Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Owlswing on September 28, 2016, 12:44:10 PM
-
Does anyone on this forum truly agree with this man's words and suggested actions?
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/09/pat-robertson-non-religious-children-should-be-beaten-until-they-respect-christian-beliefs/
-
I'd like to say I'm shocked and surprised - but the US is rapidly losing its ability to do either of those things as far as I am concerned.
Don't get me wrong I know we do have wingnuts in this country but surely not in such numbers and seldom with the sheer, unbelievable stupidity shown for all the world to see. Maybe our nutters hide their stupidity better? ???
Oh and obviously I don't agree with him.
-
Neither do I agree with him, what he says is appalling. In any case, what he suggests would not have the desired effect!
I also think the person who comments, Karen, could handle things better with her daughter and family; a little grace and goodwill on both sides would help. Tolerance of bolshie teenagers for a start, her grandson is probably quite normal by most standards and in five years will have calmed down a bit. Does she want to completely alienate her family?
It's beyond me why people are so extreme, or what they get out of it apart from a sense of self-righteousness.
-
He's a dangerous loon, all religions and no religion have them. Not really sure what point other than don't listen to Pat Robertson (and that's far from a new lesson) can be taken from this
-
Does anyone on this forum truly agree with this man's words and suggested actions?
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/09/pat-robertson-non-religious-children-should-be-beaten-until-they-respect-christian-beliefs/
No, but I would also wholly disagree with the wording of your thread title. I know a lot of Evangelical US Christians and I would have to say that probably 0.5% are remotely like Pat Robertson. The vast majority are involved in work, full-time or voluntary, with the homeless, the destitute, the poor, the bereaved; with social welfare programs, environmental programs, programs to reduce the wealth gap, the housing gap, the health gap; etc. I realise that it is a convenient label to tag people with, but in the same way, left-wing Labour supporters are often labelled 'Marxist', 'Momentum supporters', 'Socialist', etc. - many of them are not, though they probably are 'socialists' (note the small 's').
The very term 'Evangelical' when used in the way you use it here has little or no relevance to real evangelicalism, even in the US. Yes, I agree that some Southern Baptists are pretty extreme, but SB's make up about 20% of the total Christian population (circa 16 million out of 83 million), and those that are akin to the Westboro Baptists are probably 20% of that smaller figure - so about 3.2 million.
-
I'd like to say I'm shocked and surprised - but the US is rapidly losing its ability to do either of those things as far as I am concerned.
Don't get me wrong I know we do have wingnuts in this country but surely not in such numbers and seldom with the sheer, unbelievable stupidity shown for all the world to see. Maybe our nutters hide their stupidity better? ???
Oh and obviously I don't agree with him.
May be not in so many numbers, but I do wonder whether we are ahead on proportions, Trent.
-
It's beyond me why people are so extreme, or what they get out of it apart from a sense of self-righteousness.
I think that extremism is part and parcel of human nature, and some people have a lower ability to control it. After all, we get extremism in just about every walk of life, from environmentalism to politics, from religion to science.
-
That is true.
-
No, but I would also wholly disagree with the wording of your thread title. I know a lot of Evangelical US Christians and I would have to say that probably 0.5% are remotely like Pat Robertson. The vast majority are involved in work, full-time or voluntary, with the homeless, the destitute, the poor, the bereaved; with social welfare programs, environmental programs, programs to reduce the wealth gap, the housing gap, the health gap; etc. I realise that it is a convenient label to tag people with, but in the same way, left-wing Labour supporters are often labelled 'Marxist', 'Momentum supporters', 'Socialist', etc. - many of them are not, though they probably are 'socialists' (note the small 's').
The very term 'Evangelical' when used in the way you use it here has little or no relevance to real evangelicalism, even in the US. Yes, I agree that some Southern Baptists are pretty extreme, but SB's make up about 20% of the total Christian population (circa 16 million out of 83 million), and those that are akin to the Westboro Baptists are probably 20% of that smaller figure - so about 3.2 million.
Why do the highlighted words not surprise me? I have yet to see a religious group that you do NOT know a 'lot' of or a religious doctrine extant anywhere in the world that you are NOT completely or partially familiar with.
As to your figures 3.2 million people, of any religion, who adhere to the same views as expressed by this man are about 3.19999999999 million too many.
-
, and those that are akin to the Westboro Baptists are probably 20% of that smaller figure - so about 3.2 million.
So more than the entire population of Jamaica, wow!
-
Half that amount would be too many.
-
Half that amount would be too many.
Ain't that the truth!
-
So more than the entire population of Jamaica,
Jamaica?............No she went on her own accord.
-
Does anyone on this forum truly agree with this man's words and suggested actions?
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/09/pat-robertson-non-religious-children-should-be-beaten-until-they-respect-christian-beliefs/
He is a dangerous lunatic!
-
He could die at any time.
So why doesn't he!
-
He can't last that much longer.
I've thought the same about Mugabe.
-
He could die at any time.
So why doesn't he!
He would certainly be no loss to the world when he does the decent thing and kicks the bucket!
-
He would certainly be no loss to the world when he does the decent thing and kicks the bucket!
So as a side issue Floo, I am a little perplexed.
You post with so much force and certainty on these sort of threads and yet your signature reads:
“The more right you think you are, the more wrong you are likely to be.” RJG
Are we to take it that the more vehement your posts are, the more likely you are to be wrong? ;)
-
I am ALWAYS right, even when I am wrong! :D
-
No, but I would also wholly disagree with the wording of your thread title. I know a lot of Evangelical US Christians and I would have to say that probably 0.5% are remotely like Pat Robertson. The vast majority are involved in work, full-time or voluntary, with the homeless, the destitute, the poor, the bereaved; with social welfare programs, environmental programs, programs to reduce the wealth gap, the housing gap, the health gap; etc. I realise that it is a convenient label to tag people with, but in the same way, left-wing Labour supporters are often labelled 'Marxist', 'Momentum supporters', 'Socialist', etc. - many of them are not, though they probably are 'socialists' (note the small 's').
The very term 'Evangelical' when used in the way you use it here has little or no relevance to real evangelicalism, even in the US. Yes, I agree that some Southern Baptists are pretty extreme, but SB's make up about 20% of the total Christian population (circa 16 million out of 83 million), and those that are akin to the Westboro Baptists are probably 20% of that smaller figure - so about 3.2 million.
He's got a lot of supporters and thought to be worth about 200 million.
Can't stand the bloke!
Him and Trump! What a pair! Ya couldn't invent such a pair of larger than life characters, no one would believe they were for real.
His first name is Marion which he doesn't use because he thinks it's effeminate............... Like someone " might think he's gay :o" ;D
He's made all sorts of bigoted remarks
Robertson's response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake also drew controversy and condemnation.[61][62] Robertson claimed that Haiti's founders had sworn a "pact to the Devil" in order to liberate themselves from the French slave owners and indirectly attributed the earthquake to the consequences of the Haitian people being "cursed" for doing so.[63][64] CBN later issued a statement saying that Robertson's comments "were based on the widely-discussed 1791 slave rebellion led by Dutty Boukman at Bois Caïman, where the slaves allegedly made a famous pact with the devil in exchange for victory over the French."[65][66] Various figures in mainline and evangelical[67] Christianity have on occasion disavowed some of Robertson's remarks.[61][68]
Predictions
Several times near New Year, Robertson has announced that God told him several truths or events that would happen in the following year. "I have a relatively good track record," he said. "Sometimes I miss."[69]
1982: Doomsday
In late 1976, Robertson predicted that the end of the world was coming in October or November 1982. In a May 1980 broadcast of The 700 Club he stated, "I guarantee you by the end of 1982 there is going to be a judgment on the world."[70]
In September 2011, Robertson and several others who incorrectly predicted various dates for the end of world were jointly awarded an Ig Nobel Prize for "teaching the world to be careful when making mathematical assumptions and calculations".[71][72]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson
1982 has come and gone ;) heaven forbid some Haitian should fight against their slavery ::) ( I wonder what he thinks they did this time to get the awful hurricane Matthew)
Just call him Marion, it is after all his real name :D
-
John Wayne was also called Marion and no-one could have been more effeminate them him ;). As if anyone was fooled when he started calling himself, "John", honestly!
Marion is a good name, 'Star of the Sea' and all that. Marion Trump has a ring to it.
-
John Wayne was also called Marion and no-one could have been more effeminate them him ;). As if anyone was fooled when he started calling himself, "John", honestly!
Marion is a good name, 'Star of the Sea' and all that. Marion Trump has a ring to it.
It's Marion Robertson, Brownie :D
pat Robinsons first name.
-
He's got a lot of supporters and thought to be worth about 200 million.
Can't stand the bloke!
Him and Trump! What a pair! Ya couldn't invent such a pair of larger than life characters, no one would believe they were for real.
His first name is Marion which he doesn't use because he thinks it's effeminate............... Like someone " might think he's gay :o" ;D
He's made all sorts of bigoted remarks
1982 has come and gone ;) heaven forbid some Haitian should fight against their slavery ::) ( I wonder what he thinks they did this time to get the awful hurricane Matthew)
Just call him Marion, it is after all his real name :D
Marion, just like John Wayne! Robertson is another guy who makes Christianity look bad!
-
It's Marion Robertson, Brownie :D
pat Robinsons ? first name.
Yeah, I'm gittin' confused in me old age.
-
He changed it to Pat because he's not the Marion kind.
-
;D
-
Why do the highlighted words not surprise me? I have yet to see a religious group that you do NOT know a 'lot' of or a religious doctrine extant anywhere in the world that you are NOT completely or partially familiar with.
As to your figures 3.2 million people, of any religion, who adhere to the same views as expressed by this man are about 3.19999999999 million too many.
Well, Owly, when one has worked abroad for 15% of one's life, and in the context of multinational INGOs, and rubbed shoulders with Africans, Australians, Kiwis, Canadians, Malaysians, Singaporeans, Americans, Europeans, and Asians, one does tend to have a pretty wide circle of friends and acquaintances. Many have been Christians, but by no means all, and the majority of the Christians have been evangelical in outlook, but - again - not all.
-
I had to look up INGO. Do you mean, "International Non-Governmental Organization"?
-
He changed it to Pat because he's not the Marion kind.
Brilliant pun...absolutely excellent...I only Hope my good friend Sebastian Toe has seen it.
-
Brilliant pun...absolutely excellent...I only Hope my good friend Sebastian Toe has seen it.
Well it made me laugh! And after all, that's what counts......
-
Well, Owly, when one has worked abroad for 15% of one's life, and in the context of multinational INGOs, and rubbed shoulders with Africans, Australians, Kiwis, Canadians, Malaysians, Singaporeans, Americans, Europeans, and Asians, one does tend to have a pretty wide circle of friends and acquaintances. Many have been Christians, but by no means all, and the majority of the Christians have been evangelical in outlook, but - again - not all.
So what? I have lived and worked with people of all the same nationalities as those you list. But I have been really lucky in my aquaintence with them in that religion was never a subject that rarely, if ever, came up in conversation! We had better things to talk about - things that really mattered - like which eatery served the best steak and where to get the best real ale!
-
Well, Owly, when one has worked abroad for 15% of one's life, and in the context of multinational INGOs, and rubbed shoulders with Africans, Australians, Kiwis, Canadians, Malaysians, Singaporeans, Americans, Europeans, and Asians, one does tend to have a pretty wide circle of friends and acquaintances. Many have been Christians, but by no means all, and the majority of the Christians have been evangelical in outlook, but - again - not all.
I don't think that is true, I think they are in the minority, thank goodness.
-
I don't think that is true, I think they are in the minority, thank goodness.
I really wish it were so. It is, after all, a requirement of tgheir God that Christians take the word of their God to the unbeliever, regardless of the fact that the unbeliever may well have beliefs and values that they find far more worthwhile and relvent to both them and the orld at large than the values that Christians insist are more wotrthy just because they are contained in the Book of Historical Religious Bollocks and Chinese Whispers.
We are incapable of thinking for ourselves, we need them to think for us; we are incapable of reading their BoHRBaCW and seeing the contradictions, the impossibilities written of therein; we are incapable of researching history for ourselves withoiut one of them reading over our shoulders to 'put us right' when we 'misinterpret' something that we find written about Christianity and/or its history that they don't like, when we question the resurrection, the miracles that are unbelievable etc.
To paraphrase Shakespeare "Chritianity doth protest too much, methinks"!
-
In the US right-wing Christian extremists seem to thrive, but although we have quite a number here in the UK, I think Christians tend to be more moderate and don't go on about their faith.
-
In the US right-wing Christian extremists seem to thrive, but although we have quite a number here in the UK, I think Christians tend to be more moderate and don't go on about their faith.
You bang on about your antitheism.
-
You bang on about your antitheism.
Contrary to Floo's comment there are at least three or four Christians who do nothing, regardless of the topic of the thread, but 'bang on' about their faith to the point where they have no other subject that they post about.
You, dear Vlad, never stop 'banging on' about your anti-antitheism and, despite your attempts at humour, pathetic as most of them are, you are, mostly, as boring as the Ultra Christians.
Should you consider 'boring' to be a personal insult, please post to that effect and I will censor the comment.
-
And you bang on about your 'not' antitheism, Vlad!
What floo says is accurate, we are as a nation far more moderate in religion and politics. People hardly talk about religion here and we don't bother about the faiths of our politicians (if any) as long as they don't push any particular personal beliefs. I for one am glad about that.
PS: Just seen Owlswing's post - snap!
.
-
You, dear Vlad, never stop 'banging on' about your anti-antitheism and, despite your attempts at humour, pathetic as most of them are,
Technically it's not 'anti antitheism' it's rabid anti secularism.
On a good point - you got the latter part absolutely spot on!
;)
-
You bang on about your antitheism.
I don't have a problem with moderate Christians, even if I don't see it their way. It is the ones who try to frighten people into conversion who do my head in! >:(
-
I don't have a problem with moderate Christians, even if I don't see it their way. It is the ones who try to frighten people into conversion who do my head in! >:(
Ditto! Did you have any particular any ones in mind?
-
Technically it's not 'anti antitheism' it's rabid anti secularism.
On a good point - you got the latter part absolutely spot on!
;)
But Toe. There has to be an antidote for the problem of Secularists mis thinking that the sun shines most brightly out of their collective rectum.
-
And you bang on about your 'not' antitheism, Vlad!
What floo says is accurate, we are as a nation far more moderate in religion and politics. People hardly talk about religion here.
That's because of a cruel and intellectually totalitarian secularism.
-
But Toe. There has to be an antidote for the problem of Secularists mis thinking that the sun shines most brightly out of their collective rectum.
They mostly come out on forums where Christianity is being discussed...mostly. ;)
-
They mostly come out on forums where Christianity is being discussed...mostly. ;)
See #35
Contrary to Floo's comment there are at least three or four Christians who do nothing, regardless of the topic of the thread, but 'bang on' about their faith to the point where they have no other subject that they post about.
You, my dear Sword, are one of the breed. Your moniker is surprisingly apt, as your posts, as with the other Ultra Christians, take a sword to the spirits of anyone who wants to discuss anything except Christianity and finds that almost every attempt to discuss anything BUT Christianity turns into yet another screed trumpeting that the subject being discussed would not be being discussed if those discussing it would only admit that the problem is their refusal to follow Christ!
Even if, as in this thread, it is people who follow Christ that ARE the problem!
-
You, my dear Sword, are one of the breed. Your moniker is surprisingly apt, as your posts, as with the other Ultra Christians, take a sword to the spirits of anyone who wants to discuss anything except Christianity
eh?
A lot of the religious threads on this forum degenerate into this:
There is no evidence for God/religious belief/the supernatural. Discuss.
I find it hard to believe that this happens as a result of the post of Christians. ???
-
eh?
A lot of the religious threads on this forum degenerate into this:
There is no evidence for God/religious belief/the supernatural. Discuss.
I find it hard to believe that this happens as a result of the post of Christians. ???
You can always leave if you dont like it here!
-
Eh?
A lot of the religious threads on this forum degenerate into this:
There is no evidence for God/religious belief/the supernatural. Discuss.
I find it hard to believe that this happens as a result of the post of Christians. ???
Of course you find it hard! You, proverbially, are too close to see the wood for the trees.
Of course they degenerate into a "There is no evidence for God/religious belief/the supernatural. Discuss.", because you and your Ultra Christian allies are so dogmatic that your way is the only way, based upon a 2,000 year old Book of Chinese Whispers containing reams of highly dubious "proof" of the existence of your God.
You cannot even admit that your faith in your God is no different from my faith in my plethora of Gods and Goddesses - that it is no more than that - FAITH - there is no proof, yet you continue to peddle the same old hackneyed "Do as our God says or you are damned for all eternity".
Yes, we who are not Christian ARE damned for all eternity to listen to all your fallacious arguments that supposedly prove the existence of your God repeated over and over again, ad nauseam, regardless of any other subject under discussion.
And why do you keep on doing this?
Because if you do not keep on reinforcing your own beliefs by constantly trying to convert others and for you to admit that it is no more than faith, you would have to admit that there is no FACTUAL foundation to your beliefs any more thn there is any FACTUAL foundation to mine!
The difference between us?
I CAN and DO admit it, my beliefs are matters of FAITH and nothing more. So why can you and the other Ultra Christians, even the female ones, not grow a set and admit it also?
-
You can always leave if you dont like it here!
Come on, Mr Toe! You know as well as I that our luck just ain't that good! >:(
Much as I might wish it was! ;D
-
He changed it to Pat because he's not the Marion kind.
But still wanted to appear androgynous?
-
Come on, Mr Toe! You know as well as I that our luck just ain't that good! >:(
Much as I might wish it was! ;D
I'd still be here Swing........big yellow smiley.
-
I'd still be here Swing........big yellow smiley.
Like I said, our luck ain't that good - you are the Colin Creevey of the R and E Forum.
-
I'd still be here Swing........big yellow smiley.
But the only reason that you stay is to prevent the inevitable closure of the forum should you go.
That's correct isn't it?
You sentimental old fool you!
-
You can always leave if you dont like it here!
OR..
You could take lessons on Christianity so you can make a positive contribution instead of negative remarks to members as the one above. :)
-
OR..
You could take lessons on Christianity so you can make a positive contribution instead of negative remarks to members as the one above. :)
OR
'You' can take lessons in:
Humility
Writing English in a way that is understandable to normal humans
Reading for understanding
Humility
History
Politics
Humility
..I could go on but I've not got all day!
-
That's because of a cruel and intellectually totalitarian secularism.
No, because we are generally less OTT. Nothing cruel about that, on the contrary it's quite a kind trait!
-
No, because we are generally less OTT. Nothing cruel about that, on the contrary it's quite a kind trait!
Who's we?
-
The GBP. Less OTT about religion than those over the pond. Which I do not believe is a cruel attitude.
-
Moderator a number of posts discussing an individual poster have been removed as being off topic
-
Does anyone on this forum truly agree with this man's words and suggested actions?
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/09/pat-robertson-non-religious-children-should-be-beaten-until-they-respect-christian-beliefs/
Nothing new or unusual there Owl, just another religious nutter, are you really surprised?
ippy
-
Nothing new or unusual there Owl, just another religious nutter, are you really surprised?
ippy
Surprised? At the American's mixture of Christain Fundamentalism and their taste for violent retribution for anything that they see as a crime? A crime against their criminal law or the Christian law.
Regrettably no, I am not at all surprised. Disappointed that in the 21st century the country which deems itself to be the Leader of the Free World is still incapable of seeing the deficiencies in the results of following a bbok that is 2,00 years out of date.
The psycological results of violence to children as a form of discipline nd/or punishment are now so well and frequently documented that it would have percolated even through such numb-skulls as this idiot. The progression to using violence against anyone who they consider to be breaking their laws at an interntionl level seems inevitable and the consequences potentially catastrophic.
-
Regrettably no, I am not at all surprised. Disappointed that in the 21st century the country which deems itself to be the Leader of the Free World is still incapable of seeing the deficiencies in the results of following a bbok that is 2,00 years out of date.
So out of date Owl that the vast majority of what it teaches is only recently being re-enacted by modern society.
The psycological results of violence to children as a form of discipline nd/or punishment are now so well and frequently documented that it would have percolated even through such numb-skulls as this idiot. The progression to using violence against anyone who they consider to be breaking their laws at an interntionl level seems inevitable and the consequences potentially catastrophic.
Whilst the lack of 'violence' in a child's upbringing is equally negatively documented. As humans we learn from pain - its a natural form of warning and discouragement. Interestingly, there is no Biblical recommendation, let alone instruction that a parent should punish a child by thrashing them to the edge of death - nor is there anything instructing them to punish by psychological means - which can be just as damaging. As for your escalating the issue to international politics in the way you have, it isn't just the Americans who fallen into this error. Just about eery culture, at some point in their history, has done the same - and often at the point that they are the 'Leader of the World' - free or otherwise.
-
I don't have a problem with moderate Christians, even if I don't see it their way. It is the ones who try to frighten people into conversion who do my head in! >:(
OK, Floo, since there is no Biblical instruction to "frighten people into conversion", would you agree that questioning such people's claims to be 'Christians' is in order? Are we obliged to accept somebody's self-definition if their behaviour doesn't match up with the claims and expected behaviour of that claim? This applies across the board, and not just in terms of religious belief. Or is religious belief something so specific that all the normal benchmarks are obsolete?
-
OK, Floo, since there is no Biblical instruction to "frighten people into conversion", would you agree that questioning such people's claims to be 'Christians' is in order? Are we obliged to accept somebody's self-definition if their behaviour doesn't match up with the claims and expected behaviour of that claim? This applies across the board, and not just in terms of religious belief. Or is religious belief something so specific that all the normal benchmarks are obsolete?
but what if they think you don't match up?
-
Surprised? At the American's mixture of Christain Fundamentalism and their taste for violent retribution for anything that they see as a crime? A crime against their criminal law or the Christian law.
Regrettably no, I am not at all surprised. Disappointed that in the 21st century the country which deems itself to be the Leader of the Free World is still incapable of seeing the deficiencies in the results of following a bbok that is 2,00 years out of date.
The psycological results of violence to children as a form of discipline nd/or punishment are now so well and frequently documented that it would have percolated even through such numb-skulls as this idiot. The progression to using violence against anyone who they consider to be breaking their laws at an interntionl level seems inevitable and the consequences potentially catastrophic.
Funny enough, about a year or two ago I heard that Denmark had far less recidivism from their ex-conns than we do here something like they had 30% reoffenders compared to the UK's 70% reoffenders and I heard recently, can't remember the figures, but Norway is giving the impression that they are rewarding their criminals for their handy work, and have even taken over from Denmark with their efforts at turning around criminals.
I have to admit my gut feelings when I hear about a whole load of criminal acts via the various media outlets, is to flog them hang them hang them up by there thumbs, lock them up and throw away the key etc depending on the crime, obviously this kind of thing doesn't work and the best option is to follow the most successful methods we can find and hopefully break the circle of criminal behaviour, among these kinds of people no matter what our gut feelings might be.
ippy
-
Funny enough, about a year or two ago I heard that Denmark had far less recidivism from their ex-conns than we do here something like they had 30% reoffenders compared to the UK's 70% reoffenders and I heard recently, can't remember the figures, but Norway is giving the impression that they are rewarding their criminals for their handy work, and have even taken over from Denmark with their efforts at turning around criminals.
I have to admit my gut feelings when I hear about a whole load of criminal acts via the various media outlets, is to flog them hang them hang them up by there thumbs, lock them up and throw away the key etc depending on the crime, obviously this kind of thing doesn't work and the best option is to follow the most successful methods we can find and hopefully break the circle of criminal behaviour, among these kinds of people no matter what our gut feelings might be.
ippy
Article on Norway's prisons, and I agree with you that the crucial thing here is what works, not what feels right on an emotional level.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12?r=US&IR=T
And further article on the Scandi model
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/why-scandinavian-prisons-are-superior/279949/
-
Sadly, successive British Governments have chosen to go for the harder, tougher options which research indicates don't really impact on re-offending, and various pilot projects that have shown promising resuylts in reducing re-offending have been ditched.
-
Sadly, successive British Governments have chosen to go for the harder, tougher options which research indicates don't really impact on re-offending, and various pilot projects that have shown promising resuylts in reducing re-offending have been ditched.
. . . harder, tougher options . . .
Are you joking? You must be. A while ago photos were published of a new prison opening in the UK - I wish I could rremember the details, date, location, etc - which looked more like a Butlins Holiday camp. The leisure facilities were desribed as 'top of the range and equiped to the highest possible standards then available' and the kitchens alone cost several millions to equip.
Recidivism in the country is rampamt for criminals have no fear of prison - people under 18, fine, it should be more like an educational establishment, but for offending adults . . .
-
Why is that, Hope? Is it money? It's obviously cheaper to just confine inmates to their cells - "bang up" - for long periods than employ specially trained people to help them rehabilitate. Yet if other countries manage to do that, we surely can. I particularly feel for the young offenders, in places like Feltham.
-
Are you joking? You must be. A while ago photos were published of a new prison opening in the UK - I wish I could rremember the details, date, location, etc - which looked more like a Butlins Holiday camp. The leisure facilities were desribed as 'top of the range and equiped to the highest possible standards then available' and the kitchens alone cost several millions to equip.
Recidivism in the country is rampamt for criminals have no fear of prison - people under 18, fine, it should be more like an educational establishment, but for offending adults . . .
except as is already covered on the thread, the Scandi model seems to work.
-
Why is that, Hope? Is it money? It's obviously cheaper to just confine inmates to their cells - "bang up" - for long periods than employ specially trained people to help them rehabilitate. Yet if other countries manage to do that, we surely can. I particularly feel for the young offenders, in places like Feltham.
ask Owlswing he seems to want to go down the harsher ineffective route
-
Just a gut reaction, NS, understandable when it comes to violent offences. However he did say he felt differently about young offenders.
The thing about modern prisons is they look like bright, shiny comprehensive schools with workshops, classrooms, gymnasia etc, but the prison service doesn't have the staff to enable the inmates to make full use of them. It takes a lot of man/womanpower merely to escort groups from one part of a prison to another and then chaperone them. So there is what seems like endless 'bang up'. Demoralising for staff and prisoners.
-
Just a gut reaction, NS, understandable when it comes to violent offences. However he did say he felt differently about young offenders.
The thing about modern prisons is they look like bright, shiny comprehensive schools with workshops, classrooms, gymnasia etc, but the prison service doesn't have the staff to enable the inmates to make full use of them. It takes a lot of man/womanpower merely to escort groups from one part of a prison to another and then chaperone them. So there is what sees like endless 'bang up'. Demoralising for staff and prisoners.
Do they really look that good? didn't last time I was there. Point is a more open approach such as the Scandi one works but Owlswing doesn't want that despite it working.
-
I was thinking of Belmarsh which is, I suppose, the nearest to me. That certainly does look good but the inmates refer to it as "The Hellhouse of South London" because the regime is so harsh compared to prisons such as the Scrubs. However I'm no expert on prisons, NS and have never before heard of Point.
Totally agree that the Scandi method you outline seems the right way, sensible and forward thinking. However I understand why some people feel less sympathetic towards offenders even if I don't share their views. For all we know, they could have been a victim of violent crime at one time and experience like that is bound to make them biased.
Tbh I always tend to think that people, "Didn't really mean to do it", so would be useless working in a prison. I just feel it's wrong to write people off and imagine how devastated I'd be if I was written off. Let's face it, you don't have to commit a crime to be forgotten and discarded by society, could happen to any of us.
-
I was thinking of Belmarsh which is, I suppose, the nearest to me. That certainly does look good but the inmates refer to it as "The Hellhouse of South London" because the regime is so harsh compared to prisons such as the Scrubs. However I'm no expert on prisons, NS and have never before heard of Point.
Totally agree that the Scandi method you outline seems the right way, sensible and forward thinking. However I understand why some people feel less sympathetic towards offenders even if I don't share their views. For all we know, they could have been a victim of violent crime at one time and experience like that is bound to make them biased.
Tbh I always tend to think that people, "Didn't really mean to do it", so would be useless working in a prison. I just feel it's wrong to write people off and imagine how devastated I'd be if I was written off. Let's face it, you don't have to commit a crime to be forgotten and discarded by society, could happen to any of us.
we, Ippy and I for once have covered the emotional issue. Surely the point is what works, not what people think against the evidence?
-
OK, Floo, since there is no Biblical instruction to "frighten people into conversion", would you agree that questioning such people's claims to be 'Christians' is in order? Are we obliged to accept somebody's self-definition if their behaviour doesn't match up with the claims and expected behaviour of that claim? This applies across the board, and not just in terms of religious belief. Or is religious belief something so specific that all the normal benchmarks are obsolete?
The 'born again' mob claim to be Christians, and they believe you will go to hell if you don't convert!
-
we, Ippy and I for once have covered the emotional issue. Surely the point is what works, not what people think against the evidence?
Can I just reinforce this point.
We have for years now had governments of all colours getting tough on criminals whilst ignoring the fact that this does not work. A lock em up and forget them for x number of years is, if you think about it sensibly, never going to work. You are putting them into an institution where they are with other criminals and letting their minds ferment all sorts of weird thoughts about what they will do when they get outside - this will be reinforced by their peer group, in this case other criminals.
But again the attitude prevalent in these shores that we can learn nothing from Johnny Foreigner holds sway. We really are a desperately sad nation.
-
Not, of course, just Johnny Foreigner but I suspect that there might be experts involved in calculating recidivism rates! And we know all about experts!
-
NS: we, Ippy and I for once have covered the emotional issue. Surely the point is what works, not what people think against the evidence?
Yes of course, I agree - and with what Trent said this morning.
People still have the right to an emotional response and are not going to be persuaded if we completely disregard them.
-
NS: we, Ippy and I for once have covered the emotional issue. Surely the point is what works, not what people think against the evidence?
Yes of course, I agree - and with what Trent said this morning.
People still have the right to an emotional response and are not going to be persuaded if we completely disregard them.
In what way were they being 'completely disregarded'? Ippy clearly expressed that he had the same emotional reaction.
-
NS: we, Ippy and I for once have covered the emotional issue. Surely the point is what works, not what people think against the evidence?
Yes of course, I agree - and with what Trent said this morning.
People still have the right to an emotional response and are not going to be persuaded if we completely disregard them.
Of course they have the right to an emotional response - no-one is saying they don't. But laws based purely on emotional responses are not always the best way forward. So the wish for retribution, vengeance etc is strong in some people - this is in part why we have laws in the first place to stop the kind of vigilante activities that currently seem to be gaining traction.
As with so many things in this world the issue is a bit counterintuitive - yes we want to lock em up to keep ourselves and others safe - but actually what if the locking them up in the way we do is the very thing that is increasing the dangers to ourselves and others?
-
I think you've missed my point, Trent. I agree with what you say and believe our prisons should be more concerned with rehab than punishment. I just feel that everyone's voice must be heard. Anyway never mind.
-
I think you've missed my point, Trent. I agree with what you say and believe our prisons should be more concerned with rehab than punishment. I just feel that everyone's voice must be heard. Anyway never mind.
I don't think we are disagreeing - it's just that those closest to the crime often feel the need for some kind of retribution / punishment that in the end serves no good purpose - if, as appears to be the case from evidence elsewhere, a much more 'rehab' focused approach is needed.
-
Just to add, that I have been thinking about this in the context of something that has happened recently to a husband of an old friend of mine - a case which I don't want to discuss here, but it has given me a number of sleepless nights over the mess that this person has got themselves into in relation to action taken by a vigilante group.
The rights and wrongs of locking people up versus the options of rehabilitation have preoccupied me more than they normally would do!
-
I think you've missed my point, Trent. I agree with what you say and believe our prisons should be more concerned with rehab than punishment. I just feel that everyone's voice must be heard. Anyway never mind.
Not all opinions though are equally valid. Further I suspect a number of politicians pander to the emotional response for their own interests rather than actually believing them. The level of political debate around penal policy in this country is execrable in part because we don't look at what works.
-
I think you've missed my point, Trent. I agree with what you say and believe our prisons should be more concerned with rehab than punishment. I just feel that everyone's voice must be heard. Anyway never mind.
I think prisons should be there to punish criminals. The punishment should be stringent in the case of the most serious crimes. I also think that rehabilitation should be applied to those for whom it is thought would benefit from it. They should be psychologically tested to see if that is a possibility, so money isn't wasted on them.
-
What do you mean by stringent punishment? I presume you mean more than locking up prison inmates and making them work hard.
Punishment is administered by prison officers and having to dish it out that day after day must have a damaging effect on their psyche. They would have to be the sort of people who can completely divorce themselves mentally from what they do or they might end up needing help themselves. A sort of desensitisation. There obviously are such people and they are trained how to leave work behind when they go home. Getting the balance right can't be easy though.
Being a prison officer must be a very difficult job indeed - sometimes boring too because they spend ages just sitting and watching groups. They also have to have eyes in the back of their heads and a degree of savvy when it comes to assessing character.
Specialising in the rehabilitation of offenders is, I would think, far more interesting and rewarding. As has been said, it is a pity not more of this is done with success, unlike our Scandinavian neighbours.
-
I think prisons should be there to punish criminals. The punishment should be stringent in the case of the most serious crimes. I also think that rehabilitation should be applied to those for whom it is thought would benefit from it. They should be psychologically tested to see if that is a possibility, so money isn't wasted on them.
Floo, if you look at the long term aspect of reforming criminal behaviour; things like this will only improve over the long term, hopefully the reformed criminals will be less likely to pass on a positive influence about criminal behaviour on to their families, their children, and that would only be one great benefit gained from reforming criminals, by reforming as many as is possible, there are many more benefits to be gained too.
You're not the only one that would like to wring their necks Floo, especially if it worked but unfortunately.?
My father was a London PC and I often heard him speak about the local criminal families, the children are brought up to see this kind of behaviour as the norm; do I need to say more?
ippy
-
ippy: "...local criminal families, the children are brought up to see this kind of behaviour as the norm."
Indeed, it's very hard to change those attitudes which are inculcated from youth.
Very often people in prison, inmates, especially the younger ones, are fed up with their lot and want to live differently but when they leave, they go back to exactly the same environment with family and friends holding to criminal values, treating them like "Wusses" for wanting to change. No wonder so many re-offend.
Rehabilitation has to continue after prison.
-
Prison should be a place to which nobody ever wishes to return, not a holiday camp!
-
Prison should be a place to which nobody ever wishes to return, not a holiday camp!
Knee meet jerk.
-
Prison should be a place to which nobody ever wishes to return, not a holiday camp!
Why are you unwilling to consider the evidence of what actually reduces recidivism?
-
Why are you unwilling to consider the evidence of what actually reduces recidivism?
I would consider it is it isn't used instead of punishment, but running alongside it.
-
I would consider it is it isn't used instead of punishment, but running alongside it.
But it's the whole approach that seems to work better.
-
I would consider it is it isn't used instead of punishment, but running alongside it.
Except your previous comment 'holiday camp' could be straight out of one of the tabloids when in reality prison life is grim. I don't say this as someone who has read the Chief Inspector of Prisons report:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28233294
Even though he is correct.
I say this as someone who had to go into our local jail as part of a previous job, once a week, for 6 months. I can assure you they are grim, unrelenting, horrible places. Places that would make you despair of the human condition where there seemed to me to be little chance of rehabilitation, just reinforcement of the worst traits of humanity. Will we ever learn whilst you, people like you, and the press; pander to such misleading, preposterous caricatures.
You are promoting a stereotype that does not exist.
-
I cannot add anything to what Trent has said except that I agree, including the 'tabloid stereotype' bit.
Prisons are quite the opposite of holiday camps, floo! So you have no worries on that score. I wonder if you have ever been in one and I don't mean as someone convicted of a crime but for any other purpose?
-
Prison should be a place to which nobody ever wishes to return, not a holiday camp!
So you're saying no matter how well a system that looks like rewarding people for doing their crimes works, we should ignore their successes and bring out the thumb screws.
It can be proved that the Norwegian version of crime and punishment, without so much emphasis on the punishment, works, it's not a part of my imagination Floo.
ippy