If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Well no, of course not, but a kid who is unhappy and unhealthy and badly adjusted with his enviroment hasn't got the best chance to be a happy and healthy adult.
We cant make everybody perfect.
And I am not in anyway suggesting that we should try. What I am saying is that helping parents with their children is a good idea, that happy and well adjusted children are likely to do better at school and therefore at more likely to have more oportunities and therefore less likely to be disadvantaged.
Its not as simple as unhappy child = crime, but there is a relationship here between parenting and the childs future prospects.
Of course help should be there for people that want it, but thats a separate issue.
Which is all I was suggesting.
Have a nice day. :rolleyes:
exactly i have difficulties socialising, dont mean i should be kept away from people cause im about as harmless as they come really
Or people worry more about the low-level crime such as muggings, burglary, car-theft or vandalism which is 'detected' by these measures than worry about Midlands bank being conned out of a few million. One may involve more money, but one effects people more directly.
I would certainly have been locked up. I was always playing police chases with toy cars. Playing with toy guns. Watching war films.
And of course, trapping other kids in the Nursrey toy house and not letting them out. Same in the ball pool tunnel at another kids play centre. And palying wars with my friends was just ace.
When i should have been drawing rabbits, playing with fluffy toys, and being nice I suppose.
no its notthe great minds thing, you two are (delete expletive) like rabbits
of course you know what the other ones like :P
alot of crime can probably be sourced to childhood...
it's not like they're going to tell the parents "I'm sorry, but your child is going to grow up to become a criminal"
more like
"your child has certain social interaction problems, which we will help you to address in order for them to attain their full educational potential"
:chin:
some of the nicest kids at my school turned out to be right bastards.
quite a few of the idiots are running very sucsessful businesses and familys ...it's all pie in the sky.
forget the three year olds ...get 'em while there in the womb ...alter them so they can't possibly do their own thing why not.
Child gets labelled as being bad.
Child decides "well if I'm gonna get blamed for stuff when I haven't even done anything, then I'm gonna give them something to blame me for"
I'm guessing lots of people can relate to this, which proves how stupid the idea of spying -cos that's what it is- on little kids is (not to mention psychotic and even perverse).
P.S. The government's usual way of "fixing" problems that kids have is usually to lock em up, when, as has now (finally!) been evidenced on tv (such as on SuperNanny and similar programs), it's often the failings of someone else that is causing the behaviour (and you criticise all you want about "blaming the parents", but sometimes they have to be blamed because they are to blame - but sometimes it's outside influences as well/instead). Therefore the route of the problem is ignored, and often the problem remains. If you "quick fix" something, it's more likely to re-occur.
But a lot of white-collar crime isn't robbing HSBC of a million quid, it's robbing Mr and Mrs Bloggs of their life savings.
And there is no such thing as a victimless crime.
Who did they maim/rape/kill in the process?
Who did their supplier hurt in the process?
etc etc.
There are varying degrees of "victim", but there's no victimless crime.
I'm not saying there isn't a victimless crime I am just pointing out that to many people low level crimes such as vandalism have a bigger blight on their day to day lives that white collar.
(that said I've never worked out who insider trading robs - apart from being unfair to those who didn't get the tip off)
A lot of weed in this country is grown and supplied between groups of mates. So that's pretty victimless.
On a day-to-day life it possibly is.
And then they get £2000 put on their credit card and £1000 put on a mobile telephone.
Honest investors who lose money by being placed at an unfair disadvantage.
But not totally victimless.
I don't think the victim in many cases suffers enough for it to be a crime. I don't think that denies the existence of a victim though.
I could see your point if talking about a line of coke or a bag of smack, but not a spliff usually.
However,if I was permitted to cross examine Kermit on his assertion I would have to ask "is there evidence of a complaining party ? ". Can you answer that one legal eagle ? :chin:
seeker
Obvious horseshit.
That'd be all crime without an injured party. In order for an injury to occur, someone would have to be injured. These days the law seems unable to distinguish between when an injury has occured, and when an injury might, possibly in some chilly alternate universe occur if sets of conditions are met.
But, then the whole thing is set up for the purpose of getting money. The "crime" bit is just a remnant from it's origins and makes for good PR.
Can anyone get any sense out of seekers posts? 'cos I can't. I might stick him back on ignore.
I don't think cannabis should be illegal either, it should be noted.
Not the same thing at all really. Piracy is while not the strict definition of stealing (as the person is not deprived of what they originally owned) is seen now as a form of stealing as you are not paying for something you own and I don't really see how growing your own weed relates to this?