IIRC correctly there was a nasty case in Thailand of assailants disabling a victim with pepper spray and proceeding to beat her up and then rape her. Most weapons can be used in both offence and defence. Obviously there is an overwhelming case for mitigating circumstances here in the actual use, but in general an arms race between attackers and victims is undesirable.
Perhaps pepper spray should be made legal for women to carry in Denmark and Germany.
"A 17-year-old girl who was physically and sexually attacked in Sønderborg will herself face charges for using pepper spray to fend off her assailant."
Are women and girls just meant to put up with this sort of thing from now on?
No, You're fucking not. And I speak as the father of two daughters. I don't want them to grow up in a West where they are reduced to what they were: fearful chattels, hidebound, chastened, humiliated, unable to walk the streets as free and equal people.
But that's where we are headed if the Muslim population exceeds 10-20%, and that will happen in our lifetimes, if not sooner, unless we STOP Muslim immigration now and start DEPORTING Muslims who will not assimilate to liberal values.
That's it. That's the choice. Wanker lefties who pretend otherwise are liars. Islam does not integrate. It conquers, or at best forms nasty ghettos.
But if women in the west want to stop this they need to wise up and use the best weapon they have. Which is not pepper spray. It is the vote. Women need to vote right, or hard right, in toto and en masse. Liberal lefties will never defend feminism, for them race trumps gender, that much is now clear.
Vote right.
You're correct, but sadly we're heading into oblivion because the majority are indoctrinated and can't handle the reality of our situation.
No, No, Mr. Blue the majority are not indoctrinated and can handle the reality. They have just learned that our political masters cannot/will not cope with the reality and that the best way to get by is to shut up and keep your head down.
Those South Yorkshire coppers, for example, who suppressed evidence, ignored complaints and even threatened complainants didn't join up to do that, but they found that telling the truth and staying true to their oath office was not a good career move, so they didn't.
We really are doomed. This will make the Fall of Rome seem like the famous rained-off flower competition of June '71 in Little Storping in the Swuff.
I don't think we are doomed, Mr. Blue, we just need to stop listening to surrender monkey politicians and start voting for those that are actually on our side. The nobs are in it for their own benefit so they will soon get the message. It happened in Scotland so it can happen in England. The EU referendum would be a good first step.
Agreed - let's vote to Leave and hopefully that will be a first step to sorting out the political culture.
If there is a rise in sex assaults and the police are unable to police them properly then it don't make any sense for pepper spray to be illegal. Women need to be able to defend themselves when needed.
IIRC correctly there was a nasty case in Thailand of assailants disabling a victim with pepper spray and proceeding to beat her up and then rape her. Most weapons can be used in both offence and defence. Obviously there is an overwhelming case for mitigating circumstances here in the actual use, but in general an arms race between attackers and victims is undesirable.
Perhaps pepper spray should be made legal for women to carry in Denmark and Germany.
It has been legal to carry in Germany for a long time, and can be bought in shops or tinternet.
Agreed - let's vote to Leave and hopefully that will be a first step to sorting out the political culture.
The problems with immigration have nothing to do with the EU or, to some extent politicians.
Society in the West has come to a consensus that all life is sacred and all life should be treated with respect and protection of life is sacrosanct. As such mass immigration to Liberal Western Democracies is here to stay and permanent and membership of the EU will have absolutely no impact on that whatsoever.
No political machinations are ever likely to change that.
"A 17-year-old girl who was physically and sexually attacked in Sønderborg will herself face charges for using pepper spray to fend off her assailant."
Are women and girls just meant to put up with this sort of thing from now on?
No, You're fucking not. And I speak as the father of two daughters. I don't want them to grow up in a West where they are reduced to what they were: fearful chattels, hidebound, chastened, humiliated, unable to walk the streets as free and equal people.
But that's where we are headed if the Muslim population exceeds 10-20%, and that will happen in our lifetimes, if not sooner, unless we STOP Muslim immigration now and start DEPORTING Muslims who will not assimilate to liberal values.
That's it. That's the choice. Wanker lefties who pretend otherwise are liars. Islam does not integrate. It conquers, or at best forms nasty ghettos.
But if women in the west want to stop this they need to wise up and use the best weapon they have. Which is not pepper spray. It is the vote. Women need to vote right, or hard right, in toto and en masse. Liberal lefties will never defend feminism, for them race trumps gender, that much is now clear.
Vote right.
Whilst I don't entirely disagree with your recommendation, I find your thesis flawed from a behavioural point of view. You deal only with 'antecedents' - those things that lead to the initial behaviour - namely religion, culture, exposure to Western society. You forget consequences. Most behaviour is formed by consequences, not antecedents. If the consequences of doing these things were severe, the behaviour would soon stop. The problem is there are no negative consequences.
If there is a rise in sex assaults and the police are unable to police them properly then it don't make any sense for pepper spray to be illegal. Women need to be able to defend themselves when needed.
What happens when the 'rapists' tool themselves up with legal pepper spray?
Antecedents and Consequences seem to have little to do with it. Obeyance to the law and accepting Societal Norms is a trained condition. And it takes a very, very long time. It's called childhood and in general it takes 16 years to become an adult and probably another 5 years after that before the native born will fully participate and integrate.
Immigration therefore needs to fit (at least broadly) in with those cultural and social norms. It worked with Italians, it worked with Hindis it worked with Sikhs, it worked with Carribeans, it works with Nigerians. It does not work with Islam whose fundamental culture CANNOT fit in with the values of Western Liberal Democracies.
There is no way to turn an Adherent Muslim into a participating member of British society and it would take generations (if it is ever possible) for enough non-Adherents within the population to overtake Adherents in terms of cultural upbringing.
If there is a rise in sex assaults and the police are unable to police them properly then it don't make any sense for pepper spray to be illegal. Women need to be able to defend themselves when needed.
What would happen if a country's police force are overwhelmed? Would the army have to be deployed?
I should have thought that If a country's police force is overwhelmed then civil order, the very basis of the state, will have broken down. At the point either the army goes in and rescues the situation (probably very violently) or the country ceases to exist.
Lots of work was done on these issues, in the UK at least, in the fifties, sixties and seventies when nuclear armageddon seemed possible. Short of such a catastrophe the state will always move before the police are overwhelmed. That said I think were a few bottoms going half-crown-six pence in the Home Office when the riots kicked off a couple of years ago, though that was less of a case of the police being overwhelmed as being too frightened (diversity!) and too poorly led to act.
Agreed - let's vote to Leave and hopefully that will be a first step to sorting out the political culture.
The problems with immigration have nothing to do with the EU or, to some extent politicians.
Society in the West has come to a consensus that all life is sacred and all life should be treated with respect and protection of life is sacrosanct. As such mass immigration to Liberal Western Democracies is here to stay and permanent and membership of the EU will have absolutely no impact on that whatsoever.
No political machinations are ever likely to change that.
What an odd conclusion. I would personally say that British society (don't feel qualified to judge the rest of the 'West') has merely become more emotional and less cerebral. I don't think we've resolved to accept mass immigration as a moral duty, I think we're more susceptible to emotional manipulation - such as by dead baby pictures. If I'm more right than you, society could quite easily be manipulated in the opposite direction too.
Agreed - let's vote to Leave and hopefully that will be a first step to sorting out the political culture.
The problems with immigration have nothing to do with the EU or, to some extent politicians.
Society in the West has come to a consensus that all life is sacred and all life should be treated with respect and protection of life is sacrosanct. As such mass immigration to Liberal Western Democracies is here to stay and permanent and membership of the EU will have absolutely no impact on that whatsoever.
No political machinations are ever likely to change that.
What an odd conclusion. I would personally say that British society (don't feel qualified to judge the rest of the 'West') has merely become more emotional and less cerebral. I don't think we've resolved to accept mass immigration as a moral duty, I think we're more susceptible to emotional manipulation - such as by dead baby pictures. If I'm more right than you, society could quite easily be manipulated in the opposite direction too.
If you read my longer post on societal norms it might make more sense.
Societal Norms can change, however. But the timescale is VAST, and a quick analysis shows that to be about two generations - 50 years. Abolition of Slavery - from first being popular to being passed in law, about 50 years. Votes for Women - from first being seriously discussed to being pased, about 40 years. Acceptance of homosexulity - from legalisation to equal marriage, about 45 years. Equal Work - from widespread participation of women to younger cohorts outperforming men, about 60 years.
I'm sure there are lots and lots of examples. Politicians cannot change this timescale. It is how a society works. If you want a hard line on immigration you have to stop all life being considered sacrosanct and outlaw asylum. And to get that sort of attitudinal change in your society, will take 50 years.
Who says it was a refugee that attacked the Danish pepper spray girl?
Quite, Mr Sam, as he has never apparently been found we do not know what nationality he was, what his immigration status (if any) was or even whether he was actually sprayed.
Agreed - let's vote to Leave and hopefully that will be a first step to sorting out the political culture.
The problems with immigration have nothing to do with the EU or, to some extent politicians.
Society in the West has come to a consensus that all life is sacred and all life should be treated with respect and protection of life is sacrosanct. As such mass immigration to Liberal Western Democracies is here to stay and permanent and membership of the EU will have absolutely no impact on that whatsoever.
No political machinations are ever likely to change that.
I think that largely true.
Would us leaving the EU stop the migrant crisis anywhere including Calais? I cannot see it making any difference in practice.
Have we managed to restrain non-EU migration? Insignificantly if at all.
Have we deterred asylum seekers by making them wear festival type wrist bands? Not noticeably.
Could we deter any of the above by ceasing to be sentimental and treating them like galley slaves? Possibly, but we are not going to do so. As Dair says, we are too civilized.
Tony Blair 'There is a little-noticed dimension which is that, in my opinion, if the UK votes to leave Europe, Scotland will vote to leave the UK. It is extremely serious for Great Britain.'
Little noticed despite the massed ranks of Remain cheerleaders spinning this line endlessly for the last couple of weeks? How remarkable.
Antecedents and Consequences seem to have little to do with it. Obeyance to the law and accepting Societal Norms is a trained condition. And it takes a very, very long time. It's called childhood and in general it takes 16 years to become an adult and probably another 5 years after that before the native born will fully participate and integrate.
Immigration therefore needs to fit (at least broadly) in with those cultural and social norms. It worked with Italians, it worked with Hindis it worked with Sikhs, it worked with Carribeans, it works with Nigerians. It does not work with Islam whose fundamental culture CANNOT fit in with the values of Western Liberal Democracies.
There is no way to turn an Adherent Muslim into a participating member of British society and it would take generations (if it is ever possible) for enough non-Adherents within the population to overtake Adherents in terms of cultural upbringing.
They have to do with everything. Nor do you need 15 years to change a behaviour - we're all modifying our behaviour due to consequences every day.
We do not obey the law because we've been well brought up. We obey it because we believe there will be severe consequences if we don't. Rotherham is a perfect example. Had the initial crimes been severely punished, there would have been no Rotherham. We have rape laws. The 'problem' isn't that some vile men took it into their heads to rape young girls - wicked people have always been among us. The problem is that when they did, there was no negative consequence. The benefits of continuing the behaviour outweighed any negative. We're getting tied up in focus on Islam (antecedent) when there's no consequence.
It's the same with 'chavs' or the equivalent, culminating in the London riots. They were quoted as saying 'People have to understand, we can do what we like'. And they can. No consequences. They're not Muslims, you can't deport them. We can again look at the antecedents (deadbeat dads, gang culture, drugs, cheap alcohol, gangster rap), but again the real reason for the behaviour lies in consequences or lack of.
Tony Blair 'There is a little-noticed dimension which is that, in my opinion, if the UK votes to leave Europe, Scotland will vote to leave the UK. It is extremely serious for Great Britain.'
Little noticed despite the massed ranks of Remain cheerleaders spinning this line endlessly for the last couple of weeks? How remarkable.
He means that the thought hadn't yet occurred to the people he mentioned it to at Davos or on the yachts of the French Riviera.
Tony Blair 'There is a little-noticed dimension which is that, in my opinion, if the UK votes to leave Europe, Scotland will vote to leave the UK. It is extremely serious for Great Britain.'
Little noticed despite the massed ranks of Remain cheerleaders spinning this line endlessly for the last couple of weeks? How remarkable.
Can't see the Scots wanting to opt for a smaller voting block at Brussells without the safety buffer of Westminster - "rejoin with less say and sign up to the Euro " not a chance - more empty bluster from remain and the Nats.
I'm selling my flat and trying to buy a new one. The buyer of my flat is threatening to pull out so I need to buy fast. I've seen one I like *but* it's miles from the nearest bus route. There is a new development nearby which may offer a shortcut to a busstop but neither google maps nor bing maps are up-to-date at the area. What is the most up-to-date satellite shot of a given area?
Call me old fashioned but could you not walk it yourself?
I work away from home on weekdays and so will not be in the area until Saturday.
We do not obey the law because we've been well brought up. We obey it because we believe there will be severe consequences if we don't. Rotherham is a perfect example. Had the initial crimes been severely punished, there would have been no Rotherham. We have rape laws. The 'problem' isn't that some vile men took it into their heads to rape young girls - wicked people have always been among us. The problem is that when they did, there was no negative consequence. The benefits of continuing the behaviour outweighed any negative. We're getting tied up in focus on Islam (antecedent) when there's no consequence.
The problem is that your argument is nonsense and based on so many idiotic fallacies it's impossible to address them all. The idea that Punishment is a deterrent to crime has been debunked at every turn, they are unrelated - which is why those countries which focus on Rehabilitation and not Punishment have far, far lower crime rates. Rehabilition is the means by which failures to the adherence of cultural norms learned in childhood are addressed. In blunt terms, it is Re-Education (and with everything that means) but this is the basis of Western society.
To give it a simple, empirical example. If Punishment worked, then America would have the lowest crime rate on the planet.
Tony Blair 'There is a little-noticed dimension which is that, in my opinion, if the UK votes to leave Europe, Scotland will vote to leave the UK. It is extremely serious for Great Britain.'
Little noticed despite the massed ranks of Remain cheerleaders spinning this line endlessly for the last couple of weeks? How remarkable.
Agreed - let's vote to Leave and hopefully that will be a first step to sorting out the political culture.
The problems with immigration have nothing to do with the EU or, to some extent politicians.
Society in the West has come to a consensus that all life is sacred and all life should be treated with respect and protection of life is sacrosanct. As such mass immigration to Liberal Western Democracies is here to stay and permanent and membership of the EU will have absolutely no impact on that whatsoever.
No political machinations are ever likely to change that.
...
Have we managed to restrain non-EU migration? Insignificantly if at all.
...
Has HMG actually tried? Restraining non-EU immigration should be very simple if the Government actually wanted to do it. Just don't issue the visas.
For HMG continuing with mass non-EU immigration is like a terminal nicotine addict not giving up the fags. There is always a reason, always an excuse.
Agreed - let's vote to Leave and hopefully that will be a first step to sorting out the political culture.
The problems with immigration have nothing to do with the EU or, to some extent politicians.
Society in the West has come to a consensus that all life is sacred and all life should be treated with respect and protection of life is sacrosanct. As such mass immigration to Liberal Western Democracies is here to stay and permanent and membership of the EU will have absolutely no impact on that whatsoever.
No political machinations are ever likely to change that.
...
Have we managed to restrain non-EU migration? Insignificantly if at all.
...
Has HMG actually tried? Restraining non-EU immigration should be very simple if the Government actually wanted to do it. Just don't issue the visas.
For HMG continuing with mass non-EU immigration is like a terminal nicotine addict not giving up the fags. There is always a reason, always an excuse.
Exactly. Banning non-EU migration would mean bans on overseas spouses, bans on non-EU recruitment of students, engineers, nurses and Doctors. It would mean refusing and deporting all asylum seekers. Its just not going to happen in a mobile world.
Thanks to the Scottish government's new Scots language teaching initiative, I have discovered that I am trilingual - English, Scots and Spanish. For so long maligned as monoglots, the British can now rejoice in the fact that all of us are at least bilingual.
Dan PfeifferVerified account @danpfeiffer 26m26 minutes ago If Trump skips the debate, his absence will probably dominate the coverage and conversation more than his actual presence
We do not obey the law because we've been well brought up. We obey it because we believe there will be severe consequences if we don't. Rotherham is a perfect example. Had the initial crimes been severely punished, there would have been no Rotherham. We have rape laws. The 'problem' isn't that some vile men took it into their heads to rape young girls - wicked people have always been among us. The problem is that when they did, there was no negative consequence. The benefits of continuing the behaviour outweighed any negative. We're getting tied up in focus on Islam (antecedent) when there's no consequence.
The problem is that your argument is nonsense and based on so many idiotic fallacies it's impossible to address them all. The idea that Punishment is a deterrent to crime has been debunked at every turn, they are unrelated - which is why those countries which focus on Rehabilitation and not Punishment have far, far lower crime rates. Rehabilition is the means by which failures to the adherence of cultural norms learned in childhood are addressed. In blunt terms, it is Re-Education (and with everything that means) but this is the basis of Western society.
To give it a simple, empirical example. If Punishment worked, then America would have the lowest crime rate on the planet.
I think you're wrong about rehabilitation and punishment because you're getting things back to front. It's true that countries like Norway have lower crime rates and lesser punishments, but I think it's a case of lower crime rates => lesser punishments rather than lesser punishments => lower crime rates. In other words, the low crime rates came first and allowed for lesser punishments. But if you installed lesser punishments in high crime societies, I don't think the level of crime would decrease; it would be more likely to increase if anything.
A new non-INSA German poll shows the same bump in AfD support at CDU expense, though at a lower level (10%, like the other polls, rather than the INSA 13%). Also an apparent jump in liberal and far-left support, but that could be just MOE.
Thanks to the Scottish government's new Scots language teaching initiative, I have discovered that I am trilingual - English, Scots and Spanish. For so long maligned as monoglots, the British can now rejoice in the fact that all of us are at least bilingual.
Scots and English are no closer than Swedish and Danish. They are mutually intelligible (sometimes at a struggle) but you would be unable to speak it (I can't). You might be able to read written Scots but would be unable to write it.
Some dialects of Scots are much harder to understand. Doric is nearly imposible.
In this market, if you have a buyer for your flat don't lose him. Sell and rent for 3 months if you have to while you find the right place
I'll have to split this into two responses. This is response one.
In 2005 I sold a flat without another to go to. By the time I got my ducks lined up it was three months later and prices had risen by about 10%. I couldn't make up the ~£20K shortfall and so fell off the property ladder. Some frantic saving saw me able to rejoin it in 2008 but that gap conservatively cost me £80K. Which I do not have.
The gap-between-purchases approach does have disadvantages.
We do not obey the law because we've been well brought up. We obey it because we believe there will be severe consequences if we don't. Rotherham is a perfect example. Had the initial crimes been severely punished, there would have been no Rotherham. We have rape laws. The 'problem' isn't that some vile men took it into their heads to rape young girls - wicked people have always been among us. The problem is that when they did, there was no negative consequence. The benefits of continuing the behaviour outweighed any negative. We're getting tied up in focus on Islam (antecedent) when there's no consequence.
The problem is that your argument is nonsense and based on so many idiotic fallacies it's impossible to address them all. The idea that Punishment is a deterrent to crime has been debunked at every turn, they are unrelated - which is why those countries which focus on Rehabilitation and not Punishment have far, far lower crime rates. Rehabilition is the means by which failures to the adherence of cultural norms learned in childhood are addressed. In blunt terms, it is Re-Education (and with everything that means) but this is the basis of Western society.
To give it a simple, empirical example. If Punishment worked, then America would have the lowest crime rate on the planet.
No, Saudi Arabia or Singapore would. And my understanding is that they do.
I'm disappointed by your inability to assimilate a very simple concept. Every depressingly wrong-headed notion here can be empirically dismissed, but sadly not on a school night. Perhaps we can return to the discussion.
Agreed - let's vote to Leave and hopefully that will be a first step to sorting out the political culture.
The problems with immigration have nothing to do with the EU or, to some extent politicians.
Society in the West has come to a consensus that all life is sacred and all life should be treated with respect and protection of life is sacrosanct. As such mass immigration to Liberal Western Democracies is here to stay and permanent and membership of the EU will have absolutely no impact on that whatsoever.
No political machinations are ever likely to change that.
...
Have we managed to restrain non-EU migration? Insignificantly if at all.
...
Has HMG actually tried? Restraining non-EU immigration should be very simple if the Government actually wanted to do it. Just don't issue the visas.
For HMG continuing with mass non-EU immigration is like a terminal nicotine addict not giving up the fags. There is always a reason, always an excuse.
Exactly. Banning non-EU migration would mean bans on overseas spouses, bans on non-EU recruitment of students, engineers, nurses and Doctors. It would mean refusing and deporting all asylum seekers. Its just not going to happen in a mobile world.
Lots of excuses there , Doc, so when will you give up the immigration fags?
The problem is that your argument is nonsense and based on so many idiotic fallacies it's impossible to address them all. The idea that Punishment is a deterrent to crime has been debunked at every turn, they are unrelated - which is why those countries which focus on Rehabilitation and not Punishment have far, far lower crime rates. Rehabilition is the means by which failures to the adherence of cultural norms learned in childhood are addressed. In blunt terms, it is Re-Education (and with everything that means) but this is the basis of Western society.
To give it a simple, empirical example. If Punishment worked, then America would have the lowest crime rate on the planet.
I think you're wrong about rehabilitation and punishment because you're getting things back to front. It's true that countries like Norway have lower crime rates and lesser punishments, but I think it's a case of lower crime rates => lesser punishments rather than lesser punishments => lower crime rates. In other words, the low crime rates came first and allowed for lesser punishments. But if you installed lesser punishments in high crime societies I don't think the level of crime would decrease, it would be more likely to increase if anything.
You can't say I'm wrong till you establish why the crime rate is lower in the first place. There is plenty of evidence that it has to do with how well the society instils cultural norms and learned societal adherence in childhood that leads to the low crime starting position (and why immigration can be so destructive).
In general terms, the more a society focuses on the individual the higher crime and the more it focuses on society, the lower the crime.
British society would baulk at some of the ways countries like those of Scandinavia achieve their goals of a society focused population (the most obvious example being the massive use of taking children from parents and putting them in short term Care).
The thing is, we have examples of this working. The focus on Rehabilitation and adherence to Society norms works. It's seen all over Northern Europe. What we DO NOT have ANY examples of is the Punishment focus having any impact, whatsoever, on crime.
Thanks to the Scottish government's new Scots language teaching initiative, I have discovered that I am trilingual - English, Scots and Spanish. For so long maligned as monoglots, the British can now rejoice in the fact that all of us are at least bilingual.
Scots and English are no closer than Swedish and Danish. They are mutually intelligible (sometimes at a struggle) but you would be unable to speak it (I can't). You might be able to read written Scots but would be unable to write it.
Some dialects of Scots are much harder to understand. Doric is nearly imposible.
Some dialects of English are very hard to understand. I genuinely think it's great that Scots is being revived. The problem is that there is no need to speak it, or to learn it. I am not sure how you change that. Catalan has come back so much in Catalonia because it is so different to Spanish in written and spoken form, and local government initiatives prioritised it over Spanish - making it the first language in schools, in government etc. When I lived there yoi heard as much Spanish as Catalan in the town where I was (Lleida, then known as Lerida), but now it is basically a monoglot, Catalan-speaking city, Latin American immigrants aside. Barcelona is still much more Spanish in terms of language, mind.
We do not obey the law because we've been well brought up. We obey it because we believe there will be severe consequences if we don't. Rotherham is a perfect example. Had the initial crimes been severely punished, there would have been no Rotherham. We have rape laws. The 'problem' isn't that some vile men took it into their heads to rape young girls - wicked people have always been among us. The problem is that when they did, there was no negative consequence. The benefits of continuing the behaviour outweighed any negative. We're getting tied up in focus on Islam (antecedent) when there's no consequence.
The problem is that your argument is nonsense and based on so many idiotic fallacies it's impossible to address them all. The idea that Punishment is a deterrent to crime has been debunked at every turn, they are unrelated - which is why those countries which focus on Rehabilitation and not Punishment have far, far lower crime rates. Rehabilition is the means by which failures to the adherence of cultural norms learned in childhood are addressed. In blunt terms, it is Re-Education (and with everything that means) but this is the basis of Western society.
To give it a simple, empirical example. If Punishment worked, then America would have the lowest crime rate on the planet.
I think you're wrong about rehabilitation and punishment because you're getting things back to front. It's true that countries like Norway have lower crime rates and lesser punishments, but I think it's a case of lower crime rates => lesser punishments rather than lesser punishments => lower crime rates. In other words, the low crime rates came first and allowed for lesser punishments. But if you installed lesser punishments in high crime societies, I don't think the level of crime would decrease; it would be more likely to increase if anything.
I think that the evidence shows that the speed and certainty of punishment matter more than severity in deterring crime. Dair is right though about countries with strong societal norms of conformism, whether Japan or Sweden preventing crime in the first place. I think those societal norms are breaking down severely in Scandinavia at the moment.
Most criminals are impulsive, and do not think of the future. If they were different then they would not fancy crime. A remote chance of being caught and a very long time before punishment just doesn't work for impulsive and often fairly thick people who make up the majority of crime.
Philip Rucker @PhilipRucker 15m15 minutes ago Trump camp manager @CLewandowski_ confirms to WaPo that Trump is “definitely not” participating in Fox New debate. “His word is his bond."
Well we'll have some drama until Thursday night. Goodnight.
Thanks to the Scottish government's new Scots language teaching initiative, I have discovered that I am trilingual - English, Scots and Spanish. For so long maligned as monoglots, the British can now rejoice in the fact that all of us are at least bilingual.
Scots and English are no closer than Swedish and Danish. They are mutually intelligible (sometimes at a struggle) but you would be unable to speak it (I can't). You might be able to read written Scots but would be unable to write it.
Some dialects of Scots are much harder to understand. Doric is nearly imposible.
Some dialects of English are very hard to understand. I genuinely think it's great that Scots is being revived. The problem is that there is no need to speak it, or to learn it. I am not sure how you change that.
Indeed, in terms of education it is generally pointless. The important part - acceptance of Scottish English dialects in written testing was transitioned years ago and anything more with regards to Scots and Gaelic should be left for hobbyists.
The SNP have always been quite obsessed with language but the whole thing seems pointless and a complete waste of time to me.
I think that the evidence shows that the speed and certainty of punishment matter more than severity in deterring crime. Dair is right though about countries with strong societal norms of conformism, whether Japan or Sweden preventing crime in the first place. I think those societal norms are breaking down severely in Scandinavia at the moment.
Most criminals are impulsive, and do not think of the future. If they were different then they would not fancy crime. A remote chance of being caught and a very long time before punishment just doesn't work for impulsive and often fairly thick people who make up the majority of crime.
It's breaking down because migrants do not have 21 years of indoctrination (for that is what it is and should not be dismissed for it being so). And as I said before, some categories of migrants, those who come from cultures which are too alien will never accept the societal norms and will often prevent their immediate descendants from accepting them as well.
In this market, if you have a buyer for your flat don't lose him. Sell and rent for 3 months if you have to while you find the right place
I'll have to split this into two responses. This is response two
Since Osborne's Autumn Statement, prices have gone ballistic as BTL-ers snap up every property going before the new stamp duty deadline kicks in on April 1st. Flats that went for £160-170K 12-18 months ago are now going for £200-210K. Additionally, Help to Buy is making things worse, not better. I may *have* to crash the sale and disappoint the buyer because the properties I was intending to buy have increased in price beyond my reach, and the ones left are *worse* than the one I am selling. I heartily dislike this approach to business but when price rises result in a personal overspend of £10-£20K I may not have a choice.
Thanks to the Scottish government's new Scots language teaching initiative, I have discovered that I am trilingual - English, Scots and Spanish. For so long maligned as monoglots, the British can now rejoice in the fact that all of us are at least bilingual.
Scots and English are no closer than Swedish and Danish. They are mutually intelligible (sometimes at a struggle) but you would be unable to speak it (I can't). You might be able to read written Scots but would be unable to write it.
Some dialects of Scots are much harder to understand. Doric is nearly imposible.
Some dialects of English are very hard to understand. I genuinely think it's great that Scots is being revived. The problem is that there is no need to speak it, or to learn it. I am not sure how you change that.
Make it compulsory is the obvious answer, Mr. Observer. All children born in Scotland should be taught in "Scots" as the first language from day one until they finish compulsory education. There might be a few technical difficulties in the early years of the programme, like finding enough teachers, but that should not be allowed to create an insurmountable problem.
Try polling "if the Uk as a whole voted to leave the EU, would you vote for independence and switching from the pound to the Euro ?"
No point adding a lie. There would be no requirement to switch from the Pound (as already established and accepted during the First Referendum).
Cue a whole list of tired clichés from Loyalists that have already been debunked.
New memberships of the EU require adoption of the Euro. Scotland would be no exception.
That's not what the EU requires. It requires a known pathway to the Euro but that may be postposed. Forever.
Not that it would be a new application in any case.
You know, I can't be bothered. Within Scotland, Loyalists have lost the argument. When the Second Referendum swings around in a couple of years we can go over it all again.
Try polling "if the Uk as a whole voted to leave the EU, would you vote for independence and switching from the pound to the Euro ?"
No point adding a lie. There would be no requirement to switch from the Pound (as already established and accepted during the First Referendum).
Cue a whole list of tired clichés from Loyalists that have already been debunked.
New memberships of the EU require adoption of the Euro. Scotland would be no exception.
I doubt that. I imagine that if rUK were outside the EU, the EU would not insist on Scotland joining the Euro. It would be fudged as an aspiration. An independent Scotland would get a much more sympathetic hearing after Brexit than without one. But an independent Scotland would be insane to keep the pound as it would be ceding all fiscal policy and most economic policy to a foreign power.
Agreed - let's vote to Leave and hopefully that will be a first step to sorting out the political culture.
The problems with immigration have nothing to do with the EU or, to some extent politicians.
Society in the West has come to a consensus that all life is sacred and all life should be treated with respect and protection of life is sacrosanct. As such mass immigration to Liberal Western Democracies is here to stay and permanent and membership of the EU will have absolutely no impact on that whatsoever.
No political machinations are ever likely to change that.
...
Have we managed to restrain non-EU migration? Insignificantly if at all.
...
Has HMG actually tried? Restraining non-EU immigration should be very simple if the Government actually wanted to do it. Just don't issue the visas.
For HMG continuing with mass non-EU immigration is like a terminal nicotine addict not giving up the fags. There is always a reason, always an excuse.
Exactly. Banning non-EU migration would mean bans on overseas spouses, bans on non-EU recruitment of students, engineers, nurses and Doctors. It would mean refusing and deporting all asylum seekers. Its just not going to happen in a mobile world.
Lots of excuses there , Doc, so when will you give up the immigration fags?
If we wanted to cut immigration then we would need to change quite a few policies. Start with making all benefits contributory only, then only allow spouse visas if the couple have lived together overseas as a married couple for a decade, repeal the refugee and asylum act, abolish student visas and the archaic ones on overseas servants. Remove the cap on tuition fees (one of the major reasons overseas students are preferred to domestic ones is that the fees are higher). End dual passports. Etc etc
While UKIP speaks of ending net immigration it shrinks from the policies required to achieve it. All mouth and no trousers.
Try polling "if the Uk as a whole voted to leave the EU, would you vote for independence and switching from the pound to the Euro ?"
No point adding a lie. There would be no requirement to switch from the Pound (as already established and accepted during the First Referendum).
Cue a whole list of tired clichés from Loyalists that have already been debunked.
New memberships of the EU require adoption of the Euro. Scotland would be no exception.
That's not what the EU requires. It requires a known pathway to the Euro but that may be postposed. Forever.
Not that it would be a new application in any case.
You know, I can't be bothered. Within Scotland, Loyalists have lost the argument. When the Second Referendum swings around in a couple of years we can go over it all again.
Entirely moot anyway. The known pathway to indy has been postponed. Forever.
Edit - but glad to see you've seen sense re: continually banging on about a single issue!
Thanks to the Scottish government's new Scots language teaching initiative, I have discovered that I am trilingual - English, Scots and Spanish. For so long maligned as monoglots, the British can now rejoice in the fact that all of us are at least bilingual.
Scots and English are no closer than Swedish and Danish. They are mutually intelligible (sometimes at a struggle) but you would be unable to speak it (I can't). You might be able to read written Scots but would be unable to write it.
Some dialects of Scots are much harder to understand. Doric is nearly imposible.
Some dialects of English are very hard to understand. I genuinely think it's great that Scots is being revived. The problem is that there is no need to speak it, or to learn it. I am not sure how you change that.
Make it compulsory is the obvious answer, Mr. Observer. All children born in Scotland should be taught in "Scots" as the first language from day one until they finish compulsory education. There might be a few technical difficulties in the early years of the programme, like finding enough teachers, but that should not be allowed to create an insurmountable problem.
The problem with that is that it is not different enough to English. You'd always be able to get by without learning it.
Try polling "if the Uk as a whole voted to leave the EU, would you vote for independence and switching from the pound to the Euro ?"
No point adding a lie. There would be no requirement to switch from the Pound (as already established and accepted during the First Referendum).
Cue a whole list of tired clichés from Loyalists that have already been debunked.
New memberships of the EU require adoption of the Euro. Scotland would be no exception.
That's not what the EU requires. It requires a known pathway to the Euro but that may be postposed. Forever.
Not that it would be a new application in any case.
You know, I can't be bothered. Within Scotland, Loyalists have lost the argument. When the Second Referendum swings around in a couple of years we can go over it all again.
You lost at the most optimal time for a generation - no chance the SNP will front up for another hiding.
I think that the evidence shows that the speed and certainty of punishment matter more than severity in deterring crime. Dair is right though about countries with strong societal norms of conformism, whether Japan or Sweden preventing crime in the first place. I think those societal norms are breaking down severely in Scandinavia at the moment.
Most criminals are impulsive, and do not think of the future. If they were different then they would not fancy crime. A remote chance of being caught and a very long time before punishment just doesn't work for impulsive and often fairly thick people who make up the majority of crime.
It's breaking down because migrants do not have 21 years of indoctrination (for that is what it is and should not be dismissed for it being so). And as I said before, some categories of migrants, those who come from cultures which are too alien will never accept the societal norms and will often prevent their immediate descendants from accepting them as well.
Migrants from European countries such as Ireland and Poland assimilate well and quickly, but I think that you are wrong about observant Muslims. I know quite a few devout Muslims who are perfectly assimilated. There are also many that are not. I think the difference in Muslim assimilation is very much class based. Middle class professionals assimilate better than unskilled or unemployed people.
Thanks to the Scottish government's new Scots language teaching initiative, I have discovered that I am trilingual - English, Scots and Spanish. For so long maligned as monoglots, the British can now rejoice in the fact that all of us are at least bilingual.
Scots and English are no closer than Swedish and Danish. They are mutually intelligible (sometimes at a struggle) but you would be unable to speak it (I can't). You might be able to read written Scots but would be unable to write it.
Some dialects of Scots are much harder to understand. Doric is nearly imposible.
Anyone who doesn't like news being suppressed is automatically made to look "right-wing" at present, for obvious reasons. At other periods in history the same type of person would have seemed "left-wing", for example during the 1936 abdication crisis — (if they'd known what was going on, which hardly anyone did).
Try polling "if the Uk as a whole voted to leave the EU, would you vote for independence and switching from the pound to the Euro ?"
No point adding a lie. There would be no requirement to switch from the Pound (as already established and accepted during the First Referendum).
Cue a whole list of tired clichés from Loyalists that have already been debunked.
New memberships of the EU require adoption of the Euro. Scotland would be no exception.
That's not what the EU requires. It requires a known pathway to the Euro but that may be postposed. Forever.
Not that it would be a new application in any case.
You know, I can't be bothered. Within Scotland, Loyalists have lost the argument. When the Second Referendum swings around in a couple of years we can go over it all again.
Entirely moot anyway. The known pathway to indy has been postponed. Forever.
Edit - but glad to see you've seen sense re: continually banging on about a single issue!
And Brexit won't un postpone it - if anything it puts it further away.
Marvin Minsky has died. I wonder whether The Now That Used To Be The Future was a disappointment for him.
(To quote xkcd 1425, "In the 60s, Marvin Minsky assigned a couple of undergrads to spend the summer programming a computer to use a camera to identify objects in a scene. He figured they'd have the problem solved by the end of the summer. Half a century later, we're still working on it. In CS [Computer Science], it can be hard to explain the difference between the easy and the virtually impossible." )
Comments
All adds up to a rather depressing picture.
http://www.security-discount.com/de/Abwehrsprays/Pfeffersprays
I know a woman who carries one that she bought in Germany when out in London.
Society in the West has come to a consensus that all life is sacred and all life should be treated with respect and protection of life is sacrosanct. As such mass immigration to Liberal Western Democracies is here to stay and permanent and membership of the EU will have absolutely no impact on that whatsoever.
No political machinations are ever likely to change that.
Immigration therefore needs to fit (at least broadly) in with those cultural and social norms. It worked with Italians, it worked with Hindis it worked with Sikhs, it worked with Carribeans, it works with Nigerians. It does not work with Islam whose fundamental culture CANNOT fit in with the values of Western Liberal Democracies.
There is no way to turn an Adherent Muslim into a participating member of British society and it would take generations (if it is ever possible) for enough non-Adherents within the population to overtake Adherents in terms of cultural upbringing.
Lots of work was done on these issues, in the UK at least, in the fifties, sixties and seventies when nuclear armageddon seemed possible. Short of such a catastrophe the state will always move before the police are overwhelmed. That said I think were a few bottoms going half-crown-six pence in the Home Office when the riots kicked off a couple of years ago, though that was less of a case of the police being overwhelmed as being too frightened (diversity!) and too poorly led to act.
Societal Norms can change, however. But the timescale is VAST, and a quick analysis shows that to be about two generations - 50 years. Abolition of Slavery - from first being popular to being passed in law, about 50 years. Votes for Women - from first being seriously discussed to being pased, about 40 years. Acceptance of homosexulity - from legalisation to equal marriage, about 45 years. Equal Work - from widespread participation of women to younger cohorts outperforming men, about 60 years.
I'm sure there are lots and lots of examples. Politicians cannot change this timescale. It is how a society works. If you want a hard line on immigration you have to stop all life being considered sacrosanct and outlaw asylum. And to get that sort of attitudinal change in your society, will take 50 years.
Would us leaving the EU stop the migrant crisis anywhere including Calais? I cannot see it making any difference in practice.
Have we managed to restrain non-EU migration? Insignificantly if at all.
Have we deterred asylum seekers by making them wear festival type wrist bands? Not noticeably.
Could we deter any of the above by ceasing to be sentimental and treating them like galley slaves? Possibly, but we are not going to do so. As Dair says, we are too civilized.
Little noticed despite the massed ranks of Remain cheerleaders spinning this line endlessly for the last couple of weeks? How remarkable.
We do not obey the law because we've been well brought up. We obey it because we believe there will be severe consequences if we don't. Rotherham is a perfect example. Had the initial crimes been severely punished, there would have been no Rotherham. We have rape laws. The 'problem' isn't that some vile men took it into their heads to rape young girls - wicked people have always been among us. The problem is that when they did, there was no negative consequence. The benefits of continuing the behaviour outweighed any negative. We're getting tied up in focus on Islam (antecedent) when there's no consequence.
It's the same with 'chavs' or the equivalent, culminating in the London riots. They were quoted as saying 'People have to understand, we can do what we like'. And they can. No consequences. They're not Muslims, you can't deport them. We can again look at the antecedents (deadbeat dads, gang culture, drugs, cheap alcohol, gangster rap), but again the real reason for the behaviour lies in consequences or lack of.
To give it a simple, empirical example. If Punishment worked, then America would have the lowest crime rate on the planet.
For HMG continuing with mass non-EU immigration is like a terminal nicotine addict not giving up the fags. There is always a reason, always an excuse.
@jdportes: Brexit will allow large *increase* in immigration from outside EU, UKIP's migration spokesman @Steven_Woolfe argues https://t.co/UJPaeUWTth
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/267114-trump-says-he-probably-wont-take-part-in-foxs-thursday
Maybe part of a plan, who knows?
Dan PfeifferVerified account @danpfeiffer 26m26 minutes ago
If Trump skips the debate, his absence will probably dominate the coverage and conversation more than his actual presence
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/allensbach.htm
Some dialects of Scots are much harder to understand. Doric is nearly imposible.
That is the question.
In 2005 I sold a flat without another to go to. By the time I got my ducks lined up it was three months later and prices had risen by about 10%. I couldn't make up the ~£20K shortfall and so fell off the property ladder. Some frantic saving saw me able to rejoin it in 2008 but that gap conservatively cost me £80K. Which I do not have.
The gap-between-purchases approach does have disadvantages.
I'm disappointed by your inability to assimilate a very simple concept. Every depressingly wrong-headed notion here can be empirically dismissed, but sadly not on a school night. Perhaps we can return to the discussion.
In general terms, the more a society focuses on the individual the higher crime and the more it focuses on society, the lower the crime.
British society would baulk at some of the ways countries like those of Scandinavia achieve their goals of a society focused population (the most obvious example being the massive use of taking children from parents and putting them in short term Care).
The thing is, we have examples of this working. The focus on Rehabilitation and adherence to Society norms works. It's seen all over Northern Europe. What we DO NOT have ANY examples of is the Punishment focus having any impact, whatsoever, on crime.
Cue a whole list of tired clichés from Loyalists that have already been debunked.
Most criminals are impulsive, and do not think of the future. If they were different then they would not fancy crime. A remote chance of being caught and a very long time before punishment just doesn't work for impulsive and often fairly thick people who make up the majority of crime.
Trump camp manager @CLewandowski_ confirms to WaPo that Trump is “definitely not” participating in Fox New debate. “His word is his bond."
Well we'll have some drama until Thursday night.
Goodnight.
The SNP have always been quite obsessed with language but the whole thing seems pointless and a complete waste of time to me.
Since Osborne's Autumn Statement, prices have gone ballistic as BTL-ers snap up every property going before the new stamp duty deadline kicks in on April 1st. Flats that went for £160-170K 12-18 months ago are now going for £200-210K. Additionally, Help to Buy is making things worse, not better. I may *have* to crash the sale and disappoint the buyer because the properties I was intending to buy have increased in price beyond my reach, and the ones left are *worse* than the one I am selling. I heartily dislike this approach to business but when price rises result in a personal overspend of £10-£20K I may not have a choice.
Neither option will win a referendum - especially at $30 a barrel.
Indy is dead for 30 years regardless of Brexit.
That's not what the EU requires. It requires a known pathway to the Euro but that may be postposed. Forever.
Not that it would be a new application in any case.
You know, I can't be bothered. Within Scotland, Loyalists have lost the argument. When the Second Referendum swings around in a couple of years we can go over it all again.
While UKIP speaks of ending net immigration it shrinks from the policies required to achieve it. All mouth and no trousers.
Edit - but glad to see you've seen sense re: continually banging on about a single issue!
(To quote xkcd 1425, "In the 60s, Marvin Minsky assigned a couple of undergrads to spend the summer programming a computer to use a camera to identify objects in a scene. He figured they'd have the problem solved by the end of the summer. Half a century later, we're still working on it. In CS [Computer Science], it can be hard to explain the difference between the easy and the virtually impossible." )
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jan/26/flat-earth-rapper-bob-neil-degrasse-tyson-diss-track
(the flat earther has the better tune)