A message to a certain 16 year-old...

[Wes Tender]

No, I'm saying he did an incredibly stupid thing, and I'm saying he probably wasn't equipped to realise how wrong the act was the symbolism of the act.

 

Are you saying that every kid who attends war memorials is going to be rapt in attention? That they'll take everything in and process the information as we would like them to? Who is being naive now?

 

You're assuming that once a kid attends one of these services, they'll be fully clued up about the horrors of war and the sacrifices our ancestors made. I disagree with that assertion. I'd expect a fair proportion of teenagers would not be fully engaged in such events, regardless of the importance their teachers place upon them.

 

No, my comprehension of the English language is fine, thanks. You said that had he known that his actions were wrong, he wouldn't have done it. It can't just be me who somehow misunderstood, as others picked you up on it too. Now you're back-tracking and attempting to make out that he just didn't realise the implications of what he did. Well, I disagree. He knew that it was wrong and he probably did it because he knew damned well that it would cause massive upset. Would you really have us believe that he didn't know what the swastika symbolised, or that he might have equally sprayed it onto any wall, but was unlucky enough to have chosen a war memorial, not realising the connection?

 

And I'm afraid that I also disagree that a 16 year old would not have realised the significance of what the war memorial represented. Apart from what he would have been told in school, the Armistice ceremony and the one minute's silence are all over the TV and radio every year, there have been numerous films, documentaries and written articles about it. So if what you say was true, the conclusion must therefore be that apart from crass stupidity, the only other explanation for his behaviour must be that the kid was not quite all there mentally. At least the last reason could provide an excuse.

[pap]

No, my comprehension of the English language is fine, thanks. You said that had he known that his actions were wrong, he wouldn't have done it. It can't just be me who somehow misunderstood, as others picked you up on it too.

 

Fair enough Wes; I can see where you are coming from on that point, and honestly, you've got me bang to rights on that.

 

Now you're back-tracking and attempting to make out that he just didn't realise the implications of what he did. Well, I disagree. He knew that it was wrong and he probably did it because he knew damned well that it would cause massive upset. Would you really have us believe that he didn't know what the swastika symbolised, or that he might have equally sprayed it onto any wall, but was unlucky enough to have chosen a war memorial, not realising the connection?

 

Again, decent point. If I've conceded the first point, I've got to concede the second.

 

And I'm afraid that I also disagree that a 16 year old would not have realised the significance of what the war memorial represented. Apart from what he would have been told in school, the Armistice ceremony and the one minute's silence are all over the TV and radio every year, there have been numerous films, documentaries and written articles about it. So if what you say was true, the conclusion must therefore be that apart from crass stupidity, the only other explanation for his behaviour must be that the kid was not quite all there mentally. At least the last reason could provide an excuse.

 

Or, as I said before, those events simply do not have the significance to him that they do to people from previous generations. Or as you say, it could be crass stupidity or mental problems. To be fair to you, you're at least considering the circumstances behind the events - which is a considerable improvement on some of the opinions here.

 

At the end of the day, we need to ask why this kid felt it was okay to do this. Even if we accept the alpine explanation that he's just a 'c*nt', we still have to ask why we've got so many of them in our midst, yet at the same time, retain some perspective about the gravity of the crime.

 

Ultimately, the biggest affront here is to what people believe, whereas what we should really be asking is what damage was actually done to society and why. Compared to a lot of other teenage crime, this is nothing save what we make of it - and as with any youth problem, the responsibility is ultimately on the people who are supposed to be guiding them to become responsible citizens.

[Special K]

I'm saying that teenagers don't always make good choices. I'm not lumping them all together. As a father of a sixteen year old, I know all too well that there are gradations in the behaviour of kids, hell, even gradations of behaviour with my own kid.

 

If you have a problem, any problem, the best way to solve it for good is to understand why it happened and work out how to prevent it from happening again. You solve nothing by simply assigning a label like 'c*nt' to the problem and presenting that as a solution.

 

What is 'dealing with them properly'?

 

 

 

As I said before, not seeking an excuse - seeking an explanation.

 

Pap, at the risk of sounding pedantic, calling the nipper a c**t was never offered up as a solution. Calling him a c**t was a reaction to a heinous crime. The rightful course of justice will deal with him in due course. I see that as the solution. I also don't feel it is an act worthy of trying to find an explanation. I don't think there will be any ideological drive behind it, nor do they seem to be the actions of an individulal cry for help. For me the explanation is clear. He's a horrible little **** that needs the book thrown at him.

[buctootim]

When I was 17 I used to ride a motorbike, black leather jacket with a denim cutoff over the top - nice big swastika on a red background on the back. It was the height of the punk era and I thought I was cool. I was working at Bordens in North Baddesley and the head of the German sister company saw me. He wenrt bananas - genuinely outraged and upset. At that age, you have no idea of the importance of some symbols to some people.

[pap]

Pap, at the risk of sounding pedantic, calling the nipper a c**t was never offered up as a solution. Calling him a c**t was a reaction to a heinous crime. The rightful course of justice will deal with him in due course. I see that as the solution. I also don't feel it is an act worthy of trying to find an explanation. I don't think there will be any ideological drive behind it, nor do they seem to be the actions of an individulal cry for help. For me the explanation is clear. He's a horrible little **** that needs the book thrown at him.

 

So was he a little 'c*nt' the moment he was pushed into the world? Did he go to the St. Cuthbert's School for Troubled C*nts? As I said before, this behaviour is not ingrained. It develops over a long period of time and we all have a part to play in that. We have become indifferent to the concerns of others, and collectively, we have produced a society where teenagers do unspeakable things.

 

Wes picked me up earlier on a point earlier on about him knowing the difference between right and wrong. Barring the mentally ill angle, he almost certainly does. However, that didn't stop him from doing it anyway.

 

I know I challenged Alps earlier on his credentials to comment on the state of Britain's youth, but he has a point. Let's not forget that we had riots in our major cities a few months ago. Pretty much the same thing happened back then, some people explained it as simple thuggery when actually, there was a ****load going on. Did the rioters know the difference between right and wrong? Absolutely. Did they do it anyway? Yes they did.

 

I'm not tarring all teenagers with the same brush, but clearly, we have a sizeable fraction who hold society in contempt, else they wouldn't riot, kill each other in the streets or smear war memorials with their own sh*t. That is a dangerous situation to be in.

[Wes Tender]

 

At the end of the day, we need to ask why this kid felt it was okay to do this. Even if we accept the alpine explanation that he's just a 'c*nt', we still have to ask why we've got so many of them in our midst, yet at the same time, retain some perspective about the gravity of the crime.

 

Ultimately, the biggest affront here is to what people believe, whereas what we should really be asking is what damage was actually done to society and why. Compared to a lot of other teenage crime, this is nothing save what we make of it - and as with any youth problem, the responsibility is ultimately on the people who are supposed to be guiding them to become responsible citizens.

 

And there in the highlighted text is the nub of the matter. Responsibility for the guidance of the youngsters of the country rests with the parents, the family and the teachers primarily. But wider society also influences the behaviour of its citizens, so there is a moral obligation on the media, the forces of law and order, the judiciary and government too. Lots of these traditional standards were eroded in the 60s, where an increasingly relaxed and liberal society allowed teenage rebellion to go unchecked and they in turn became the parents of some of the tearaways of today. Many would blame the cessation of National Service as a factor. Certainly it is apparent that many of the countries that still have it, don't appear to have the same problems with their youth as we do. But as far as I can see, poor parenting is often the beginning. Lack of enforceable discipline in schools exacerbates the problem and whenever youngsters do indulge in illegal or unruly behaviour, the police and the legal system do not seem to be capable of giving down the sentencing that would act as a deterrent against others.

[Dig Dig]

And there in the highlighted text is the nub of the matter. Responsibility for the guidance of the youngsters of the country rests with the parents, the family and the teachers primarily. But wider society also influences the behaviour of its citizens, so there is a moral obligation on the media, the forces of law and order, the judiciary and government too. Lots of these traditional standards were eroded in the 60s, where an increasingly relaxed and liberal society allowed teenage rebellion to go unchecked and they in turn became the parents of some of the tearaways of today. Many would blame the cessation of National Service as a factor. Certainly it is apparent that many of the countries that still have it, don't appear to have the same problems with their youth as we do. But as far as I can see, poor parenting is often the beginning. Lack of enforceable discipline in schools exacerbates the problem and whenever youngsters do indulge in illegal or unruly behaviour, the police and the legal system do not seem to be capable of giving down the sentencing that would act as a deterrent against others.

 

So you're an expert on this are you? And there was never any rebellious or disenfranchised youth prior to the 60's?

 

People need to stop taking individual issue's and making knee jerk, reactionary and sensationalist assumptions about what they think they know about the youth of today and the wider society.

 

Acting like a dickhead is part of human nature and people of all ages will on occasion do things which repulse the morale sensibilities of the majortiy. They always have and always will.

[1976_Child]

The little pr!ck should be birched in public. Tied to a tree in the park and the skin from his back flayed off him.

[Wes Tender]

So you're an expert on this are you? And there was never any rebellious or disenfranchised youth prior to the 60's?

 

People need to stop taking individual issue's and making knee jerk, reactionary and sensationalist assumptions about what they think they know about the youth of today and the wider society.

 

Acting like a dickhead is part of human nature and people of all ages will on occasion do things which repulse the morale sensibilities of the majortiy. They always have and always will.

 

Well, I do have a certain degree of expertise about youth, having been one myself. I also have two children around thirty, so I do have experience of their progress through their youth too.

 

And as for the 60's I was old enough to have experienced them first hand as a youth, so I do have some perspective about the way that society has changed since then. How about you?

 

I've given some reasons as to what I consider to be some of the factors that IMO have contributed to the decline in the behaviour of today's youth. As you believe what I said to be knee-jerk, reactionary and sensationalist assumptions, perhaps you'd offer your contribution and state your professional qualifications that render you an expert whilst you're about it. Alternatively, feel free to counter-debate anything I've said in an objective fashion. Otherwise, you're adding very little to the debate by just dismissing the opinions of others as you did.

 

Yes, there were rebellious youths prior to the 60s and there will always be dickheads, but the problems associated with them have grown over the past 50 years and are increasing.

Unless of course you can prove otherwise.

[Dig Dig]

Well, I do have a certain degree of expertise about youth, having been one myself. I also have two children around thirty, so I do have experience of their progress through their youth too.

 

And as for the 60's I was old enough to have experienced them first hand as a youth, so I do have some perspective about the way that society has changed since then. How about you?

 

I've given some reasons as to what I consider to be some of the factors that IMO have contributed to the decline in the behaviour of today's youth. As you believe what I said to be knee-jerk, reactionary and sensationalist assumptions, perhaps you'd offer your contribution and state your professional qualifications that render you an expert whilst you're about it. Alternatively, feel free to counter-debate anything I've said in an objective fashion. Otherwise, you're adding very little to the debate by just dismissing the opinions of others as you did.

 

Yes, there were rebellious youths prior to the 60s and there will always be dickheads, but the problems associated with them have grown over the past 50 years and are increasing.

Unless of course you can prove otherwise.

 

So why do I need to provide proof of my opinion when all you have to offer is that you were once a child and have two of your own? My point still stands, just because this one individual did what he did, does it then qualify you or anyone else to suggest a wide spread decline in the youth of today and to even go further than that and start to suggest "solutions" such as national service and more draconian treatment in schools? Should our assumptions be based on what we see and hear in the media, or should we take a more objective view based on our own experiences. Mine tells me that yes, there is a proportion of the youth population that is lacking a sense of morality for sure, but at the same time the over whelming majority do understand the bounderies of right and wrong and will grow up to be decent individuals.

 

As for my personal qualifications, I have a degree in criminology (although I'm not claiming to be an expert on anything, particularly as it was going back a little while) and did study at length on how the media shapes our perceptions of crime in society, in particular youth crime. The reality is a long way from what we see and hear in the media, not just on youth crime but all forms of criminality.

[Wes Tender]

Dig Dig:So why do I need to provide proof of my opinion when all you have to offer is that you were once a child and have two of your own? My point still stands, just because this one individual did what he did, does it then qualify you or anyone else to suggest a wide spread decline in the youth of today and to even go further than that and start to suggest "solutions" such as national service and more draconian treatment in schools? Should our assumptions be based on what we see and hear in the media, or should we take a more objective view based on our own experiences. Mine tells me that yes, there is a proportion of the youth population that is lacking a sense of morality for sure, but at the same time the over whelming majority do understand the bounderies of right and wrong and will grow up to be decent individuals.

 

As for my personal qualifications, I have a degree in criminology (although I'm not claiming to be an expert on anything, particularly as it was going back a little while) and did study at length on how the media shapes our perceptions of crime in society, in particular youth crime. The reality is a long way from what we see and hear in the media, not just on youth crime but all forms of criminality.

 

I asked for some background as to what qualified you to respond in that manner, because you dismissed my contribution as knee-jerk, reactionary and sensationalist assumptions. But then in your response, you make assumptions too, knowing very little about me and assuming that my opinion has been formed by influence from the media rather than by personal experience. Therefore you do not concede that I might have the intelligence to compare what the media tells me I should think and what I believe myself to be the case through personal experience.

 

Dig Dig:just because this one individual did what he did, does it then qualify you or anyone else to suggest a wide spread decline in the youth of today

 

Well, it may have escaped your notice, but this is an internet forum where current issues are debated. So not really that strange that the actions of this individual caused the issue of the decline in the behaviour of the youth of today to be discussed in general terms. You even acknowledge yourself that

Mine tells me that yes, there is a proportion of the youth population that is lacking a sense of morality for sure

 

But you haven't so far given any insight as to why you believe this has happened. Is this opinion of yours formed by personal experience, or what you have read or heard through the media?

 

Whilst the debate was fired by outrage at the actions of a youth desecrating a War memorial, would you say that those soldiers who fought in those wars were qualified by their experiences to hold valid opinions about it all, or would their opinions be influenced by what they read in the media about it, or what the historians wrote about it? I put it to you that they do not have to have paper qualifications to validate their opinions on their experiences.

 

I accept that most youngsters do know the difference between right and wrong, indeed I pressed the point that this particular individual knew that he had done wrong. He might even grow up to be a decent individual, although I have my doubts.

 

If you re-read what I said, I didn't advocate the return of National Service, but merely suggested that its cessation might well have contributed to a lack of discipline and self-reliance in those who did not undergo it. Perhaps some other form of service to the community might do just as well. As for discipline in school, do you disagree that it has fallen as sanctions available to the teachers have been removed? If the teachers are not to have access to those sanctions to enforce discipline in school, I have no idea how the issue is to be addressed. So I just accept that until children are taught respect and discipline at home or at school, then there will be an increase in bad antisocial behaviour by the youths.