*Require all college to be free
*Require all health care to be free
Those two are pretty much the case in the UK. Except that those over 19 who are working have to pay a small fee for college courses.
The health care in the UK, while free, is not up to an excellent standard by any means.
I would love to ban smoking. I just can't stand it, it makes me feel so ill to smell it and gives me worse asthma. And people who smoke next to young children.... :evil:
Tougher sentences for those who don't stroke meow-mows!
you know who you are!
!!!!!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!
Enforcement of exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In the UK college is the place where students go after leaving high school and before attending university. They may go for 1 or 2 years, and some adults return to college to get more qualifications. It is free for those 19 and under who attend on a full time course. :smile:
freak said "* Make abortions compulsory and fully enforced worldwide for 10 years, and have everyone attempting to give birth to a child, breaching this law, during this period, sterilized."
:shock:
I am strongly assuming here that you have no children and don't mind if you don't have any. Most people don't feel like that and would be very traumatized to live in a world where they have no choice to have children.
Brightman said "What would you say to someone who wanted to sterilise an Aspie in case their offspring was a burden to society?"
In Sweden up until the late 1980's, anyone who was considered mentally deficient, including autistics, were compulsorily sterilized.
I noticed you are from Sweden Freak, does this idea still prevail there, has it negatively influenced you? I hope that's not too personal a question.
Well if we look at China with the one child policy, so many are unhappy with it. Can you imagine if no-one, anywhere, could have children?
I think traumatized is more of an understatement.
Yikes, who are Safety Camera Partnership and what did they do to you? :?
I can see it from both sides, if I get hit by a speeding motorist does anybody give a toss?
A slightly naive view...no-one makes them where baseball caps back to front, and shout at passers by and intimidate them.
"There's nothing naive about it Amy - ask *any* community or social worker and they will tell you - give these kids something to do and the level of trouble would plummet.
BTW there's nothing wrong with wearing baseball caps back to front, or hoodies, or any item of clothing! Frankly, there is an atmosphere of hatred towards young people, AND towards poor people in this country. We seem to be going back to 19th century ideas about the 'undeserving poor' whereby people on the lowest income bracket are blamed for their own predicament and told to 'get a job'. Meanwhile, multimillionaires earn thousands a day while paying their workers peanuts."
These kids? Chavs aren't all kids, in fact most of them aren't, maybe you are confused as to who chavs are.
They are not all poor and disadvantaged, Jordan is a famous chav, is she poor or a kid?
You seem to be talking about a different genre, not this cultural group.
I don't have an atmosphere of hatred to young people and I wasn't alive in the 19th century to be influenced by their attitudes.
I get picked on by some chavs because I am poorer than them and can't afford fashionable clothes, etc.
Do I have to have tolerance for being treated like this? Do they have to have no tolerance for me?
A definition of chav from a site -
chav
Emerging British subculture which is quickly becoming an epidemic. Chavs can be found the length and breadth of the country, hanging around any junk food outlet, off licence or just hanging around the streets, where they pass the time by vandalising property, drinking cheap cider, shouting abuse at passers by and terrorising old people.
Appearance: Chavs have a strict dress code. Designer labels are everything, although knocked off/fake items are almost de-rigeur. Typically, the male chav will wear a Nickelson or Schott hooded top, baggy tracksuit trousers, white designer trainers, and a baseball cap by burberry or Nike. The female chav (chavette) will have peroxide blonde hair scrunched so tight into a pony tail with colourful scrunchies that her forehead stretches. She will wear a dark blue tracksuit with white stripes, an enormous puffa jacket, hoop earrings, and white trainers. Female chavs are forbidden from wearing socks, and all chavs must wear as much fake gold jewellery as they can fit on their bodies. Mobiles are an added status symbol, and when equipped, the chav must shout into it in the most anti-social way possible, using at least one expletive and the word "innit" per second. Every other word in between should be unrecognisable to non-chavs.
Cars: Typically the Vauxhall Nova, but could include Ford Escort/Orion, Vauxhall Astra, and for chavs with "bling", even a totally shagged 3 series BMW. Whatever the type of car, it must have a spoiler shaped plank of MDF nailed to the back, 20" alloy wheels which rub on the wheel arches over every bump, a badly fitted bodykit (extra points for being able to see EXACTLY where the car ends and bodykit starts), a lairy paint job with runs in it, exhaust pipes the size of the space shuttle's booster nozzles, and blue LED's on the washer jets. Neon undercar lighting is also desirable.
Attitude: The chav's attitude depends heavily on the number of mates backing him up. If he's on his own, he'll skulk along anonymously. In numbers, he'll challenge anyone to anything.
Jordan, So Solid Crew etc
These people don't have social workers, they have jobs and cars and have plenty to do hanging round with their mates.
Should we pity their poor predicament?
Blimey, there's a lot of people here with some quite shocking and intolerant views!
On neds, chavs etc. can I point out that they all to a man & girl come from low income backgrounds, have crap education, no prospects and so on. Their unpleasant behaviour comes from that - they are nothing more than a product of their circumstances. Frankly if we really tried to tackle the poverty, exploitation & inequality that comes with free market capitalism, then most of these social problems would vanish.
Roderick
Even if that is true, we still have the end product - and it ain't pleasant
There may be several enviromental factors that lead to serial killers coming about. Should we try to understand them rather then punish them?
Then of course, there's the point that it's mainly a cultural problem - a culture has built up around these "people" which will continue to exist. Personally, i'd love to round them all up and put them in concentration camp - anyone who vandalises other people's property, regardless of reasons, deserves to be punished. If a whole culture has been built up around vandalism - screw multi-culturalism, destroy this destructive culture.
I said it is a cultural problem - i.e a culture has developed around violence, vandalism and general bad behaviour
Why should we tolerate a (for lack of a better term) destructive culture?
The historial reference did not pass me by - i intended it
I did not suggest that some groups of people are inherently evil based on genetics, i stated that some large groups of people are destructive. Regardless of class (and these people tend to come from all classes) or culture - all criminals should be equal before the law. Some idiot comes to my house and smashes my windows (hasn't happened yet, but wouldn't be surprised) then i am not going to care whether they're rich or poor, whether or not they're bored, whether or not it's part of their culture - i'm going to call the police and try to get them prosecuted to the maximum extent the law will allow. If i can get any (legal) revenge on them without causing more trouble for myself or loved ones - i will.
If an asylum seeker from Iraq walks past my house - a muslim woman covering her face in public, while i may not agree with vast parts of their culture, they are not harming me. If i see someone from a different culture in public i treat them with politeness, until they do something to harm/annoy me. The same goes for all cultures, classes and races.
How is that intolerant?
Much as I'd love to get into a full debate about this I just don't have the time (hence the delay in sending this reply). So I'll come straight to what I think is the important issue at stake, which has nothing to do with the rights of chavs, or indeed any other group or individual, to be violent and aggressive.
Your last post, Gareth, suggests that you see this from a personal angle, while I see this in political/ social terms (it's my training, I can't help it). So you say, if someone attacks you or yr loved ones, you take revenge. Fair enough - except we don't live in a survivalist camp in the desert, nor in a totalitarian state or the 18th century. Emile Durkheim said something very important about the role of justice in society - he said the earliest stages of justice as a social system start as nothing more than collective revenge by proxy on behalf of individuals, but this then changes as society develops, industrialises, and becomes more rational, secular and democratic. This BTW is not an abstract philosophical point - almost every democracy in the world has scrapped capital punishment, while every dictatorship still has it!
You have to ask yrself who would support locking up/ executing/ exiling for ever, undesirable elements in society? It is of course, the Daily Mail, the Monday Club, the BNP, Kelvin McKenzie etc - the same people who'd attack asylum seekers, gay people, Muslims, trade unionists, and who (I rather suspect) would in the main be antipathetic to our cause as another minority seeking legitamacy! This again, is not a coincidence.
Finally, I'd just like to note that the type of society we live in is actually determined by how much humanity we employ in dealing with the *most* unpleasant people in society.
What is the purpose of seeking justice? Isn't justice simply formalised revenge? As for your point of who else would support locking up / executing undesirable elements - hitler was a vegetarian too, does this make being a vegetarian evil? Please use an actual argument.
I was looking at what is best for society as a whole and using a personal analogy to explain - does this make my argument less worthwhile?