Jump to content
✨ STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE WORLD TOUR ✨

'Something deeply wrong in society': David Cameron blames torture case on Broken Britain


mc_squared

Recommended Posts

 

Second, children are not born violent. Unless there's a brain tumor or some insane hormonal imbalance, violence is something children LEARN. It comes from bad parenting. For some reason I can't fathom, British parents are among the worst among western democracies. They need classes or something.

 

I totally agree. Unfortunately there are many parents in Britain who shouldn't be parents because they're basically not fit for the "job".

They either spoil their children rotten, let them get away with anti-social behaviour or having no manners, or don't pay them the level of attention required.

Any of these factors might have contributed in this particular case, and I'm pretty sure they will have in some shape or form.

You have to bear in mind that we're not even talking about heat-of-the-moment killing here, although that would be bad enough in itself, of course.

It beggars belief that children are capable of such pre-meditated, horrific torture at such a young age, and I'm pretty sure there must be more where they came from, whether you want to believe it or not.:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I s'pose what I was trying to say before was what Saffire stated - children are not born with the urge to always be violent.

Born with mental illnesses that can lead to violent actions, I wouldn't know enough because they all vary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I s'pose what I was trying to say before was what Saffire stated - children are not born with the urge to always be violent.

Born with mental illnesses that can lead to violent actions, I wouldn't know enough because they all vary.

 

This. :\

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I s'pose what I was trying to say before was what Saffire stated - children are not born with the urge to always be violent.

 

And definitely not in that sort of brutal way, with that kind of pre-meditation. There's a big difference between that and simply having an "aggressive streak" which causes people to lash out. That, of course, could be caused by some sort of chemical imbalance or mental condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, even if the kids aren't mentally imbalanced (though I think its quite obvious that they are), by no means is that grounds to blame the whole of society for their actions, as if everyone condoned them. They could've, and probably did have a completely screwed-up upbringing that only reflects an extreme fault by their parents, and was in no way influenced by this ambiguous notion of 'society' that is used to suggest that everyone in britain is somehow to blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, even if the kids aren't mentally imbalanced (though I think its quite obvious that they are), by no means is that grounds to blame the whole of society for their actions, as if everyone condoned them. They could've, and probably did have a completely screwed-up upbringing that only reflects an extreme fault by their parents, and was in no way influenced by this ambiguous notion of 'society' that is used to suggest that everyone in britain is somehow to blame.

 

I don't think even Cameron is suggesting everyone in Britain is to blame, but if you take all the high-profile incidents of the past decade or so into account, it is clear there is an underlying problem that needs to be addressed before it's too late.

Bad parenting is definitely one of the root causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On TV this morning, a psychiatrist said that children like that are definitely bred, not born like it.

Furthermore, a lot of people said that the parents deserved to be in the dock as much as the boys did, as they were at least equally to blame for what happened.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On TV this morning, a psychiatrist said that children like that are definitely bred, not born like it.

Furthermore, a lot of people said that the parents deserved to be in the dock as much as the boys did, as they were at least equally to blame for what happened.;)

 

 

 

Aha I see, well since academics in all fields disagree with most everything that is brought up or discussed I don't think we should take that statement to be binding. Just because a psychiatrist who comes onto a talk-show and gives us his opinion means we should blindly accept what's said.

 

Of course, had the psychiatrist come on and said something contrary to the opinion you hold, i'm sure we wouldn't have heard about it. :kiss:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, a lot of people said that the parents deserved to be in the dock as much as the boys did, as they were at least equally to blame for what happened.;)

 

This is exactly what worries me, when I wrote earlier in the topic about how using big headlines to correct society will just lead to sensationalism. Wanting the parent's to go to jail means in a lot more consequences then just this case, it means that this case will become the example every other court case (Even down to minor offences) will be based upon.

 

It's like those people who wanted Garry Glitter to be publicly executed, how come they didn't care half as much about killing yer run o'the mill everyday public paedophile, or paedophile priests? We just start executing every sex offender from then on? We'd have to. So what else constitutes execution? It just carries on.

 

This attitude is completely over-the-top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aha I see, well since academics in all fields disagree with most everything that is brought up or discussed I don't think we should take that statement to be binding. Just because a psychiatrist who comes onto a talk-show and gives us his opinion means we should blindly accept what's said.

 

Of course, had the psychiatrist come on and said something contrary to the opinion you hold, i'm sure we wouldn't have heard about it. :kiss:

 

Similarly, if a psychiatrist appeared that backed up your theory, I'm sure we WOULD have heard about it many times over.

Works both ways.:smug:

As I said, it's very easy to just dispute EVERYTHING and say it's all hogwash, which is basically what you're doing, or just bury your head in the sand and say everything's fine, which is clearly not the case.:dozey:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly what worries me, when I wrote earlier in the topic about how using big headlines to correct society will just lead to sensationalism. Wanting the parent's to go to jail means in a lot more consequences then just this case, it means that this case will become the example every other court case (Even down to minor offences) will be based upon.

 

It's like those people who wanted Garry Glitter to be publicly executed, how come they didn't care half as much about killing yer run o'the mill everyday public paedophile, or paedophile priests? We just start executing every sex offender from then on? We'd have to. So what else constitutes execution? It just carries on.

 

This attitude is completely over-the-top.

 

Nobody's suggesting that parents should be held responsible in every case, but certainly in situations like this where there is very little doubt that the serious neglect and grossly irresponsible parenting had a great bearing on the children's behaviour, it should be given serious consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similarly, if a psychiatrist appeared that backed up your theory, I'm sure we WOULD have heard about it many times over.

Works both ways.:smug:

 

That's not necessarily true, if I had heard a psychologist on a chat show backing up my opinion, I certainly wouldn't take it as bible. It was desperate when you brought that up.

 

Nobody's suggesting that parents should be held responsible in every case, but certainly in situations like this where there is very little doubt that the serious neglect and grossly irresponsible parenting had a great bearing on the children's behaviour, it should be given serious consideration.

 

You haven't read the basics on law enforcement when you think "Very little doubt" is good enough, more importantly, you know nothing about the parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not necessarily true, if I had heard a psychologist on a chat show backing up my opinion, I certainly wouldn't take it as bible. It was desperate when you brought that up.

 

No it wasn't. She quite rightly pointed out that extensive studies have shown that, while a very small minority of children might be born with some kind of rogue gene that makes them "violent", the vast majority of them become this way because of upbringing/environment.

There is no reason whatsoever to dispute this unless you're just arguing for the sake of it.

 

 

 

You haven't read the basics on law enforcement when you think "Very little doubt" is good enough

more importantly, you know nothing about the parents.

 

Unless, of course, you choose to believe that everything has been "made up", there was a lot of information given in court about how the children were mistreated/neglected by their parents, including the fact they were given drugs from a very early age.

That should be damning evidence enough for anyone.:dozey:

 

The court heard yesterday how the two brothers were allowed to watch porn and violent horror movies including Chucky and Saw, and from the age of nine the older brother was smoking cigarettes and cannabis as well as drinking alcohol.

 

The family - the boys' 36-year-old mother, her partner and her seven sons, aged between eight and 18 years old - were well-known on the estate where they lived for terrorising their neighbours with senseless vandalism and sporadic violence.

 

Neighbours described frequent damage to cars, stones thrown at windows and buses and constant noise abuse, with police visiting the family's home two or three times a week.

 

They also spoke of the family's chaotic alcohol and cannabis-fuelled lifestyle and described the mother's partner, who left shortly before the attack, as an unemployed, violent drunk who beat the children.

Some said the brothers - who were both on the child protection register - appeared to live a scavenging existence, finding food, stealing from shops and rummaging for clothes in skips.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it wasn't. She quite rightly pointed out that extensive studies have shown that, while a very small minority of children might be born with some kind of rogue gene that makes them "violent", the vast majority of them become this way because of upbringing/environment.

There is no reason whatsoever to dispute this unless you're just arguing for the sake of it.

 

Hold on, you originally said that children are not born violent, for certain. Oddly, it turns out this doesn't back up what you originally said.

 

I'm not disputing that most terrible children are a result of bad parenting, what I've been saying all along is that this is a rare case of children who seem to not only have been neglected, but have been instilled with "evil". This wasn't about stealing or vandalism, it was about psychopathic torture.

 

Unless, of course, you choose to believe that everything has been "made up", there was a lot of information given in court about how the children were mistreated/neglected by their parents, including the fact they were given drugs from a very early age.

That should be damning evidence enough for anyone.:dozey:

 

I haven't been reading further into the court case. I've been referring to the original topic and how cases of violence don't always necessarily relate to parenting or society. The topic was about how rare, isolated news items are a direct result of failed society, its not fair/reasonable to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold on, you originally said that children are not born violent, for certain. Oddly, it turns out this doesn't back up what you originally said.

 

I'm not disputing that most terrible children are a result of bad parenting, what I've been saying all along is that this is a rare case of children who seem to not only have been neglected, but have been instilled with "evil". This wasn't about stealing or vandalism, it was about psychopathic torture.

 

And there's more than enough evidence in this case to suggest it was the abusive parenting from the word go that cultivated this psychopathic behaviour.

And in most other cases of similar behaviour, you'll probably uncover a history of abuse that led to it.

Therefore, the parents/guardians concerned should be held at least partially responsible for such crimes and should be prevented from having children in their care ever again.

 

I haven't been reading further into the court case. I've been referring to the original topic and how cases of violence don't always necessarily relate to parenting or society.

 

Obesity doesn't always relate to overeating, bad diet and lack of exercise, but in the vast majority of cases it does.

Doesn't mean the irrefutable link should be "ignored", though.

 

The topic was about how rare, isolated news items are a direct result of failed society, its not fair/reasonable to do that.

 

Well it could be justifiably argued that such irresponsible and abusive parenting is a result of social breakdown in Britain, and that's basically what Cameron is saying. Whether you agree with him or not is up to you.

However, this is how pretty much all politicians operate, and that isn't likely to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tories started the rot and decline in moral standards with Thatcherism and Nu-Labour have also through their weird social engineering policies and political bias have also severely damaged social institutions and the face of modern Britain. At least Cameron has now recognized the historical and social significance of past failed policies on both sides of the house.

 

True, nobody is suggesting that any one party is to blame for the "moral decline" in Britain, but it is clear that there has been an erosion of standards and that drastic action is needed to turn the tide before it's too late.

Of course, it is possible that what Cameron is saying is just empty rhetoric, but for society's sake, let's hope it isn't.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...