And to be honest, I have no political stance. I have no faith in any politician bar Mo Mowlam, and she's lost her job as well as her hair.

Denomuk:Corsair is damn right when he says that we can't defend ourselves. We don't need guns to do that, we've been fine without them for ages,

Actually, you can be prosecuted if you carry anything that might be deemed a defensive weapon. If a woman carries a hatpin only to ward off an attack, that's a crime. If she just happens to have a hatpin to hold her hat on and uses it as an impromptu weapon of opportunity, then that's ok. In general, if you manage to fight off an attacker with a weapon of some sort, you'll have to establish that you weren't carrying it for that exact purpose, or you'll be on trial. The law in the UK is absolutely insane.

If you're going to abolish trial by jury, it's best not to let serfs carry swords. They might get uppity and decide they want to impose a democratic republic on the aristocracy.

O.Thehumanity:It's a simple equation, want is stimulated by capitalism, welath however is finite and therefore when want is stimulated and wealth remains the same a disenfranchised member of the society will revert to a take mechanism to compensate, ergo crime.

Where'd you get the idea that wealth is finite? Are you saying that stone-age society had just as much wealth as we do today? The answer is obvious: no. We've created vast amounts of wealth and are continuing to create it. Your entire premise is flawed. Societies become more violent as they lose their moral and ethical underpinnings, which we've clearly done. Ask some high school students whether Hitler was 'evil'. You'll be amazed at how many of them will give equivocating answers. In an environment where that sort of thought prevails, any kind of behavior becomes acceptable.

While we are on the subject of crime and locality does anyone care to explain why (at least in the US) the northern areas of a city are usually the nicer safer parts of the city and the southern areas are the least safe. An example of this phenomenon would be Atlanta. I believe this to be true of Houston and others as well.

If you're going to abolish trial by jury, it's best not to let serfs carry swords. They might get uppity and decide they want to impose a democratic republic on the aristocracy.

Interestingly in the UK, there was a case where a guy was attacked on a subway (I think it was), and beaten by a mugger. He happened to have a sword cane - legal at the time - and ended the attack by stabbing the attacker in the stomach. The governmental response: a law forbidding sword canes. Sigh.

metaphyzix -- it's from a bill hicks rant.

where do i retrieve my prize?

Is it a surprise? Hell no. Our transport, health service, and police are a joke. Mr Poodle Blair spends more time licking the remnants off George Dubya's arse than to take care of his own country. He likes to be a big shot on the world stage; he obviously doesn't enjoy the dirty and unfashionable task of being a Prime Minister responsible for his country and making it livable for its citizens.

On top of this datum, Mr Blunkett has started a race with Adolf Ashcroft on who can erode civil liberties fastest. We [Britain] might not have a snare in the shape of the Patriot Act, but Blunkett continues his crusade on civil liberties periodically. Recently, there was the legislation of trial without jury. Before, he allowed the government to monitor internet activity, read e-mails, set up their own version of McCarthyism, arrest people without proof, and other legislation to protect the 'good British people'. On the other hand, being on top of this crime league is a change. Since we're bottom when it comes to everything else. Health, transport, technology, medical service, you name it.

This Government 'lefties'? BAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHJHLJYUIHJ! Blair and his henchman are firmly right-wing. It's only the Labour backbenchers that remain moderate or left-wing.

Who else is there? The Conservatives? Thankfully, they're about as popular as the bubonic plague. The Liberals? Some good ideas, but highly ineffective. We're stuck with Labour for a loooong time. There isn't anyone, presently, in our oligarchy to reverse Britain's fortunes. We'll suffer for years to come.

By the way, you gun-toting yanks, this has nothing to do with gun control. It's purely down to the useless government.

Sparkzilla.

So often Russia is described at having tried 'socialism.' Russia under Lenin, Stalin and the rest is usually described as socialist or communist by the media. Yet, it's painfully easy to see and argue that Russia was NEVER socialist.

There's way too much to go into here. I suggest if you are interested to look into it.

Lack of religious instruction I think.

Liberalism leads to crime. Conservatives believe in personal responsibility and working to earn your wealth. Therefore, any robber or criminal is by definition a liberal since they feel that society is unfair and they are owed something they haven't earned.

There is a direct corelation between the liberal attitudes of a populace and the rise in crime. Just like in America where the crime is located in mostly urban areas which are heavily Democrat areas.

MoriticianBaby,

After reading that post and your posts from the past, I've come to the conclusion you're suffering from amentia.

this may all be true but at least i can walk through black areas without the fear of getting shot/mugged/carjacked jst because i am white.

Despite our racial problems I still believe that the UK is the most racially tolerant and integrated nation on the planet....well apart from singapore, but they're all stinking rich anyway

Wow. I never realized that, but it's true; the Northern part of many cities are safer. Then again, there's always Harlem to kinda dispute that claim...

Daffy_Duck
"While we are on the subject of crime and locality does anyone care to explain why (at least in the US) the northern areas of a city are usually the nicer safer parts of the city and the southern areas are the least safe."

Don't know if this holds true for the US, but in the UK back in the 1900's the rich people would build their property upstream of the wind so that they didn't get as much smog/foul smells from the city centre as the down-wind areas did. Maybe the wind generally blows south in the US?

[Back to topic]
It's the legal system that causes this. Letting repeat offenders off all the time and taking months to do even that. Off course, as soon as anyone suggests shaking things up at the courts all the barristers, juges and solictors who are quite happy with their gravy train start kicking up a fuss. Its not as if the system as it is, is just in any way, guilty until proven Irish being the founding principle.

[/rant]

amentia n.

Med. the condition of having a mental handicap. [L f. amens ament- mad (as a- 1, mens mind)]

This coming from a guy in a clown suit.

How come all it is you ever call me is stupid? Has wit as well as common sense dissapeared entirely from your small island? ;)

Sparkzilla: "The main problem is that British people are caught between the laziness of socialism and the energy of capitalism. "


Bing! Same with America.


MorticianBaby: "Liberalism leads to crime. Conservatives believe in personal responsibility and working to earn your wealth. Therefore, any robber or criminal is by definition a liberal since they feel that society is unfair and they are owed something they haven't earned."



Please! What propaganda!

So anti-abortionists who shoot doctors or blow up clinics aren't committing crimes, I suppose?

No conservatives cheat on taxes, lie to the authorities, speed, run red lights, or do ANYTHING wrong! It's all liberals!

WHAT A STUPID, STUPID, BIASED ASSERTION. PLEASE WASH YOUR BRAIN AND RETURN TO THE FLOCK.

"The US, by contrast, has managed to reduce its crime rates, despite its reputation for street robberies and shootings.

Experts say this is the result of a committed policy of ploughing resources into training prisoners, finding them jobs after release and then monitoring them to ensure they do not reoffend."


This is a hilarious assertion. Who the heck are these "experts"? And have they ever even seen our prison system?

Maybe if the cops in the UK would all be allowed to carry guns, then some of the criminals could be caught. All they can do now is yell "STOP! Or I'll yell STOP again!"

Re: Socialism/Capitalism = crime

A capitalists job is to maximise money (to gain power, thats the capital bit of capitalism, 'go for the money') so wouldn't that make a thief who steals for personal gain a capitalist, and a good one to boot (avoids taxes etc) Capitalism in its pure form has no recourse to any social responsiblites so why care about robbing an old granny, her fault for not hireing a body guard.

On top of that drug dealers a pure capitalists, tapping a market and making sure that market grows. Does this make the US 'war on drugs' anti-capitalist? :)

Socialism on the other hand is based on the support of socity (remember socialism not equal to communism), money isn't number one people are and if people suffer from crime that is a problem for socity as a whole. The biggie problem here is that if everyone is (more or less) equal, where does the personal drive come from, the desire to better yourself? Where is the real crime drawn from that?

The Ministry of Funny Walks should take the heat for this.

Well... that and the entire anti-gun, anti-this-n-that anti-freedom community that rules Britain now.

Calm down everybody, we're still in control here! We still lead the world in white collar crime. And a CEO is far more dangerous than any gangbanger. So hold your heads high and wave them flags.

Yeah, that's what those guys at Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing and all the rest are! Bunch of stinking liberals sponging off society! Danmn Hippies in their $1500 Armani suits and corporate jets! Damn Them!

Would there be less corporate crime if more shareholders were packing?

Look at the type of crime you see in disarmed UK. You see carjackings, muggings, petty thefts. Perhaps there is less murder, but there is more crime of the "liberal" nature. These are crimes that involve a thought process that goes something like this: It's not my fault that I cannot get ahead. Society is collectively responsible for my fate.
The rich are getting richer, and I am poor. I think I'll take what I want and be done with it.

Of course, there are crimes committed by all kinds of people in society. But the "crimes of terror," the type of crime that leads to an everyday fear of going out shopping or walking in the park - these are the types of crimes that emanate from liberal/socialist rhetoric. A drug dealer may indeed be a capitalist, but he is not a "conservative," but a liberal. He is a person who feels that society oppresses him and he deserves the right to pursue his money or his kicks in a "extra-societal" fashion, be it street crime or dealing. And he justifies this by saying that "the man" aint got nothing for him, and that this is the kind of world we live in, and you got's to get's what's yours, etc.

Crimes from the "right" such as tax-evasion or white-collar crimes have no justification or underpinning in conservative philosophy. These are simply people who have no character or excuse. But liberals support terrorism of all kinds of forms as an understandable "result" of oppression by the "man," and this filters down to the average thug who finds an excuse for himself in the socialist rantings of an "unequal" society and "by any means necessary" logic.

You all can keep changing the subject, but the UK is a steaming dogpile of liberalism. God bless Blair, et al. for having the courage to stand with us on terror, but the populace itself is absolutely steeped in the terrorist/liberal worldview. Libs for years in UK justified the terror of the IRA whils't conservatives like Thatcher were blasted for having the character to say that there is no excuse for crime/terror. Intellectuals in UK have been cozying up to Islamonazis of late. It all contributes to a picture of a "culture" of excuse-giving - a culture dissatisfied with responsibility. And so I find it no wonder that crimes of everyday terror are up in the UK. After all, who can blame the common street thug for taking the whole wealth-distribution thing seriously - after all, the "man" has been awfully instransigent of late.

It irks me to see liberal and conservative used as terms to identify people that they personally disagree with. Instead of using the word for its meaning people seem to use it like they would a racial epitath. Liberalism is a really simple set of beliefs, means different things when talking about politics and economics, and has very little to do with socialism, communism, or any other ism.

Liberalism means 1. The belief that people are inherantly good. 2. People naturally desire freedom and privacy. 3. Government under the rule of law, free from arbitrary authority. Economically liberal practics favor free competition in a self-regulating market under the gold standard. I.E. liberalism promotes democracy and free-market capitalism.

So, MorticianBaby and Lordjupiter, what I'm trying to say is that your definition of definitions of conservatism and liberalism are both probably pretty close to the actual definition of liberalism. Liberalism = Progress & Reform, Conservatism = Status Quo. Please, don't argue with me, just look the words up. All I'm doing is paraphrasing the dictionary for you. MorticianBaby you must henceforward refer to Liberals as Leftists as your punishment, and Lordjupiter, right on, fark the conservatives!

Freethis Your definitions are outdated. That definition of Liberal would be better suited for Libertatrian or classical liberal. In the last hundred years SOCIALISTS hijacked the word LIBERAL, thus when we mention the word liberal, we really mean socialist.

:: ARMY --

SO YOU THINK THAT MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL?

Thank you. Most excellent book.

"Brothers, you asked for it!"
-- Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d'Anconia

ARMY
"In the last hundred years SOCIALISTS hijacked the word LIBERAL, thus when we mention the word liberal, we really mean socialist."

More like idiots can tell the diffrence between librialism and socialism. If you mean socialism, say it!

Give me a huge machine gun and i'll kill all those pesky bad people. Just leave it all to me. Then it'll all be sorted by next Tuesday. Promise.

One more thing:

Money is the root of all evil.

People attribute that to the Bible, but it's a perverted misquote. The actual verse is:

"For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs." -- 1 Timothy 6:10

Money itself is simply a thing, neither good nor evil. HAVING money is a blessing from God, and He doesn't bless with evil things.

The love of it, the craving for money, the lust and greed that goes with it -- THAT'S the evil. It takes over your life and leads you away from important things. So, keep money in perspective, instead of as an end in itself.

So, next time somebody trots out that phrase, set them straight. Almost everyone misuses it, and has no idea what they're really quoting. Thanks.

Wow.
"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose - because it contains all the others - the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity - to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.

Blumf:Here in American Politics, there is a noted absence of the word Socialist. Probably something to do with the cold war led the word Socialism to have a negative connotation. So in America, one can advocate nationalised health care, wealth distrubition, tax increases, tariffs etc. But they would not call themselves a Socialist, instead they would call themselves Liberal. Although the correct ideology of liberal would lean more towards conservative. Correctly, a liberal is a libertarian.

So in American politics, Liberal=Socialist.

B0rg9: Another reason this study is skewed is because much of the US's rural low crime areas offset the city crime.

"This study about per capita crime is skewed because America has vast areas of low crime."

Thats because in the rural parts of this contry that is just as poor as the inner city everyone carries guns and they know if they try to steal a tv set they will leave with a few extra holes. Maybe they should model the inner city gun laws like Rural USA Because its painfully obvious that not allowing Law Abiding citzens to carry guns and practicly banning all handguns(D.C) has done little to curb crime and actually promotes it becasuse You the criminal Know that the person you are mugging is not going to be packing Heat!

BLumf, according to your assertion, then socialists who steal money from people that work hard to earn it aren't socialists, they're capitalists just trying to increase the government, i.e. "the people"
socialists for the most part don't care about the people, socialism is just a tool to gain power through demagoguery, almost "bribing the people" by promising them increased benefits, and then to increase said power by gaining control of more and more aspects of citizens' lives once they are in power, solidifying their rule. This has, for the most part, already happened in the US. both Republicans and Dems. are "socialist" parties, promising more and more enititlements from the government. Bush, who's supposedly a "right-wing Nazi", has increased the gov't more than any president in 50 years. It's scary to see how much control these ppl have.

ARMY: sadly, in modern American politics, Liberal=Socialist, and Conservative=Socialist, and Patriot=Socialist.

ARMY
Makes sense I suppose (would we blame McCarthy for this?)

Simple point: Socialism isn't about "the people". Like anything else that relies on "the people" for justification, it really means:

THESE people, and the people who think like ME -- we should be in charge of the rest of you.

Remember that, and TANSTAAFL, and you'll be better off.

Cheap_Knockoff
"BLumf, according to your assertion, then socialists who steal money from people that work hard to earn it aren't socialists, they're capitalists just trying to increase the government, i.e. "the people""

Tax is the price tag you pay to be part of a socity. Welfare support is thier to protect you (or any other member of your socity) from undue suffering. If I have an accident that causes me to lose my job the state will look after me. Before the welfare state in the UK if you fell ill and could no longer work you either had to rely on your family, turn to crime or starve. However I'd aggree that this system can be abused by 'welfare cheats', thats the main sticking point of the welfare system.

You seem to mix up the ideals of socialism with the gritty realities of corrupt politicans. Bush is supposed to be a 'conservative' and 'conservatives' don't like drunks or drug takers what does that make the DWI coke snorting Bush?

Keep the ideals and the liers apart. All political systems suffer from it.

-Blumf wrote: "A capitalists job is to maximise money (to gain power, thats the capital bit of capitalism, 'go for the money') so wouldn't that make a thief who steals for personal gain a capitalist"

Umm...NO! Ever heard of Supply and Demand? A "capitalist" earns not by stealing, but by exchanging goods or services for money. It's absurd to define a drug dealer as a pure capitalist for argumentative purposes. As far as responsibilty, a capitalist has to respond to "demand". In other words, if you don't agree with a particular company don't buy their goods or services...easy enough? Or is it "the man's" fault?

fark me, how much ignorance can you fit in one thread. America's great, everyone else is shiat, yippy. God help you! Here is a suggestion. Why not become part of the 5% of American's that actually have a passport, then get off your fat arse, do a bit of travelling, and then decide how your society fits into the world? Educated American are seriously good company, but there really is nothing worse than ignorant ones.

Concept
"Ever heard of Supply and Demand? A "capitalist" earns not by stealing, but by exchanging goods or services for money."

Yes, and I don't see any conflict with my view of a theif as a capitlist.

A thief puts labour into extracting a resource (stolen goods/money). Like a coal miner puts labour into extracting coal. You could say that the thief has 'earned' the value s/he/it extracts from stealing, after all risks are taken and effort is involved.

It is true that a good captalist responds to demand, but where does this contradict my drug dealer point? From what I hear, dispite the 'war on drugs', prices of cocain, E and heroin are running pretty low at the moment. Supply and demand _and_ the power of mass markets seem to be working perfectly well and matching the capitalist system quite nicely.

"You know how Americans are, Kiki. They all love to travel, and then they only want to meet other Americans and talk about how hard it is to get a decent hamburger." - Hans in Naked Lunch

You don't need to go to Egypt to know there are Pyramids there. Travel is a great way to enjoy yourself, but you don't learn anything special by being there that you can't learn by reading about it.

Rumpole, I'm an "Educated American" who has lived in the UK for 2 years and I can't WAIT to go back to the US. And I would not be too proud about the way the UK "fits in with the rest of the world" have you ever seen "Ibiza Uncovered"?

Ayn Rand as quoted earlier: "If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose - because it contains all the others - the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity - to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality."

That is the biggest load of bullshiat I have read in my life. First of all, Americans did not invent the notion of "making money" - try reading a proper book such as "The Wealth of Nations" if you don't believe me. And to suggest "The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality" - is totally ridiculous, not even worthy of a response.

Blumf, that's all well and good, but where is the Exchange that the thief participates in? And what does the victim get in exchange for the loss in resources or capital. This is NOT a pure model of capitalism.

Using a drug dealer as a model for capitalism is like using China as a model for Marxism.

This is obvious, but I'll still say it...

-We can't manufacure everything we need or want in life.

-Others can make things we need and want.

-This presents the option of barter, but sometimes we may not have the skills/goods others want, or we may not be able to reach a fair deal.

-Money has to exist for this reason.

-Socialism and Communism err by taking for granted the leveling force of money to a previously bartering (or stealing) society. They assume that everyone will be happy having equal value to society as well as equal wants and needs, and therefore equal amounts of money.

-But people perceive inequity naturally.

-When they sense imbalance in wealth, they look for ways to even the score.

-Some turn to economic theories, some to hard/smart work, others turn to crime.

-This happens regardless of political affiliation or economic system.

-The difference is scale.

-Notice that the more money you make, the more you spend, and the more debt you get into?

-The perception of inequity comes from unhealthy levels of desire, whether that desire is fundamentally for justice, comfort, peace, security, love, happiness, etc.

-This is true for crack whores and Big Oil CEOs alike.

-So to call crime liberal, or capitalism conservative, is pure bullplop.


/me steps off of soapbox, and away from the chalkboard

Well of course it's worse over there. They had a lot more Thatcherism than we did Reaganism. Now with W and buddies pillaging we'll have a hell of a cleanup coming down the road...maybe we'll pass each other in two or three years.