Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 49

Thread: Looting and destruction of Aldi shop in Dublin.

  1. #21
    International Prospect osarusan's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Limerick for now.
    Posts
    7,292
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,113
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,519
    Thanked in
    834 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible View Post
    Just off the top of my head (because I was living in Manchester at the time), there was widespread rioting and looting in major cities throughout England (including Manchester) during the summer of 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots
    You are misunderstanding my argument - yes we have seen looting before, and various acts of wanton vandalism and so on. But I cannot recall anybody ripping a shop apart with a stolen digger before, then trying to open the safe in the street. It does seem to me to be an act of a nature that we have rarely if ever seen before, which brings me to my second point:

    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible View Post
    What do you think they're a product of if not their environment?
    I can go along with the idea that people involved in certain crimes, involved in social problems etc, are a product of their environment. Yet, despite all the areas in Ireland that suffer from serious social deprivation, if there is no environment in Ireland that has ever seen this kind of act before, then how are they a product of it? All of the other people who are living in such areas, and have lived in such areas in the past, have managed to avoid carrying out such an act.

    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible View Post
    Is that to imply that they were non-thinking automatons, that it just happened by chance for no real reason and that they are not capable of responsibility?
    I think they are thick as sh!t, without the brains to realise that practically everything they did guaranteed their discovery and arrest. And, hopefully, their successful prosecution.

    EDIT: You could probably factor in a degree of contempt for a sentencing culture which allows people to remain free even after amassing dozens, if not hundreds, of convictions.
    Last edited by osarusan; 15/03/2018 at 11:41 AM.

  2. #22
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,523
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by osarusan View Post
    You are misunderstanding my argument - yes we have seen looting before, and various acts of wanton vandalism and so on. But I cannot recall anybody ripping a shop apart with a stolen digger before, then trying to open the safe in the street. It does seem to me to be an act of a nature that we have rarely if ever seen before, which brings me to my second point:

    I can go along with the idea that people involved in certain crimes, involved in social problems etc, are a product of their environment. Yet, despite all the areas in Ireland that suffer from serious social deprivation, if there is no environment in Ireland that has ever seen this kind of act before, then how are they a product of it? All of the other people who are living in such areas, and have lived in such areas in the past, have managed to avoid carrying out such an act.
    Was it really that unprecedented though? Stolen diggers and other heavy machinery have often been used to tear ATMs out of walls. You'll find lots of examples of it happening across Ireland and the UK on Google. Obviously what happened with the Lidl store was on a grander scale but I would argue that it was a case of circumstances (socio-economic conditions) and opportunity (exceptionally bad weather conditions, meaning ample time without authorities interupting) aligning.

  3. #23
    Banned. Children Banned. Grandchildren Banned. 3 Months. Charlie Darwin's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    17,875
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,701
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,046
    Thanked in
    3,186 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple stu View Post
    I've been on the dole for far more than I'd have liked, so have some idea, yes.

    It still doesn't follow that you're meant to live off the dole alone.
    Right and, as you intimated, you had savings. You presumably had a university education, a supportive family background and strong prospects. Not everyone is in so fortunate a position, which you haven't really demonstrated you have an appreciation for.

  4. Thanks From:


  5. #24
    International Prospect osarusan's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Limerick for now.
    Posts
    7,292
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,113
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,519
    Thanked in
    834 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible View Post
    Was it really that unprecedented though? Stolen diggers and other heavy machinery have often been used to tear ATMs out of walls. You'll find lots of examples of it happening across Ireland and the UK on Google. Obviously what happened with the Lidl store was on a grander scale but I would argue that it was a case of circumstances (socio-economic conditions) and opportunity (exceptionally bad weather conditions, meaning ample time without authorities interupting) aligning.
    I'd describe this as vandalism more than theft (the Lidl had already been looted through a broken door - the tearing down of the roof happened later). In that sense, the scale and manner of destruction is pretty much unprecedented I would say.

    I suppose my main point is this - at what kind of behaviour/crime, does the 'product of a deprived environment' argument cease to be valid? Or does it ever cease to be valid? Is everything that somebody from a particular environment does inevitably a product of that environment?

    This isn't the kind of behaviour that is relatively common in deprived areas, which can be normalised to a certain degree. It was something far beyond that, something we have not seen before from that particular environment or any other similarly deprived area in Ireland - it is something that these environments have not produced before.

    And as I said, if the people and the act are simply a product of the environment, why are we not seeing things on a similar scale more often, by others who are part of the same environment?

  6. #25
    Biased against YOUR club pineapple stu's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    In the long grass
    Posts
    30,247
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,337
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,643
    Thanked in
    1,644 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
    Right and, as you intimated, you had savings. You presumably had a university education, a supportive family background and strong prospects. Not everyone is in so fortunate a position, which you haven't really demonstrated you have an appreciation for.
    I find that a bit ignorant to be honest. I'm an accountant. I worked for five years in an industry which subsequently collapsed. You evidently would be surprised how a lack of transferability can hit job prospects in that instance (which is easily the key item you listed).

    Are others worse off than me? Of course. But I don't think that allows you blithely dismiss the point I've made. If social welfare were, say, 80% of minimum wage, why would you work the minimum wage, or even a small bit above? And it's a decent chunk; maybe 5% of the workforce.

    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
    I guess we're free to use whatever labels we want to demonise and "other" people. I just don't see a huge deal of fundamental value or worth in those particular ones. What do they actually tell us? It's simplistic to just dub them "thugs", as if they were born with some inherent moral defect and aren't a product of a particular set of social and material conditions.
    I think you're overanalysing here. I don't agree with your definition of thugs for starters. Yes, social issues are highly relevant, and it is a job for both government and community to address that, but you can't use that to absolve robbing a JCB and knocking down a building. And reading your posts, I can't help get the feeling you do think they deserve absolution.

    No-one made them steal the JCB, knock down the shop and loot it. As someone else said here, this was absolutely a crime of opportunity, not desperation. They should be held responsible for that in an appropriate court of law. That's not to take away from the social issues; merely to put them in context. This absolutely was an act of thuggery.

  7. #26
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,523
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by osarusan View Post
    I suppose my main point is this - at what kind of behaviour/crime, does the 'product of a deprived environment' argument cease to be valid? Or does it ever cease to be valid? Is everything that somebody from a particular environment does inevitably a product of that environment?
    I would say so, yes. Nobody lives in a vacuum. I don't think people are born "thugs", for example. Nor would I say people are born "angels/saints". As humans, we're naturally capable of all sorts of things perceived both good and bad. There are certain environments or circumstances which may amplify certain traits. There are others which may suppress or quell them. Certain systems or structures of living and operating may enable abuses of power, whilst certain conditions may heighten the likelihood of violent disorder, for example, because humans have the capability to respond in such ways when the "optimal" conditions present themselves.

    The key, as I was saying and as I quoted Chomsky saying, is to design a social policy that makes it less likely that our negative and dysfunctional traits will be manifested. That's not remotely to suggest that designing such a policy is easy either, but that doesn't mean not striving towards it. It will require sacrifice by wider society. As BTTW wondered, are we as a collective really prepared to foot that cost? It seems maybe not. If we're content to let these conditions exist, we can hardly play dumb when they bubble over and we experience blowback.

    This isn't the kind of behaviour that is relatively common in deprived areas, which can be normalised to a certain degree. It was something far beyond that, something we have not seen before from that particular environment or any other similarly deprived area in Ireland - it is something that these environments have not produced before.
    Theft and vandalism are very common in deprived areas. Cars are burnt out. Shops and properties are broken into. ATMs are ripped out of walls. Only three decades ago (in the north here), people were blowing things up on a regular basis (albeit with a more advanced or developed ideological motive).

    The Lidl incident was on a grander scale than the usual petty crime you might expect in deprived areas, I agree, but then the weather was exceptional and undoubtedly gave the perpetrators a necessary level of confidence or a sense of reassurance that the authorities would have difficulty getting to the scene once the alarm was raised. They were living in a temporary state of anarchy and evidently or duly exploited that.

    And as I said, if the people and the act are simply a product of the environment, why are we not seeing things on a similar scale more often, by others who are part of the same environment?
    I would suggest that it is possibly because we rarely get weather so extreme that the authorities are essentially left incapacitated for the night.

    If it wasn't environmental, what do you think might have caused it or primarily contributed to it? If they were mindless, brainless, numbskull thugs, why haven't they been doing this (audacious) sort of thing without any regard for the consequences their whole lives? To me, it would seem they made a (crude) risk-benefit analysis in their heads and decided that this was a risk worth taking (possibly because they don't really have a huge deal to risk or lose anyway on account of their circumstances). If you give people a stake in society, they'll be far less likely to respond to situations in manners such as this.

  8. #27
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,523
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple stu View Post
    I think you're overanalysing here. I don't agree with your definition of thugs for starters. Yes, social issues are highly relevant, and it is a job for both government and community to address that, but you can't use that to absolve robbing a JCB and knocking down a building. And reading your posts, I can't help get the feeling you do think they deserve absolution.

    ...

    They should be held responsible for that in an appropriate court of law. That's not to take away from the social issues; merely to put them in context. This absolutely was an act of thuggery.
    What do you mean by the term "thugs" then?

    Where did I attempt to absolve anyone? I tried to diagnose a problem and explain why I think this incident might have happened. I'm not necessarily right - I'm theorising - but I haven't tried to justify or condone it. It's dysfunctional behaviour that is socially destructive and therefore undesirable. If we want to make sure this sort of thing (theft, vandalism, crime or whatever) doesn't happen again or happens less in future, then we need to understand it properly so we can apply the correct and most effective remedy, that is if we as a society are bothered to fix it.

    Just because I think the "zero tolerance" approach to justice is a counter-productive one, it doesn't mean I'm absolving anyone. Even if empathy for the sake of empathy was to be removed from the equation, I would still advocate the application of less "hard-line" methods that I think might be more effective and beneficial for both society and (potential) offender if we truly wish to protect society, deter crime and rehabilitate offenders so that they can be contributing, functioning members of a happy, healthy and peaceful society instead of eternally causing expense, disruption or misery for others.

    No-one made them steal the JCB, knock down the shop and loot it.
    That's exactly what I said when I wrote this:

    It's not necessarily about absolving people of responsibility. By pointing out the causal connection between poverty, inequality or social alienation and looting or crime, one is not denying criminals agency or a portion of responsibility, nor is one claiming they are "forced" by their circumstances to react by looting or criminality, nor is one infantilising them. To recognise the causation is to do exactly the opposite. It is to point out that some human beings will decide - through the use of their rational and reasoning faculties and adult decision-making capabilities - that looting or crime is justified as a crude way of redressing the inequality and frustration they experience, as a means of attacking the unjust system that they perceive excludes them or to give them the sort of life that they see others from more privileged backgrounds living and enjoying.


    They made a decision to do what they did. It was actually osarusan who disputed this and, in my view, attempted to infantilise them.

    As someone else said here, this was absolutely a crime of opportunity, not desperation.
    I agree it was a crime of opportunity, but pre-existing conditions (poverty and inequality) obviously also contributed. As I said above, I feel it was "a case of circumstances (socio-economic conditions) and opportunity (exceptionally bad weather conditions, meaning ample time without authorities interrupting) aligning".

    What do you think it was an opportunity to do? Why do you think they took this opportunity to do that? Why do you think not one person in, say, D4 took the opportunity to do something similar in their area? There were obviously other factors underpinning the decision to take the opportunity that had presented itself.

    (By the way, I'm aware I never responded to you yet in relation to our discussion from a while back on Muslims, the burqa and related matters in another thread. I've had a response half-written for a good while, but just never got round to adding the finishing touches due to other distractions and obligations arising in the meantime, so apologies for the delay on that. I will get back to it at some point as I feel you misconstrued my last post there featuring an apology.)

  9. #28
    Biased against YOUR club pineapple stu's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    In the long grass
    Posts
    30,247
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,337
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,643
    Thanked in
    1,644 Posts
    For the record, you brought the term "thugs" into the thread. I called them idiots.

    I also haven't mentioned anything about zero tolerance.

    Let's throw a question back at you here - do you think these people deserve jail time? Let's keep it at just the guys who stole and/or used the JCB. Because my reading of things still is that you're being far too forgiving based on social surroundings.


    (On the Muslim thread btw - if it takes 4/5 months to type your reply, that's probably a sign you shouldn't bother...)

  10. #29
    International Prospect osarusan's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Limerick for now.
    Posts
    7,292
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,113
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,519
    Thanked in
    834 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible View Post

    They made a decision to do what they did. It was actually osarusan who disputed this and, in my view, attempted to infantilise them.
    Eh, what?

    I never disputed at all that they made a decision to do what they did. I disputed your claim for the reasons behind the decision - that they did so as a crude lashing out at a society which has deprived and excluded them.

  11. #30
    Youth Team Fizzer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    33
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    79
    Thanked in
    45 Posts
    Why do we have to ‘give’ these people a stake in society Danny?,Should we not suggest to them that they might seek to work for their stake? Perhaps if life was less comfortable for those without a stake they might be inclined towards greater effort in seeking it.

  12. #31
    First Team The Fly's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,234
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    316
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,019
    Thanked in
    545 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple stu View Post
    (on the muslim thread btw - if it takes 4/5 months to type your reply, that's probably a sign you shouldn't bother...)
    ...burn!
    Last edited by The Fly; 17/03/2018 at 9:25 PM.

  13. #32
    First Team backstothewall's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,004
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    151
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    430
    Thanked in
    286 Posts
    Thugs. Idiots. Does it have to be one or the other?

    As i mused above the welfare system we have exists to keep things ticking along and to prevent the worst excesses of social and financial inequality one typically encounters in what would have been called the 2nd world when i was a kid. The benefit trap is real. It is difficult to break the vicious circle, but not impossible. People do make it out of the ghetto in Ireland, and are much more likely to do so than in other countries. We don't provide as much help as Scandinavia, but we do provide a lot more than North America.

    I think they absolutely deserve to face a long stretch in prison. Coming from trying circumstances is not the only reason why this happened. There is no doubt that the vast majority in this area were watching on in horror at what these thugs/idiots were doing. The people who were watching through their windows, who phoned AGS because they were powerless to do anything else, come from that same environment. To suggest that environment is nothing to do with this crime happening is nonsensical, but to suggest it has only happened because of that environment is equally so. People have choices. People in Jobstown don't have the same choices as people in Booterstown, but they still have choices.

    Also, who are the victims here? Is it the multinational German retailer who have their losses covered by insurance? Is it the insurance company who rely on this sort of incident happening from time to time to make their products viable? Is it the deprived community who have lost their cheapest retailer of staple goods? Is it the staff who have lost their wage, and their families who relied on that income? I'd suggest that I've listed those groups in order of the hardship they will endure.

    The law can recognise that committing a crime against a particularly vulnerable victim can be an aggravating factor. It might need a change in the law but i would suggest that a crime such as this where the true victims are a deprived community, and people doing an honest days work for not great money in an effort to get by should carry a particularly stiff penalty.

    And if that results in crime being committed up the road against middle class communities, perhaps it might result in those in power doing more to make work pay better than crime.
    Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.

  14. #33
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,523
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple stu View Post
    For the record, you brought the term "thugs" into the thread. I called them idiots.
    BTTW dubbed them "morons" and, in response, I referred to other terms that I'd seen used (such as "thugs" and "scumbags"), which I feel are simplistic and don't really add a huge deal of worth to a serious discussion about causes and future prevention. You then went on to opine unequivocally that the words "thugs", "scumbags" and "thuggery" should, in fact, be applied to the perpetrators and their actions, so you must have some definition in your head, especially seeing as you took issue with my interpretation.

    I also haven't mentioned anything about zero tolerance.
    Posters were talking about "throwing the book at them" and "making an example of them", which I took to be alternative ways of endorsing a traditional "hard-line" response. You thanked a post by BTTW where he appeared to be advocating a "zero tolerance" approach. People are entitled to favour that approach, but it's ultimately counter-productive (unless punishment for the sake of punishment is your only desire).

    Let's throw a question back at you here - do you think these people deserve jail time? Let's keep it at just the guys who stole and/or used the JCB. Because my reading of things still is that you're being far too forgiving based on social surroundings.
    It's not necessarily about being "forgiving" or "lenient" or whatever for the mere sake of it. It's about finding a solution that will prove effective for society, victim and offender (or that's what the point of the criminal justice system is for me anyway). I don't feel justice should be about moralistic shaming or punishment for the sake of it. That is counter-productive and proven so, so, even if you removed empathy for empathy's sake from the equation, I don't really see the functional worth in a retributive approach. You could express absolute loathing for these people and dub them "thugs", but if you seek a productive response, you'd still have to acknowledge the statistical merits of what you might call a more "empathetic" or "compassionate" approach. Prison is a profitable industry, however.

    Supervised release or probation can help ensure the offender maintains some sort of stake in or connection to his or her community and society. Developing and maintaining any already-existing community bonds (through work and education programmes) are more effective and cheaper for society in the long run than isolating offenders away from the community and institutionalising them through incarceration. The conditions in prisons are very much conducive to increasing the likelihood of re-offending as they only serve to further marginalise people who are already marginalised. I feel restitutive and restorative processes of justice are also more constructive than the punitive approach. What do you want a prison to do? If you simply want to vindictively punish and shame people for the sake of it, then sure, prisons are great for that, but they're not great for much else as they don't protect the public (see re-offending rates), they certainly don't deter crime (crime has abounded in spite of the existence of prisons) and they aren't great for rehabilitating offenders either.

    The main aim, of course, remains, as far as I'm concerned: to create a set of social and material conditions or preventative measures where things like this are less likely to happen in the first place because they're obviously undesirable in a healthy and functioning society. As BTTW suggests, the idea is to make activities we wish to see these people engaged in pay better than crime.

    (On the Muslim thread btw - if it takes 4/5 months to type your reply, that's probably a sign you shouldn't bother...)
    I didn't say it has taken me 4/5 months to type a reply. I just said I had something written a while back and never got back to adding the finishing touches because other things came up. Anyway, I'm not sure why it would mean I shouldn't bother posting it, considering there was still a fair amount with which I took issue in that thread. I'm free to reply when I wish, no?

    Quote Originally Posted by osarusan View Post
    Eh, what?

    I never disputed at all that they made a decision to do what they did. I disputed your claim for the reasons behind the decision - that they did so as a crude lashing out at a society which has deprived and excluded them.
    I was referring to the fact that you had said you "would not give too much credence to the notion that the people involved made much use of 'their rational and reasoning faculties and adult decision-making capabilities'". The logical conclusion of that and other comments you have made would be to see the act as "mindless" or possible even "random".

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizzer View Post
    Why do we have to ‘give’ these people a stake in society Danny?,Should we not suggest to them that they might seek to work for their stake? Perhaps if life was less comfortable for those without a stake they might be inclined towards greater effort in seeking it.
    Well, I guess we don't have to if we really don't want to, but then we can hardly act all surprised or enraged when our neglect and disregard comes back to bite us. I feel we should ensure that every citizen has a stake in society for the betterment of society as a whole; it is in everyone's interest that a greater number of people feel involved and part of a society. Alienation only leads to social problems.

    The evidence does not suggest that making life more difficult for people would incentivise the formation out of thin air of connections between the alienated or marginalised and the rest of society. If anything, it would only exacerbate problems.

    How do you suggest we suggest to people to work for their stake in a society that they perceive cares very little for them? Why would they bother just because we've suggested it? We're the ones complaining about the situation and this Lidl incident, so presumably we want to find solutions. If that is so and we wish to ensure these people have a stake, society has a responsibility to make itself more inclusive. Things aren't going to change by themselves; we are the ones with the powers and privileges to effect the reform our complaints would suggest we want (although our actions might suggest otherwise).

  15. #34
    Banned. Children Banned. Grandchildren Banned. 3 Months. Charlie Darwin's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    17,875
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,701
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,046
    Thanked in
    3,186 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple stu View Post
    I find that a bit ignorant to be honest. I'm an accountant. I worked for five years in an industry which subsequently collapsed. You evidently would be surprised how a lack of transferability can hit job prospects in that instance (which is easily the key item you listed).

    Are others worse off than me? Of course. But I don't think that allows you blithely dismiss the point I've made. If social welfare were, say, 80% of minimum wage, why would you work the minimum wage, or even a small bit above? And it's a decent chunk; maybe 5% of the workforce.
    As I said, you haven't demonstrated that you appreciate the circumstances that other people commonly find themselves in, and you still haven't.

  16. #35
    First Team
    Joined
    May 2010
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    2,053
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    911
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,324
    Thanked in
    641 Posts
    Come on, lads, own up. Whichever one of you is responsible for this, you're going to tip Danny over the edge -



    'Lidl looting' parade floats condemned as 'tasteless'
    Last edited by Eminence Grise; 19/03/2018 at 11:37 AM.
    Hello, hello? What's going on? What's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here!
    - E Tattsyrup.

  17. #36
    Youth Team Fizzer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    33
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    79
    Thanked in
    45 Posts
    I work with the people you describe as underprivileged Danny most days, people who have never worked and have no intention of working.everything they have has been presented to them by the state and you’d struggle to find a less grateful bunch.My suggestion is to make it less comfortable on the margins, make it impossible to live life on the couch/offie/bookies.
    It is well accepted that prison is not about reform or deterrence here, it’s punishment or retribution and that’s it.of course they should be locked up they are a menace to our citizens.its a little concerning that you think probation is the way to go in the face of such wanton destruction by these mindless fools.
    Btw that float is hilarious!

  18. Thanks From:


  19. #37
    Youth Team Fizzer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    33
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    79
    Thanked in
    45 Posts
    Actually,what about this as an alternative to jail Danny,stop €20 a week from their dole for the rest of their life to pay towards the damage.They’ll choose jail over that every day of the week Danny and that’s what makes them different to you and I,they don’t want a stake in society,with a stake comes responsibilities like paying for things and getting out of bed on time.It suits these people to be where they are.

  20. #38
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,523
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Fizzer View Post
    I work with the people you describe as underprivileged Danny most days, people who have never worked and have no intention of working.everything they have has been presented to them by the state and you’d struggle to find a less grateful bunch.My suggestion is to make it less comfortable on the margins, make it impossible to live life on the couch/offie/bookies.
    In what capacity do you work with the underprivileged? Of course I may be wrong but, from the tone of your post, I would get the impression that a more hostile (rather than empathetic) approach may be mandated by your position or may be in the interests of you fulfilling your professional role. Might this influence your view?

    I understand what you're suggesting. I'm simply pointing out that impoverishing people further would only make the general social situation worse (and all the evidence points this way). What evidence have you to suggest that increasing hardship would help? If people find it impossible to survive, they'll resort to other means they feel are viable, convenient and appropriate; for many, that resort will be crime.

    It is well accepted that prison is not about reform or deterrence here, it’s punishment or retribution and that’s it.of course they should be locked up they are a menace to our citizens.its a little concerning that you think probation is the way to go in the face of such wanton destruction by these mindless fools.
    Well accepted by whom? What is the point in punishment for the sake of punishment? How does that help exactly? Who does it help? Prison doesn't protect the wider public (see re-offending rates) unless you wish to lock people up for life for petty crime (which would be an outrageously disproportionate and draconian response that would only lead to greater monetary cost for society in the long run). Do you not see merit in looking at types of reform that might actually deter crime, rehabilitate offenders and protect the wider public?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizzer View Post
    Actually,what about this as an alternative to jail Danny,stop €20 a week from their dole for the rest of their life to pay towards the damage.They’ll choose jail over that every day of the week Danny and that’s what makes them different to you and I,they don’t want a stake in society,with a stake comes responsibilities like paying for things and getting out of bed on time.It suits these people to be where they are.
    If that is true for some people from underprivileged backgrounds, why do you think that is? They're not a different species with a different genetic make-up; they've just happened to be born into very different circumstances from those we might have been born into. Do you think they're hard-wired differently or something? If you were born into the same conditions and circumstances they were, chances are you'd be engaging in similar.

    If you wish to make their situation worse - a peculiarly vindictive desire to punish people who are already victims of social injustice and blame them for the metaphorical cage in which they find themselves and which confines or weighs heavily upon every choice they make in their lives - that's your call, but you forfeit the right to then complain and pontificate when the consequences of your vindictiveness come back to encroach upon your more comfortable existence.

  21. #39
    International Prospect osarusan's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Limerick for now.
    Posts
    7,292
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,113
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,519
    Thanked in
    834 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible View Post
    I was referring to the fact that you had said you "would not give too much credence to the notion that the people involved made much use of 'their rational and reasoning faculties and adult decision-making capabilities'". The logical conclusion of that and other comments you have made would be to see the act as "mindless" or possible even "random"..
    Of course, they made a decision to do it, I never suggested otherwise. It was not by any means a reasoned or rational decision, it was not an intelligent decision, but it was a decision, it was their decision.

    I would guess that the decision was borne out of a combination of being thick as shit and not giving a shit, but that would just be speculation.

  22. #40
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,523
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by osarusan View Post
    Of course, they made a decision to do it, I never suggested otherwise. It was not by any means a reasoned or rational decision, it was not an intelligent decision, but it was a decision, it was their decision.

    I would guess that the decision was borne out of a combination of being thick as shit and not giving a shit, but that would just be speculation.
    Are you suggesting the decision was entirely to do with what you perceive to be their own stupidity, moral failure or lack of social conscience and had nothing to do with their environment or wider socio-economic conditions?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. LOI/FAI shop in Dublin city centre
    By DSandy in forum Premier & First Divisions
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07/03/2009, 3:47 PM
  2. The Gadget Shop - Dublin
    By A face in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01/11/2005, 12:13 PM
  3. FAI shop in Dublin
    By tonycuna in forum Ireland
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 15/08/2005, 10:18 AM
  4. Weapons of mass destruction in Google
    By Troy.McClure in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 27/04/2004, 12:10 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02/06/2003, 3:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •