Some thugs wear different fowms of clothinghairybuddha wrote:What pish. Youths aren't stabbing each other to death because of an item of clothing.multisync wrote:Just to add I have bought my children up in this area for the past 30 years or more, everybody knew everybody, but now everyone wears a "Hoodie" so are more or less incognito.Hoodies should be banned around this area and make it easier to identify people!!!!
Different faces/backgrounds therefore different strokes/weapons. Same "it's all about me" arrogance and lack of empathy. Neither group cares about the legacy of desperation they create.rod taylor wrote:Yes - but what ever you say about Bullingdon bullies, or even City thugs - they don't physically hurt people, they don't stab people.
I don't mean to channel Tim Lund, but we can build a hierarchy of behaviour here. Those who stab, shoot or otherwise hurt the innocent are despicable.
No one thinks less of the Bullingdon 'elite' than me, there are various sorts of middle and upper class thuggery, but no one is in any physical danger - there's the difference.
OK done - Now what?multisync wrote:Hairybuddha,take a look yourself and wake up
I wonder. Given the "me, me, me" mentality and lack of empathy, if this lot had been born into other circumstances, what would their different weapons of choice be?rod taylor wrote:Physical threat is the difference, Mary.marymck wrote:Different faces/backgrounds therefore different strokes/weapons. Same "it's all about me" arrogance and lack of empathy. Neither group cares about the legacy of desperation they create.
OTOH, it's also possible that some of these young men, from either sort of gang, will come to some good. I hope that makes me neither a bleeding heart liberal, or a conservative apologist."Any who have heard that sound will shrink at the recollection of it; it is the sound of English county families baying for broken glass."
My former boss's partner was hit by a flying chair they threw at them. She was knocked unconscious and spent over five weeks in John Radcliffe Hospital, most of the time in a coma. Had she had fallen slightly differently she would have been paralysed.rod taylor wrote:Yes - but what ever you say about Bullingdon bullies, or even City thugs - they don't physically hurt people, they don't stab people.
I don't mean to channel Tim Lund, but we can build a hierarchy of behaviour here. Those who stab, shoot or otherwise hurt the innocent are despicable.
No one thinks less of the Bullingdon 'elite' than me, there are various sorts of middle and upper class thuggery, but no one is in any physical danger - there's the important difference for me.
No they ran off shortly afterwards. One of their fathers sent the restaurant owner a large cheque to cover the many thousands of pounds worth of damage.Eagle wrote:How stupid to link student high jinks with blatant murder.
|Utter contempt for those stupid views.
MWAV
I hope the person who threw the chair was charged with attempted manslaughter.
Was Morse or Lewis on duty at the time.
Murder is of course a more serious crime than violent hooliganism. But I'm not sure that judging wrong actions by comparing their consequences is always the right approach. How many deaths were caused by the actions of Tony Blair (another Oxford posh boy) and George W. Bush (a Yale posh boy) in deciding to invade Iraq? But the general view seems to be that these actions did not constitute crimes at all, let alone serious ones.rod taylor wrote:I have never denied there is a link between the upper-class thuggery of the Bullingdon boys and the lower-class thuggery of the teenage knife gangs. There is. But to equate the consequences of the acts of violence of either is ridiculous. On any level. Knife crime is worse, far worse.
What I wrote was that there were parallels, by which I didn’t mean they equate – sorry for any confusion. Let’s leave individuals out of this, but if we’re comparing two social groups, in which young men gain statusrod taylor wrote:This is a strange turn of events: I'm making the case for absolute morality, Tim Lund sounds remarkably relativist and the only people who agree with me are Eagle and Annie...and perhaps Stephen Pinker.
I have never denied there is a link between the upper-class thuggery of the Bullingdon boys and the lower-class thuggery of the teenage knife gangs. There is.
But to equate the consequences of the acts of violence of either is ridiculous. On any level. Knife crime is worse, far worse.
A boy is dead, parents, brothers, sisters, friends, communities mourn. People are afraid to leave their homes, they look over their shoulders as they turn corners, metal detectors go up at schools.
The problem about this is that is suggests there are some questions where looking at the consequences is the right approach - and by implication some where it might not be. So it begs the question of when consequentialism applies, when not, and if not, then what.rod taylor wrote:
It is not always the right approach. But in the subject under discussion (Bullingdon hooliganism vs. gang stabbings) judging the consequences is the right approach.
I'm the one who walks around in T shirts even in January.parker wrote:Maybe Manwithaview is indeed a 'hoodie'...?