottish Parliament looking at the possibility of possibly maybe introducing a possible raising of the age to 21 for people purchasing Alcohol from off licences and supermarkets. It would apparently not affect Pub's so at 18+ you would still be able to purchase Alcohol but from a Pub, but not a supermarket.

What do I think about it? well frankly I'm not  that bothered about it as I'm well over 21, by the time any government actually get around to doing anything so will you be, by then you will probably have kids of your own and think that It's a great idea.

Cheers, Peter.

...............and just when you thought that things couldn't get any worse http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/24/ukcrime.law

I've been out all day but I knew there'd be a post on this one.

This is one of the most complex and difficult legal issues we've faced in decades. You could write entire books on this issue, unfortunately.

---

BPitW 9-10 June 2007.
My website My flickr

But doncha just know we'll be falling over backwards to ensure those who have been proven guilty, that at some point have no doubt `convicted themselves by their own words but where the final damning evidence was given by anonymous witnesses too terrified to speak in open court, walk free - and probably get a few million for wrongful imprisonment. Can't help feeling there must be some kind of compromise solution where it can be proved that giving evidence would be a death sentence - it will take the best legal brains to sort this out - and probably fail! One of those times when our desire for everyone to have equal rights under the law clashes with our desire to get murdering scumbags off the streets. I feel so sorry for the families of those killed by these low life who might now have to go throught the agony of appeals and seeing their relatives murderers walk free - and society who will have the same low life back out on the streets.

---

a few mediocre pics

Yes this is going to be a very difficult issue and I'm surprised that it hasn't been raised long long before now. My only wish is that we don't take the same approach as the Americans where if the law doesn't suit we'll just find a way around it or worse still, ignore justice at all. I know this is a bad comparison to make but feel sure you get my drift. It's not very easy to detach oneself from the emotive side of things in cases like this which is the last thing anyone wants or needs. In the end I think we have to disregard the fact that we are talking about murders, terrorists and the like here, and remember that we are talking about human beings in a civilised society. As such they are entitled to a fair and proper trial and it has generally always been considered that one has the opportunity to face one's accusers and question their evidence. I feel very sorry for the innocent parties in all this, the families of the victims whose suffering continues. However, I wouldn't want to see one injustice replaced with another injustice simply based on emotion. If we start denying people a fair trial then it won't be too long before the 'Tower' starts to fill up again or we start exporting people to places such as Australia simply on here-say evidence.

More on the issue here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/25/law.justice

And if a way is'nt found we could end up in a situation where certain criminals become untouchable and know they are. A civilised society trying to deal with uncivilised people and being oh so fair to them - but at least we'll have the reassurance that we have the high moral ground when they rob and kill again.....so that's alright then!

---

a few mediocre pics

High moral ground is no comfort when you or your relatives/friends etc are injured or killed by criminals who are on the street thanks to  the deficiencies of a legal system that is consistently failing to protect the public and deliver justice,it has become a self-serving gentleman's club divorced from reality-if witness anonymity is the only way to convict these offenders,then change the law to accomodate this,to hell with the niceties,protect and serve the public!

sue allen:

A civilised society trying to deal with uncivilised people and being oh so fair to them - but at least we'll have the reassurance that we have the high moral ground when they rob and kill again.....so that's alright then!

Sue - not sure if you were agreeing with my point of view, disagreeing or saying something else altogether. This is what I mean about it being an emotive subject, and I fully understand your 'hang em high' sort of attitude (if that's how you feel of course) and in this I couldn't agree more. Looking at it objectively of course, these uncivilised people (read criminals) only become so once they have been found guilty at which time you can send them to the guilotine for all I care. Until such time that they have been found guilty however, they should be considered innocent and have the right to a fair trial. This is surely the principle upon which our laws are based and apply to all whatever the charges made. If the law is to be changed in a way which denies people the opportunity to know who their accusers are, and to afford them an opportunity of questioning the evidence that is being said and presented against them, then it's almost as if they are being found guilty before the trial and now it's simply a case of manipulating or changing the law to suit what we already feel. Like I said earlier, not an easy problem to solve and glad that it doesn't fall upon me to find the solution.

Although the degree of crime is different the same principles apply and you have to ask yourself how you would feel if you were suddenly apprehended by the Police, charged with bashing an old lady over the head and then brought to trial without ever seeing the person, or even being told who the person is that supposedly saw you do this. You, although you can't prove it know full well that you were at home preparing your camera for the next days shoot. How do you discredit this witnesses evidence without even knowing who they are? It may be someone whose long had it in for you etc etc and you may well have clicked onto this had you been afforded the opportunity in the first place of knowing who they were.

Well I'm not sure how it works at present but my feeling about this is that it must be possible to frame something to allow for anonymous witnesses when it is necessary. It would be up to the police to bring forward evidence pre trial to put before a judge/panel of judges to prove that a witness would be in danger if their identity was known. If that proof was'nt there then the judges would disallow the witness. If you or I, with no previous record of violence and no conceivable way of proving a witness would be in danger of physical assault/death from us or anyone close to us were in the situation of being arrested then I can;t see how independent judges could possibly apply the option.

---

a few mediocre pics