http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8663681.stm?ls

Well that is attempting to solve a problem through violence.

 

Perspective. Relevance.

 

Please seek out the definition of the above and find some from somewhere.

How is it not relevant? Its the exact definition of attempting to solve a problem through violence. Whether its being spat in the face or any of the terrible attacks on us and our friends - its the same.

I fear you're right. And it's our generation (30-40 year olds) that have let it happen.

 

I dont necessarily think its our generation as such, more like the government. They have bought in hundreds of new laws and by laws which ties our hands

I'm well over 30 and would not tollerate any hooded chav spitting on me, hell my mum once slapped a young lad who spat on her shoes because she was trying to walk down the pavement and he and his mates would not move their bikes, she was around 55 at the time.

 

That's completely justified. Way to go, your mum!

 

Would you say the same if she'd, three seconds earlier, called them bitches, insulted their manhood, got you out of a van behind her and told them to get on their way just because she didn't like one of their bikes?

I dont necessarily think its our generation as such, more like the government. They have bought in hundreds of new laws and by laws which ties our hands

 

100% fact right there

I dont necessarily think its our generation as such, more like the government. They have bought in hundreds of new laws and by laws which ties our hands

 

That's shirking responsibility. Appropriate use of force has always been justifiable - otherwise we wouldn't have slipped as far as we have.

I dont think violence is the answer, unfortunately Britain's softly softly approach on younger society has not instilled any deterrent or common sense.

 

It stems back to schooling where no punishment is allowed, parent not allowed to smack their child, i could go on and on, you know where im going with this.

We need to be allowed to be more firm with the kids as they are growing up to prevent such behavior in later life. Unfortunately its too late with this generation coming up

 

Exactly, the lack of respect the younger generation show is quite alarming, I know its easy to generalise, but this country and its older generation was known for its patience and tollerence.

 

The "you can't touch me" attitude has only exacebated things and young people seem to think they can do what they please without concequence.

That's shirking responsibility. Appropriate use of force has always been justifiable - otherwise we wouldn't have slipped as far as we have.

 

Appropriate use of force is fine in certain situations, but we are talking about the attitudes of our younger generation.

For example:

My other half witnesses a woman slap her child on the back of the legs for being naughty, she got reported and arrested. The child now knows it can get away with murder, because it cant be touched.

That has nothing to do with us as a generation, but a law passed by government

That's completely justified. Way to go, your mum!

 

Would you say the same if she'd, three seconds earlier, called them bitches, insulted their manhood, got you out of a van behind her and told them to get on their way just because she didn't like one of their bikes?

 

It wouldnt happen because unlike todays society we have respect for people.

How is it not relevant? Its the exact definition of attempting to solve a problem through violence. Whether its being spat in the face or any of the terrible attacks on us and our friends - its the same.

 

If you can't see that the "war on terror" and "being spat on" are not the same thing, you need help. Even at the most fundamental level, they are very, very different.

Hoodies came over looking for trouble and got it. End of.

Appropriate use of force is fine in certain situations, but we are talking about the attitudes of our younger generation.

For example:

My other half witnesses a woman slap her child on the back of the legs for being naughty, she got reported and arrested. The child now knows it can get away with murder, because it cant be touched.

That has nothing to do with us as a generation, but a law passed by government

 

There's a time and a place, and a way, for using corporal punishment. Chances are the woman herself didn't know this and was seen as "kicking the crap out of her kid". I've seen a lot of this kind of behaviour and it's horrible. She probably deserved it - police/social services don't just arrest people willy-nilly for stuff like that, despite what the Guardian tells us.

Hoodies came over looking for trouble and got it. End of.

 

If you prefix that with "BNP went out provoking then...", I'll agree with you.

There you go, she deserved it, which is why she will now probably never punish her child for any wrong doing and it will grow up to be a mouthy ignorant little tike that this society has spawned so well and wont fear the law or parents, no reprisal.

 

your are quite right, time and a place

There you go, she deserved it, which is why she will now probably never punish her child for any wrong doing and it will grow up to be a mouthy ignorant little tike that this society has spawned so well and wont fear the law or parents, no reprisal.

 

Then it was her fault and not the govt's then. Had she done it properly, the govt wouldn't come into it.

If you can't see that the "war on terror" and "being spat on" are not the same thing, you need help. Even at the most fundamental level, they are very, very different.

 

Im not denying that the level of hurt is different, but you are dodging what I orignally asked. You said violence does not solve anything, then you flip-flopped and said there is a time and place for it!?!

 

But alas I shall refrain from questioning your sanity like you have done to me. Even though you don't seem to have a constant opinion.

I've never said that violence solved anything. If one country wins a war because it uses more violence than the other side, that doesn't actually solve things.

 

I said there is a time and a place for corporal punishment. I didn't say that corporal punishment solved anything, I said that standards had slipped for want of it being used correctly.

 

My opinion is totally constant. Do try to keep up.

The point im trying to make here, is that, lets say when i was younger and i did wrong, i got the belt, i soon learned that i didnt like the pain so stopped being an arse and grew up a law abiding citizen that didnt get into trouble and had respect for my elders.

 

Although the woman shouldnt have slapped her childs legs in the street, your child can report you know for being hit, doesnt matter where you are. In the past it was part of growing up, now its illegal. Thanks to the government.

But if kids are rasied right there's no need to belt them. So the fact that it's now illegal is a moot point, so can't be a fault of the govt (not that I'm defending the current lot - I can't wait to see the back of them tomorrow).

And don't think I haven't noticed that you're steering the debate away from the original topic ;)

I can't believe some of you are so dumb that you can't see the truth of the issue that violence is not the answer to anything. And it's comments like that, Sir Charles, that escalate situations like that needlessly.

 

That's completely justified. Way to go, your mum!

 

Would you say the same if she'd, three seconds earlier, called them bitches, insulted their manhood, got you out of a van behind her and told them to get on their way just because she didn't like one of their bikes?

 

There's a time and a place, and a way, for using corporal punishment. Chances are the woman herself didn't know this and was seen as "kicking the crap out of her kid". I've seen a lot of this kind of behaviour and it's horrible. She probably deserved it - police/social services don't just arrest people willy-nilly for stuff like that, despite what the Guardian tells us.

 

How do you define whether an individual deserves it or not? How do you decide if it is justified or not?

 

Why do you think its unacceptable for a reaction from a BNP member but ok for a police officer to enforce being spat at? They both urinate from the same hole.

 

My point is, you said that violence solved nothing. However you are agreeing with people by saying that it is needed in some instances. So why do you condone it if it never solves anything?

 

It's the same as people who say money isn't everything, but i'd like to see you live without it.

I agree kids shouldnt be belted, what im saying is it was a deterrent for me not to misbehave, we had the cane or the ruler on the back of the hand at school and yes i had some of that too and again you learn to behave in an appropriate manner.

School teachers are not allowed to administer any form of corporal punishment on a child at school, its now assault. Kids know they are untouchable and can afford to act up with no fear of reprisal, not all kids these days are raised right and i think some parents give up trying if they wont listen, bad parenting, maybe, but its the attitude that has been created due to rules and regulation etc brought in by........ the government.

 

Even if kids are raised right, there will still be a time that a back hander is needed on some occasion at some point in their childhood. I dont mean a punch in the face, but i dont see a slap on the legs as going too far to get a point across.

But if kids are rasied right there's no need to belt them. So the fact that it's now illegal is a moot point, so can't be a fault of the govt (not that I'm defending the current lot - I can't wait to see the back of them tomorrow).

 

Some kids respond to carrot some kids respond to stick. You can't treat them all the same, it doesn't work. My sisters were good kids, I was a little shite. My dad never raised a hand to the girls but I was always getting smacked and I deserved it and learned from it. The end result is both my sisters and I are well rounded adults but brought up in appropriate ways for our attitudes.

we might be veering away slightly from the original topic, but the behaviour today stems from upbringing

If you prefix that with "BNP went out provoking then...", I'll agree with you.

 

I have sat and read this thread, and one fundamental flaw to your argument is the fact we are missing the start of the video. we can not tell who the initial instigators were, or what it originated from.

 

You seem to of only picked up on the fact the kids are Asian and the guy in the suit represents the BNP and worked from there, when that avenue started getting into the realms of racism, you changed your argument to whether its right or wrong to justify retaliation of some one spitting on another person, whilst failing to link the key element in the link of the war on Iraq comment (IE retaliation), i just think your view would be different, had we seen the whole tape, its obvious that something has been edited out to insight hate.

 

Now regardless what is right or indeed wrong, or what political party / race or gender, it is human nature to retaliate or at least contemplate retaliation, especially when ones space is being invaded.

 

From what the video shows, it starts halfway through the initial exchange between the two groups, for me this seems like a deliberate act to stir up things and create an even bigger divide between minority groups and the BNP. as those without an open mind will only ever see it one way. this to me is the core reason this video has been released.

 

As for whether it was right or wrong, i personally think he was well within his right to defend him self from being spat on, you just have to look at the young guys body language and demeanor to know, had he let the spiting go, they would of seen him as weak and a easy target and it would of escalated from there.

 

its this bullying mentality coupled with gang culture and the fact that the justice system is to soft that are helping to destroy this country, just ask tony martin about justice.

Edited May 6, 201015 yr by vodkashots