QT last night - Will Self - what a fool

olly300

The_White_Horse wrote: »

However, 0what is wrong with using eugenics to rid the world of factors which are advantageous to the human race, such as genetic disease? Perhaps crime is simply a genetic disorder?
.

What do you mean by crime?

I'm serious.

Someone stealing pens from their workplace to use at home is committing a crime.

Someone driving at 32mph in a 30mph zone is committing a crime.

Therefore that means a large proportion of the UK population has criminal genes.

Running_Horse

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I'd rather hear someone say something controversial than the vacuous humbug from Ms Vorderman.

That's the problem with Mr Self. Presents himself as a controversial radical, while defending the established liberal status quo. Suggesting serious criminals are being brought back in for only smoking a spliff, when it turns out there are allegations of a serious nature. He is so far up the establishment backside he can't see or smell where he is. Meanwhile law abiding people are being assaulted, raped and murdered by those let out on the early release scheme.

The_White_Horse

olly300 wrote: »

What do you mean by crime?

I'm serious.

Someone stealing pens from their workplace to use at home is committing a crime.

Someone driving at 32mph in a 30mph zone is committing a crime.

Therefore that means a large proportion of the UK population has criminal genes.

i think it is something you have to have common sense with. stealing a pen from work is different to breaking into someone's house and stealing - probably mostly because of the frame of mind - no one says "i will purposely steal this pen from work to permanently deprive the company of it" it probably just happens without any thought.

I think we have to think of the gene in terms of a violent streak and/or a low morals.

As i say, it is a common sense thing. Anyone with a brain knows that murdering a baby is wrong, whereas going 32 in a 30 zone is not "wrong" per se. It is only wrong because of a man made arbitrary rule.

Mr.Brown_4

The_White_Horse wrote: »

whereas going 32 in a 30 zone is not "wrong" per se. It is only wrong because of a man made arbitrary rule.

I so agree. No way should I be stopped from cruising at reasonable speeds, which in my judgement are perfectly safe. This is not the same as littering, which in my view should be a capital punishment. No, being able to rev my Mondeo NutJob to its maximum while using a handheld phone is my human right. If a chav kid gets hurt in a school zone, so what? One less mouth to feed, bonus.

QueenOfTheDesert

I'm sorry but I cannot believe anyone would put the crimes of two ten year olds in the same class as crimes committed by adults or argue to treat/blame them in the same way. These boys were treated the way they were because the law in this country recognized this; if your 10 year old was caught shoplifting they would not be treated in the same way a 20 year old would be and rightly so. Would you really want to live in a society that would permanently lock up or execute a child?

For a start, a ten year old is the product of its environment - anyone on here with children will know that. They also copy their parents, these children (and children they were) were without doubt just doing what had been done to them.

10 year olds cannot vote, cannot legally have sex, drive, drink or buy alcohol or join the army. They are also under the age of criminal responsibility for good reason in that the law does not normally accept that a 10 year old is capable of making important decisions and judgements. Most 10 year olds also have no concept of death being permanent so can you really say that these two boys "knew what they were doing" in an adult/moral sense? "Wrong" for a ten year old has to have been taught by the parents; if everyone around you abused you and maltreated you, you too would have no sense of it being "wrong" - it would be the norm so disentangling right from wrong and victim from perpetrator becomes very messy which the law in this case also took into consideration and tried to give these boys a second chance.

I am not trying to excuse what Thompson and Venables did but would just like to introduce a little sanity, the almost animal response to these two (as was the case also with Mary Bell and her sidekick/accomplice Norma Bell in the Venables role) is born as much of our fear for/about our children and society's failings as what they actually did.

And as a final point, do any of you here have any idea how many crimes (and I include rapes) are committed in this country every year against young children by other children under the age of criminal responsibility? The number is huge, we only hear about it when there is a fatality and almost without fail the perpetrators have been abused themselves - abusers aren't born, they are created, if you want to blame someone I suggest you look at the parents and wider society.

The_White_Horse

Mr.Brown wrote: »

I so agree. No way should I be stopped from cruising at reasonable speeds, which in my judgement are perfectly safe. This is not the same as littering, which in my view should be a capital punishment. No, being able to rev my Mondeo NutJob to its maximum while using a handheld phone is my human right. If a chav kid gets hurt in a school zone, so what? One less mouth to feed, bonus.

you're right of course. 29 mph is far less safe than 30mph.

in fact why not 11mph???

The_White_Horse

QueenOfTheDesert wrote: »

I'm sorry but I cannot believe anyone would put the crimes of two ten year olds in the same class as crimes committed by adults or argue to treat/blame them in the same way. These boys were treated the way they were because the law in this country recognized this; if your 10 year old was caught shoplifting they would not be treated in the same way a 20 year old would be and rightly so. Would you really want to live in a society that would permanently lock up or execute a child?

For a start, a ten year old is the product of its environment - anyone on here with children will know that. They also copy their parents, these children (and children they were) were without doubt just doing what had been done to them.

10 year olds cannot vote, cannot legally have sex, drive, drink or buy alcohol or join the army. They are also under the age of criminal responsibility for good reason in that the law does not normally accept that a 10 year old is capable of making important decisions and judgements. Most 10 year olds also have no concept of death being permanent so can you really say that these two boys "knew what they were doing" in an adult/moral sense? "Wrong" for a ten year old has to have been taught by the parents; if everyone around you abused you and maltreated you, you too would have no sense of it being "wrong" - it would be the norm so disentangling right from wrong and victim from perpetrator becomes very messy which the law in this case also took into consideration and tried to give these boys a second chance.

I am not trying to excuse what Thompson and Venables did but would just like to introduce a little sanity, the almost animal response to these two (as was the case also with Mary Bell and her sidekick/accomplice Norma Bell in the Venables role) is born as much of our fear for/about our children and society's failings as what they actually did.

And as a final point, do any of you here have any idea how many crimes (and I include rapes) are committed in this country every year against young children by other children under the age of criminal responsibility? The number is huge, we only hear about it when there is a fatality and almost without fail the perpetrators have been abused themselves - abusers aren't born, they are created, if you want to blame someone I suggest you look at the parents and wider society.

of course the criminal should not take any blame. venables is a good boy and totally blameless for the death of the boy he tortured and murdered. it of course someone elses fault.

welcome to new labour's blame free country - where no one has to take responsibility for anything.

lefties - the biggest cancer in the country.

QueenOfTheDesert

The_White_Horse wrote: »

of course the criminal should not take any blame. venables is a good boy and totally blameless for the death of the boy he tortured and murdered. it of course someone elses fault.

welcome to new labour's blame free country - where no one has to take responsibility for anything.

lefties - the biggest cancer in the country.

Blameless - no. Mitigating circumstances? Absolutely but I see you are struggling to see the difference

We have equity in the law, where like cases are treated as like and mitigation - self-defence for example - is taken into consideration. The alternative as a previous poster said, is something approximating Sharia law, which would you prefer?

Mr.Brown_4

The_White_Horse wrote: »

in fact why not 11mph???

Because 11mph is the preserve of those woolly minded save the planet spandex wearing muesli eating non road tax payers - the cyclist. And I you think I paid for alloy wheels and a spoiler just to stick behind a cyclist you are much mistaken. Poop, poop!

Gorgeous_George

The_White_Horse wrote: »

...A poor girl raped because the idiot liberals didn't have the guts to do what was needed at the time. And lets hope it was a woman and NOT a another child.

The lefties have untold blood on their hands.

Sadly, it would seem it may well have been a child. (BBC News)

As for the lefties, remember the crime was committed during a Tory reign after 14 years of Maggie's Britain.

Pass me the rope.

GG