Blaming parents isn't much use as there rarely are any. My best guess is that problems in the UK are very deep set in our inability to protect human rights and get proper interventions into our mainstream. Our tendency is to say social services are crap - and they are, along with our policing and legal system. We don't discuss the reasons much. At general levels, arguments from public choice theories make sense. Everyone is scared to tell the truth because the personal consequences are so dire. We sort of admit to the general problem, but as soon as you look at a particular case the facts evaporate in favour of devolved budget choices. Camilla BatmanG, a woman who works with disadvantaged kids, reckons social services won't intervene because the costs are borne by local authorities until the kids become criminal when the costs become national. The situation is complicated by practised lying by perpetrators and dismal investigation practices and police and social serviced cultures. It isn't helped by false reporting by some witnesses, but this is more restricted than village idiocy supposes. It goes up a lot when custody battles ensue. Politicians don't help because they pander to whatever emotional fantasies can be appealed to to gain votes, and when in power say everything is hunky-dory.
On 10 Feb, 14:44, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been doing some consulting work for a Yogi, so have been exposed to > quite a bit of his writing, and the emphasis on non-violence, both internal > and external. That was the motivation for this thread, attempting to use his > worldview as a filter for the conversations we've been having. Violence (as > described in his books) takes on many forms, which culminate, not begin, in > the actions such as the one I linked in the OP. The Yogi (who is also an MD) > thinks that reduction of violence in society begins with the > micro...coupling is the key to world peace, in his perspective (did I > mention that Kundalini/Kamasutra Yogas are his area of expertise?) Although > simplistic, I can see some merit in that. However, when the roots of > violence start so much deeper into childhood, it's a bit of a cart before > the horse answer, I'm thinking... > I also think you might be right, Lee. I think the amount of reporting has > increased, not necessarily the amount of violence. I'm willing to accept > your assertion at face value. On to the next question? > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 7:37 AM, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hey Chris, > > > First off a little correction of your generalisation. I do not > > advocate guns, as I'm sure we all know by now. Not because I belive > > that taking the guns away would lead to less violence, but because I > > belive that taking the guns away will lead to less death. > > > Slip said: > > > 'Is global violence increasing? Does the amount of violence to which > > people are exposed shape their psychological response? How do people > > respond psychologically to violence? These questions are addressed by > > global trauma experts' > > > All very good questions, and his first is the one that I really want > > to see answered. > > > I have a totaly unsubstaniated belife that the level of violence in > > the world(excluding wars etc..) has remained fairly constant over > > (lets say) the last three generations, easpecialy if we factor in the > > global increase in population. I could of course be wrong in this, > > based as it is on my own subjective experiances. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
