We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Council evictions begin
Comments
-
On another point, the eviction action is supported right across the political board.
David Cameron supports, Nick Clegg supports and Ed Milliband supports.
No it's not. So it's not really fair to say that these measures are universally supported cross-party.
"Tories' reaction to riots 'bonkers', say Liberal Democrat MPs"..These signs of Lib Dem disquiet emerged after the party's leader, Nick Clegg, sought to slow down a fast and furious run of Tory policy suggestions, including plans to evict the families of rioters from council houses and a consultation on halting benefit payments to offenders...
The party's welfare spokeswoman, Jenny Willott, echoed deputy leader Simon Hughes's opposition, laid out in the Observer on Sunday, to plans to evict people from council houses.
She said the rehabilitation of people who had rioted required them to have enough money to put a roof over their heads and to eat...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/aug/16/tories-riots-bonkers-liberal-democrat
There may be trouble ahead with this one ! And from further down in the comments section :-Aug 2011: Two young men jailed for four years for using Facebook to 'incite' a riot in Warrington that never took place.
- Aug 2010: The ringleader of an international network who shared up to 100,000 indecent images of children on Facebook has been jailed for four years.
Imho there has been a lot of kneejerk reaction to this.. particularly when you see it in context, as above. Four years in jail and a criminal record for being stupid enough to be mouth off on FB ?
"While the judge heard the two defendants were previously of good character " ( silly boys in other words). I'm not quite sure the crime justifies the time there, the judge called it an 'evil act'.. but when you've got !!!!!'s getting the same sentence ? Something not quite right there...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/facebook-riot-calls-men-jailedIt all seems so stupid it makes me want to give up.
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid ?0 -
vivatifosi wrote: »Sorry if this has been addressed earlier, but there has been an article that says magistrates have been told they can ignore normal sentencing guidelines:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/15/riots-magistrates-sentencing
Tbh there are so many posts re the riots I'm not sure whether this has been posted or not, so sorry if I'm reapeating stuff.
I know about that - because I've heard my darling Papa going on about it a lot. he's horrified....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
What a pig's ear they are making of it
I am off line for a few days enjoy yourself 
Hope you're going somewhere nice - have fun!...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
I'll put some more flesh on it if you like.Graham_Devon wrote: »What do you suggest we do?
We need to break up the cosy cliques that run the country in their own interests.
Freemasonry needs to be driven out.
The judiciary and the Bar need to be reformed.
We need to get rid of sofa government and return to Cabinet government. Cabinets should not be the PM's hand-picked bunch of yes-men, they should be elected by Parliament to represent a wide variety of interests.
We need further reductions in the PM's power of patronage. Quangos should be independent.
We need proportional representation, so that no party has an overall majority in the Commons.
We need an apolitical House of Lords - nobody who has ever made a party donation or even been a party member.
We need reform of Press ownership - no more barons. If necessary the Press should be subsidised, but without reference to what they say.
Reform of the civil service and other agencies. We need the best minds at the top, but they must be trained by a career path that gives them experience at the sharp end.
We need a culture of honesty in public service. We need more checks and balances to ensure that nobody in public office can be working to a private agenda, whether or not it's for personal gain.
We need to stamp on the naked power of wealth, privilege and patronage, and learn how to listen to each other and reach consensus.
Only when people feel they have a voice can we start on welfare, healthcare and crime. At present people just feel that their lives are being screwed up by an uncaring elite that just will not listen to their objections.
When we have a society that values people, includes people and listens to people, then they won't go rioting in the streets."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
milliebear00001 wrote: »This will be my last post on the thread as it's impossible to reason with people who have such a fundamentally different idea of fairness and justice. There's just no common ground! I wonder though, if you'd find it as easy to explain why making a small child homeless in order to punish her brother, is fair and just, if you had to be the one to tell her to her face.
Moral hazard innit?
It's much better to be tough now on a few individuals than be lenient and encourage much more of the same in the future. Too much leniency led to the current shambles in the first place.0 -
But it obviously is, and it isn't a problem. Societies have functioned with different rules from ours. Some have glorified human sacrifice.
What is a problem is lack of socialisation - people's failure to absorb the norms of the environment they live in.
They are. If follows from the change in the nature of work, which has opened up the labour market to women, including mothers, on almost equal terms. Two-parent families existed because they were economically efficient in some societies. Other societies, with a more extreme distribution of wealth, favoured a system where a minority of men had multiple wives and the rest of the men didn't marry. Other societies favoured other systems.
But we should bear in mind that before the industrial increase in life expectancy, the average duration of a marriage was less than it is now, even though there was little or no divorce. Only a minority of kids reached adulthood with both natural parents still alive. Multiple marriages and step-parenting were normal. Nothing odd about those Biblical references to women with 5 or 7 husbands.
Which might look superficially impressive - until you look at the actual analysis of crime figures and the relatoionship between offending and post-modern parenting.
If this country is ever to pull itself out of the hole it is in, it will require people to stop believing that what they want to be true is true and to start facing reality instead.
And, on the whole, I'm not sure polyandry or the socialisation of societies which embrace human sacrifice have a great deal to teach us.
Unless you live in Liverpool, of course. Or Islington.0 -
Two sides of the same coin. People who can't handle their relationships with their partners or their kids.Which might look superficially impressive - until you look at the actual analysis of crime figures and the relatoionship between offending and post-modern parenting.
You can tell them they shouldn't have kids outside a stable relationship, but since they'll never have a stable relationship, that's tantamount to telling them they're not good enough to ever have kids. Good luck with that one.
It'll help if you keep telling them to face the reality that they're crap."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
Two sides of the same coin. People who can't handle their relationships with their partners or their kids.
You can tell them they shouldn't have kids outside a stable relationship, but since they'll never have a stable relationship, that's tantamount to telling them they're not good enough to ever have kids. Good luck with that one.
It'll help if you keep telling them to face the reality that they're crap.
Or you could revert to the tried and tested method - make it socially unpalatable to have children out of wedlock.And then make marriage a bit less of a revolving door.
Oh dear, I seem to have wound the clock back. To before the 'progressives' munged everything.0 -
I don't think so. When was this golden age?Oh dear, I seem to have wound the clock back."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
There are two ways of keeping order. You can keep people happy or you can run a police state. Our ruling elite has reached the fork in the road and has chosen the path that leads to the police state. People are to be kept in order by force, threats and fear.It's much better to be tough now on a few individuals than be lenient and encourage much more of the same in the future. Too much leniency led to the current shambles in the first place.
The elite practice divide-and-rule. People tolerate the abuse of power so long as it's used against the people they don't like. But one day it may be their turn to be on the receiving end."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards