You were all warned that the soft lefty approach to serial criminals, young or otherwise, on the absurd basis that somehow putting them in prison made a serial criminals worse so you shouldn't punish them for being victims of society etc, etc ........ would result in escalating crime rates, cause deaths and injuries to innocents.... and would inevitably bring on a strong reaction.

You soft-pedaling nambie-pambies are to blame for it all.

Now the NT has Fallen, Queensland has Fallen, the rest are about to fall in one election - and both Fallen States are going to bring on Night and Fog and ship the Recalcitrants hundreds of miles away from 'home' and 'family' for 're-education' in the camps .... camps are a must since the prisons won't hold them all.......... and it is but one step to removing all of a specified social group to the camps for being Enemies Of The State or Undesirables of one kind or another....

YOU brought this on.... you wear it...

I TOLD YOU SO!

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 1^st, 2024 at 8:08am:


A fair enough analysis....BUT....you are as incompetent as  the "soft lefties": neither you nor they are competent to address causes of socio-economc disadvantage and its associated crime, and then create effective solutions.

Hence your personal responsibility ideology results in overcrowded prisons and poor rehabilitation prospects; while the 'soft lefty' (revolving door)  lawyers are complicit in repeat crimes against innocent victims.   

Quote:


Not all of it, as explained above....pity your ideology is also to blame...

Quote:


Because of a cost of living crisis in a dysfunctional economic system; crime isn't a hot-button issue in the southern states

Quote:


Aren't you applauding the NT and QLD electorates for chucking out Labor and presumabably emerging from "Night and Fog"?

Quote:
[/quote]

Your errors addressed above; you have to address real causes and find real solutions.  For every young crim you lock up , another will arise from a poverty ghetto,  to attack another innocent victim.   

Gnads wrote on Oct 31^st, 2024 at 5:57am:


I think you are speaking from experience. I have only spent time in a drunk tank. That was only because I was pulled over after driving a Mazda around the southside pool "a little intoxicated". I was driving backwards at that stage.

Some people called me "funny". Some people called "the cops". Others said that I was "probably onto his second bottle of bourbon".

Do you know how funny it is to handcuff a 50-year-old senior constable and make him jog next to your car for 10 minutes? I dunno that either. That was because I was arrested by a 60-year-old female officer, who was nearing retirement.

I had to be extra polite to her, because she found my sister's lost cat, many years ago. Other than that, the female officer that she was training was still PTSDed from me turning one of those 1994-era breathalysers into an IED. Scared the snot out of a passing train driver. But, that was back in the day when I was 16 years old and using fake identification.

I have matured a lot since then.

P.S. Don't **** with autistic people. I almost lost an arm jumping onto the back of the train, making my escape. I was not laughin' maniacally, as the police prosecutor alleges. I was just in a lot of pain from poppin' my shoulder out of place temporarily.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2024 at 1:35pm:


Yes. And you haven't done anything to address that. All you have addressed are issues. Not about the age.

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2024 at 8:07am:


Why would you think that?

Driving drunk as a 16 yr old?

Some people are autistic - there are 3 in my close family.

Other people are just complete nutters.

Gnads wrote on Nov 4^th, 2024 at 11:22am:


You are saying there is no controversy, even though the NT election was fought - and won - on lowering the age back to 10, as you say.

Your confusion is re causes: no-one is "hiding juvenile crime rates", the problem is government isn't seriously  taking its responsibility to fix the youth crime problem, hence the silly argument over lowering the age of criminal responsibility. 

Quote:


Were they psychopaths, or victims of poverty-ghettos with poor role-models?

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2024 at 1:53pm:


So you agree there's a controversy - hence the "issue"  which you said was not related to the topic. 

Quote:


At last, lee is about to reveal where his blind**, Conservative 'personal responsibility' ideology leads him.

** ie he's blind to the egregious effects of his Conservative ideology on his capacity for rational analysis. 

Let's read on: 

Quote:


Bingo - "learned criminal responsibility" is an oxymoron; you aren't being 'responsible' when you are behaving  criminally.

Quote:



Specifically, to your comical analysis:  indeed, parents in dysfunctional families in low socio-economic groups often "get caught up in the justice system", as is to be expected; but what is the cause of the bad behaviour which causes them to be brought before the courts?

Yet you expect the kids, with those same parents as role models, to be responsible enough to "take notice".

ie, you display more breath-taking self-delusion, in the service of the blind Conservative idea that it's all down to 'personal responsibility' to behave well, regardess of  socio economic circumstances.

Let it sink in: government has its own responsibility to eradicate the socio-economic conditions which cause youth - and poverty-related - adult crime.

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2024 at 7:08pm:


At what age a person is responsible, is a diversion from the CAUSE of criminal behaviour, eg bad role models in welfare dependent communities and families. 

Quote:


Wrong again:  I have always agreed personal responsibility (for acceptable behaviour) is ONE part of the set of necessary conditions required to achieve social cohesion and harmony.   

But you of course are blind to other OTHER necessary conditions, eg, an economy which works for all - because you are blinded by the Conservative "poverty is always with us" meme. 

Quote:


Again, you ignore the effect of the external environment; systemic poverty is a mitigating factor re 'responsibility'.   

Quote:


Addressed and refuted above. Locking people up won't reduce crime among disadvantaged socio-economic groups.

Quote:


(You restricting the issues to black crime?  Another error.)

I already asked you (and explained - which you ignore because you believe poverty is always with us):  why did the parents commit crimes, and consequently were such poor role models for their kids, regardless of whether the courts locked the parents up or not?