CSI Dulwich...!

[Domitianus]

evelknievel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I soooo don't want to get into this discussion but

> I would say that any PM whose view is that there

> is no such thing as Society is very unlikely to

> leave a healthy social legacy. And I think that

> has been borne out.

>

> If you hang around long enough most political

> ideologies are tried, and most, if not all, fall

> down somehow. You can't pursue a brutalist

> economic ideal and not expect humanity to suffer

> in the long run. But, you also have to be able to

> compete in a Global context, the world being what

> it is now. Somewhere betwixt the two -

> theoretically - is Nirvana. But of course Nirvana

> doesn't exist.

>

> I'd stand in Lenk's corner though if it came down

> to it, the extreme ideological position that

> you're working in from is simply more humane. Kill

> or be killed, me me me, is all very well until

> you're the only one left. Then what?

>

> That's a rhetorical question - like I said, I sooo

> don't want to get involved. D'oh!

You and Lenk clearly don't appreciate the meaning of the individual and society quotation. It is INFINITELY more humane and person-centred than the notion that individuals should be servants and slaves to systems rather than systems being created to serve individuals. It is a statement that values human freedom an the right to life,achievement and happiness, rather than seeing humans as being livestock for Big State to control and feast off, a state owned assets to be gulled into docility and dependence and then exploited. If you value individuals and their rights and happiness, soiety takes care of itself. Same principle as look after the pennies and the pounds will look ater themselves. Of course Thacher's ideas were unpopular with some groups who wee suddenly deprived of their 'right' to be lifted and laid by the state, paid for by others and who suddenly realised they migh have to contribute rather than be carrid. Revolutions are rarely effected without a bit of sound and fury. Why blame Thatcher for the fact that some groups resorted to violence whe they realied the gravy train was coming to an end? Isn't abhorrence of violence and crime wat this thread started about? Now we are championing thoseinvolved.

[Domitianus]

evelknievel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We weren't really discussing the current economic

> situation were we? We were discussing the Police.

> But anyway this seems to have turned into a party

> political broadcast on behalf of two equally

> untrustable rabbles so I'm out.

So am I. I have sad my bit. Back to the police. If they want the public to report crime and help tem it might bea good idea to actually sow an iota of interest and activity wenever crimes ARE rported.

[evelknievel]

On that point we agree.

[lenk]

Sorry about all the politics stuff, yeah?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1410000/images/_1411586_rik.jpg

[Domitianus]

Everyone, ultimately, wants to see people safe, happy and affluent - we just have different ideas about how to achieve that :-)

[Eliza.D]

Here here. Group hug?

[Huguenot]

The challenge with politics is that it's always placed out of context - as if the ideologies were unaffected by the other monumental upheavals in our lives.

If you were to analyse the key influences on modern society, surely you'd come up with something more like:

*Population growth

*Mobile workforce

*Universal education

*Post industrialist technologies

*Mass media

*Pressure on resources

Once you chuck those elements into the fray, then realistically the limited reach of any political ideology means most parties are p*ssing in the wind.

Modern people are too well-informed to lead short, unhappy but well-behaved blue collar lives down the cannery, whilst the hoorays live it up on the proceeds.

Whilst you could argue that unique individuals (such as Thatcher) can have an exceptional impact, there are those that argue that she was just a product of her times. If it hadn't been her, it would have been someone else.

The same thing applies to criminal activity. It probably is a cluster, but probably not a random one. I recall that of the 680 crimes on the Bakerloo line 4 years or so ago, 600 of them were caused by the 4 individuals who eventually stabbed that young lawyer to death outside Queens Park Station.

Those 4 were probably part of the random distribution of sociopaths who all happened to be up for a bit of rape and pillage at the same time at the same school.

Quality policing should resolve it, because most of these criminals stay close to home.

However, looking forward the minor impact issues like policing quality have, when compared with those six 'macro' issues, mean that unless we can find more coherent social structures to address these problems that it simply won't matter a jot - because there'll be nobody left to remember.

'Individualism' cannot solve these problems, because we're not biologically attuned to understand them. The market cannot resolve them because it's too short sighted.

Most of these kids are frustrated because they don't have any individual self-determination when faced with the cards fate dealt them. Most of them pack it in when they grow up and see the options.

Neither Thatcher nor Blair are to blame, but neither did they find any answers.

Most societies work better when they have a collective vision - a target to strive for. I don't think either 'looking after number one' or 'join the commune' are going to provide it. It needs to be bigger and more engaging.

Find that, and the street crime will fade.