New Names

Re: New Names

Mark Rowland — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:33:24 GMT

Yeah get back on topic before I come and merc you.

Re: New Names

Colin Cameron — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:46:08 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]but this thread startedwith a discussion about horrific mutilation of poor horses[/quote]

Not deriding any of the above I thought this thread started about new names. How did it get onto all this talk of Muslims and crimes etc?

Re: New Names

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:01:59 GMT

Obviously all criminal behaviour isn't evil -in fact there can be evil laws-both Nazi Germany and Communist Russia had some very evil laws-but this thread startedwith a discussion about horrific mutilation of poor horses-and those people are definitely very very evil Murderers thieves paedophiles rapists are all evil

Wynne

Re: New Names

Lorna McHardy — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 19:36:38 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

We'll have to agree to differ You think of criminal behaviour as a disease-I thinkof it as evil

[/quote]

Wynne... do you see shades of grey at all? Are you saying here that any criminal behaviour is evil regardless of the nature of the crime and the circumstances leading up to it? Do you accept the concept of mitigating circumstances, or the fact that certain criminal behaviours are indeed caused by disease?

To me, it's neither evil nor a disease in any absolute sense; it's part of what humans do. And no... I am not excusing criminal behaviour. But if we're going to change it, we need understanding first. It is, of course, much easier to invent fearful punishments to frighten people into not doing things (and that really doesn't work reliably or consistently) than to find ways to prevent them from wanting to do these things in the first place. But how is anyone ever going to do that in the absence of any desire to understand motive?

And then, of course, there's the fact that what constitutes criminal behaviour is entirely socially constructed and differs considerably from place to place. If these behaviours weren't part of what humans do, they wouldn't have to be criminalised because they wouldn't exist in the first place. But if we're going to live together socially, we've got to find ways to balance individual wants/needs/desires and the smooth co-existence of the whole - hence what is essentially a local communal decision regarding what is and isn't criminal. How can the absolute concept of evil enter into this... do you see all criminal behaviour as evil, regardless of whose laws it breaks? What if there are conflicting laws?

Maybe my definition of 'evil' differs from yours?

Re: New Names

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:06:49 GMT

Tim I'm with you where ludicrously light sentences are concerned

Wynne

Re: New Names

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:04:32 GMT

We'll have to agree to differ You think of criminal behaviour as a disease-I thinkof it as evil

Wynne

Re: New Names

Tim Cheyne — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:02:12 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Tim Sorry for the Muslim Arab mix-up You're probably right it's a peer pressure thing-but excusing criminals has exactly the opposite effect to what we need -it removes any peer pressure to be good-as it removes the stigma from bad behaviour

Wynne

[/quote]

Wynne, I am not excusing criminals, far from it, it is the courts that do that by imposing ludicrously light sentences that often are not enforced. Do you read Inspector Gadget whose blog highlights the frustrations of a front-line policeman? http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/ Varies in quality from day to day but at times is quite an eye-opener.

Tim.

Re: New Names

Mark Holmes — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:57:53 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Claiming that socioeconomic factors explain crime is insulting to everyone who has grown up poor but virtuous[/quote]

Err no it isn't. Think of it like a disease. Smoking increases the risks of lung cancer but there are lots of examples where non smokers get cancer and smokers live until 90. Across a population socioeconomic factors are one of the influences on crime levels. We are not going to understand all the infuences if we just label people as evil and lock them all up.

Actually there was a debate on the radio recently about bringing back flogging, or at least the option for flogging. It went like this. Give somebody a jail sentance and offer a reduction if they take so many lashes. If flogging is so bad nobody will take it, if they do take it is a a lot cheaper than prison. Money which can then be spent on the police. I thought it sounds like a good idea!

Re: New Names

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:42:33 GMT

Wynne

Re: New Names

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:39:25 GMT

Round we go You youngsters will eventually get round to thinking of wicked as bad It's a bit like fashion-I wish I'd kept my 60s 70s clothes(and the figure to wear them ) My generation's highest term of praise was fab (short for fabulous ) or fantastic-both actually meant unbelievable-as they were derived from fable and fantasy

Wynne

Re: New Names

James Kerr — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:52:41 GMT

It's a bit of a generation thing isn't it? I grew up with wicked meaning good, and this makes sense to my 80s/90s ears. But apparently now the most exalted of things are 'sick'. I regard sick as a bad thing in every possible connotation. But sick is now wicked. Is wicked still wicked, or is it bad? Bloody hell...

Re: New Names

Tim Cheyne — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:18:14 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

In most Arab countries the average citizen is far poorer than here-no social security-yet they have far less crime They also (Sharia law ) have deterrant punishment

[/quote]

Wynne, you are making the common mistake of equating 'Arab' and 'Muslim'. In many 'Muslim' countries (that are not 'Arab') it is true that the average citizen is relatively poorer than the equivalent in UK but many also have crime rates that exceed those of UK by a considerable margin. In those poor countries where that is not the case it is strong family, tribal, and cultural ties (peer pressure, if you like) that keep the crime rate low, not the supposed deterrent effect of Sharia law; and Sharia law as applied in most Arab countries is not as draconian as we might like to believe.

In many Arab countries where the citizens are relatively wealthy, the crime rate from 'citizens' is low (except for crimes of passion and driving offences) due to the culture, close family and tribal relationships (peer pressure again). There is a great respect for the property of others and to be labelled a 'thief' is a disgrace far greater than we can probably understand.

Having said that, I do agree that the sentences of the courts in UK make a mockery of the law and the police. I am not a believer in making the punishment fit the crime nor in deterrence (it does not work) but there is a case for protecting the innocent and honest citizen. How to do it is the problem.

Tim.

Re: New Names

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:46:02 GMT

Lorna Before someone accuses me of defending Sharia law in it's enirety-many aspects appal me-in particular that they seem to think it right for fathers/brothers to murder a girl for having a boyfriend-and the fact that they seem to have no animal welfare legislation-I would like halal slaughter outlawed Having said that I would like this country to have as low a rate of theft as they have

Mark There's a close statistical correlation between the drop in New York crime rates,and them electing a zero tolerance mayor Claiming that socioeconomic factors explain crime is insulting to everyone who has grown up poor but virtuous Try googling Lord Edmund Davies-a boy who grew up in a South Wales mining town,and went on to become one of the Law Lords-and jailed the train robbers-Ronnie Biggs et al He had no more advantages than they did so poverty does not explain/excuse crime Also google 20th century crime statistics People were far poorer in the 20s/30s, let alone at the begining of the century-but crime rates were lower

Wynne

Re: New Names

Mark Holmes — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:48:08 GMT

Has anybody read freakonomics? Its discusses crime in the US which was rising inexorably and little seemed to make a difference. Then all of a sudden crime rates began falling and politicians tried taking the credit and claiming it was due to all sorts of incentives ad policies when in fact it was simply due to the fact that 20 years earlier abortion had been legalised and that large numbers of people, many of whom would have had poor and difficult/unwanted back grounds never then existed. (Or only existed for the 8 weeks or so)

The inference would be that either alot of pretty evil foetuses were aborted which would have been a remarkable stroke of luck. Or that crime is largely a socioeconomic problem with lots of factors which are difficult to explain, understand and resolve.

I suspect the world works in ways well beyond our ability to comprehend.

Re: New Names

Lorna McHardy — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:28:50 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

your argument supposes all criminals are daft

[/quote]

No... just human. There must be very few indeed who commit crimes in the expectation of getting caught and unpleasantly punished; and mostly, as a species, we tend to hope for the best even when things do go wrong. We're also not terribly good at assessing risk. Me, I think what's needed is a combination of education and evolution, and I'll be the first to admit that isn't going to happen any time soon

Re: New Names

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:07:24 GMT

We'll have to agree to disagree I think that both the likelihood of being caught and the penalty are major factors-your argument supposes all criminals are daft

My concern is to protect the innocent by frightening those who want to harm them

Wynne

Re: New Names

Lorna McHardy — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:49:59 GMT

I see. You are arguing for a system that dispenses revenge rather than justice. Well... once again, we'll have to agree to disagree. We will certainly never agree on this "EVIL" thing you keep coming out with. We'd not even agree on that one if it were simply "evil". I find simply dismissing anyone, for whatever reason, as EVIL intellectually lazy and potentially damaging to everyone. It's constructing an enemy it's ok, desirable even, to obliterate, like that horrendous 'axis of evil' stuff. Bad for the one stigmatized, bad for the one doing the stigmatizing, and deeply damaging to civilized society as a whole.

I also get quite bored with the assumption that trying to find reasons for people's behaviour is the same thing as excusing or apologizing for it - it isn't. But you've got a much better chance of fixing something if you know why it's happening. EVIL isn't a reason, it's a label, and it's totally unhelpful.

I'm also more than a little unconvinced by your FACTS, or even facts. There are other factors influencing crime figures than the nature of the penalty; the latter is only a very small part. Of course you can, in theory, establish a system whereby everybody always gets caught and when caught, subjected to inhumane punishments, and of course if you did so, the crime rate would drop. But even in the most repressive and vindictive regimes, it doesn't go away. And the very idea of living anywhere Sharia law is in operation makes me feel physically ill.

Re: New Names

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:57:12 GMT

Lorna If youexamine FACTS not leftie propaganda you will find you're wrong

In most Arab countries the average citizen is far poorer than here-no social security-yet they have far less crime They also (Sharia law ) have deterrant punishments

This country Google 20th century crime statistics-the FACTS sre available Since the 60s when we started getting soft on crime -the figures (offences per ,000 population have climbed relentlessly The only time there was a fall in total crime was when Micheal Howard was Home Secretary-after he said "prison works " and increased sentencing guidelines The only other instance when I can recall a fall in an offence is with drunken driving When the breathalyser was brought in , drivers realised that there was a greater chance of conviction when absolute blood alcohol figures were available than when it was merely a policeman's opinion,and loss of licence is a perfect example of what I would call a deterrant sentence-one which causes real hardship to the criminal-so the result is now we have far less drunks on the road I would say crimes are committed because the criminals a) don't believe they'll get caught, or aren't scared of the punishment if they are caught b) are also EVIL and for the sake of the rest of us (both human and animal ) need locking away permanently if the crime is serious enough-and I would say cruelty to animals is in this category

Do-badders-what the press tend to call do-gooders-apologists for crime I call them do-badders because the end result is they cause harm not good

Wynne

Re: New Names

Lorna McHardy — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:41:18 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

That's why we desperately need truly deterrant punishments for cruelty to animals-and to have them rigidly enforced with noexcuses accepted-or bleating from the do-badders

Wynne

[/quote]

Human history has shown pretty conclusively that there is no such thing as a deterrent punishment, mostly, I suspect, because those committing crime either a)don't believe they'll get caught, b)are ill and can't help themselves, or c)are so desperate they don't care.

I don't know what you mean by "bleating do-badders". Care to define?

Re: New Names

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:19:39 GMT

That's why we desperately need truly deterrant punishments for cruelty to animals-and to have them rigidly enforced with noexcuses accepted-or bleating from the do-badders

Wynne

Re: New Names

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:04:05 GMT

I would never make anyone feel bad for deciding to have their pet euthanased at the vets. They may decide that next time they'll just save their £50 and do it themselves to avoid the attitude.

I very much doubt your opinion of these people will have any significant impact on their future pet owning behaviour.

Re: New Names

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:34:27 GMT

You may be right-but they're the clients I live far happier without

Wynne

Re: New Names

Alex Gough — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:15:55 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Alex I'd sooner say more straight talking rather than less rude-I can't see it's ever rude to tell the truth-as for finding another veterinary surgeon-fine by me-life's too short to stress oneself being over nice to that sort

Wynne

[/quote]

I would tend to agree to you, but one person's straight-talking is another's rudeness, and I'm just saying how a proportion of clients will perceive it.
Alex

Re: New Names

Dagmar Steele — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:51:14 GMT

Martin,

if you lower your prices by ten percent your income will be thirty percent lower as your cost will still be the same. If you increase your prices by ten percent you will still make more profit if you lose ten percent of your clients. Perhaps you should start by treating them nicely instead of lowering your prices ;-)))

Re: New Names

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:40:41 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Wynne

[/quote]

I'd go with you on that one Wynne but being so honest is wearing a bit thin here - facing a day with hardly any appointments ahead and the last 2 phone calls being from cheap vets requesting histories for clients I thought were loyal, a trickle of defectors is starting to turn into a flood, I've begun to realise that having the reputation of being the best vet locally is not enough and I might have to start being nice to people (and halve my up-front prices)!