Yesterday's article about the pointlessness of "having a go" at scumbags brought forth a stream of comments, including a link (fark me, a link on this site!!!) to an earlier story that appeared in the media about Julie Lake who tried to defend a war memorial from vandalism.
Nanny has seen fit to punish her for "having a go", but has allowed the scumbags off Scot free.
Will Nanny, our "leading" politicians (eg Cameron) and some senior police officers who keep advising us to "have a go" kindly take note that there is absolutely no point in "having a go" if we are to end up knifed, punched and then arrested for our trouble.
Surely we have a police force to deal with these scumbags, don't we?
Otherwise, what are the police and criminal justice system actually for?
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Celebrate the joy of living with champagne. Click and drink!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Going on "diversity training courses" and then advising the victims of discrimination to be more tolerant. A recent instance is of a gay couple who were subjected to homophobic abuse by neighbours for many months, and then when they contacted the police were advised to move house!
ReplyDeleteCall them and see the response you get for your tax money - waste of space.
ReplyDeleteWhy do we have police if they don't protect us from this sort of shite?
ReplyDeleteJust what is the point of the police (apart from giving out crime-numbers for insurance claims) ?
ReplyDeleteSmithy:
ReplyDeleteThe police are little more than tax collectors.....Issue a fine...Kerching....Nanny's till rings, the money will pay for more diversity training and 'elf'n'safety officers.
Makes you proud to be British doesn't it?
The thing that bugged me most about the article is the yob saying the memorial was "nothing to me"......Are kids in Britain ignorant of Britains finest hour? That they would all be speaking german now had it not been for the men who's memory they so cavalierly trashed? And would those men, if they could see in to the future, have bothered giving their lives for little shites like this?
ReplyDeleteDebbie in the US
Debbie,
ReplyDeleteYes, I think the youngsters in this country (maybe in most developed countries?) are rather detached from history these days, though my daughters did a modern history based study course for their GCSE (age 16) exams. This included Germany in the 1930's as I recall.
But it means little being 2 generations removed from the conflict.
In terms of awareness this is no great surprise in a rapidly changing modern world. My father was in the forces and when I was young we moved to different places every couple of years or so. Between the ages of around 8 to 11 we lived in Germany and we kids played war games and read war comics and our reading books revolved around war heroes, fictional or real.
This was a mere 15 or so years after the end of WW2 and I remember seeing areas of cities that still had to be rebuilt as well as damaged icons, especially in Berlin, that were being left as memorials. I understood and respected all of that but in fact had no way to relate to the time scale and the fact of the relatively recently ended conflict.
Almost 50 years later the youth of today must find the whole thing even less involving. There are plenty of conflicts since then to occupy their thoughts and little in the way of continuity of the type presented by the proximity to each other of WW1 and WW2.
But then this is not about history per se. It is about respect for a society's attitude towards its passed and the people who made it.
Vandalism of a War Memorial is no different to vandalism of a cemetery to those who lack such social awareness. Sadly there seem to be many such kids around at the moment, though this may not be a new development. What seems different is that the parents, with Nanny's apparent tacit approval, so no need to try to 'adjust' that attitude as happened in the past. Today's teenager have fewer relatives with experience of war time conditions, or even just economically harsh conditions, than any or their predecessors in modern times.
That is also true of the politicians and law makers and those who would claim to provide moral guidance.
Maybe that is the source of the problem?
Might we hope that it is transitional?
Hi, it's Debbie agin...
ReplyDeleteIt's about gratitude. I know that if I live the life of freedom that I do now, it has been on the backs of many who have gone before me. Soldiers who died for freedom, family I will never know that passed along a faith that I still cling to, as well as the value of work, money, being a good citizen and neighbor, raising children to be people of charactor and honor.
Sadly, this seems to have gone the way of the dodo.:(
These feral kids don't know the meaning of gratitude. They resent having been born, they resent their parents, their teachers, and anyone in authority. They envy anyone with more than they have, regardless of the fact that some of us, at least, have studied and worked for our place in society. They are pig-ignorant, and like this youth "couldn't care less". They don't seem to have a generous impulse in them, though there are bound to be a few, albeit buried pretty deep.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't solely their fault: it's the fault of those who, because of barmy educational and philosophical theories, have during the past 30 or 40 years undermined the discipline, mutual respect and sense of togetherness which were taken for granted when I was young during WW2. Because everyone then, regardless of class, wealth or poverty, knew that if we didn't all hang together we would have no future as a nation.
I think I remember reading an article about the point of the police force in the first place - that it merely employed people to patrol the streets and enforce the laws that ordinary people already had the right to enforce themselves, as private citizens.
ReplyDeleteSomething like that, anyway. Maybe I should volunteer as a special constable - I'd only have to do it for 4 hours a week and I'd have the power to arrest the little scrotes without having to worry whether I'd be arrested myself for "wrongful detainment" or "upsetting a 15 year-old", or something.
And they couldn't even fire me for not meeting the "arresting people for dropping an apple core" targets. Or could they? Nothing would surprise me these days...
Rob Farrington, yes indeed the police were originally envisaged as "civilians in uniform" and their role was in close partnership with the communities of law abiding people, focussed mainly on upholding the rule of law and maintaining law and order in public places. They also had a duty to protect private property. It was not so very long ago that police officers on night patrol could be seen meticulously checking that the doors and gates of private premises on their beats were locked and secure.
ReplyDeleteHowever, at the inception of the first "proper" police in the mid 19th Century there were grave doubts about their role and the impact they would have on traditional British concepts of freedom. There was even then a concern that the police would be used by the state to oppress people.
"The mildest form of police supervision was believed by many to necessitate the use of domiciliary visits, universal espionage and official interference with the concerns of daily life. Men could not foresee the possibility of an armed constabulary keeping their hands off law-abiding citizens and directing their energies solely against the law-breakers."
That was written in 1901 about the first Metropolitan Police.
Since then it is exactly what has happened, accelerated in recent years as the police have moved even closer to the state, as all offences (even minor misdemeanours) have been made "arrestable" and as the rights of ordinary people to defend themselves against criminals have been undermined and finally eroded by the sorts of incidents described here.
Not a savoury thought but I do long for some of these senior cops, CPS idiots, judges and in particular, politicians to be on the receiving end of some savage violence. If it happened often enough to them they might rethink how they treated ordinary people on the receiving end. Oh, but of course many of those who make the rules are afforded police protection. Alright for some then. What a toilet.
ReplyDeleteI would just like to point out that the judge in his full summing up, stated that from the evidence he had heard over the four day trial, he was in no doubt that the youth in the act of criminal damage was the youth Mrs Lake had always maintained. This puts paid to the youths claims that it was a case of mistaken identity.
ReplyDeleteThe judge also rejected all claims for compensation from the youths & did not award them one penny.
As for the parents who insist "no, no, not my little boy", where where you when they arrived to give evidence?
On day one of the trial, 8 youths arrived in the morning to give evidence without one parent between them bar one lad. Sad, very sad!!
It is not the youths that need educating, it's the parents & the bleeding heart liberals who make every excuse possible for them.
I can absolutely confirm that when the youth was asked in court "What does the war memorial mean to you"?, he replied "It means nothing to me".
Shame the public gallery was full of war vets who had to sit & listen to that!!
Gordon Brown, You wonder why we are all so p----d off??
Julie Lake