Youth Culture and Teenage Deaths in London

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
No - here I disagree with you, Deep Thought.
All the statistics suggest that there is clearly an increase in gun-related crime in the UK over the last 25 years or so.

For instance:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3112818.stm#
& open the box [b]"At a glance - gun crime statistics"
This gives the figures from 1982-2003

I'm sure the media does ...[text shortened]... ch worse in this type of crime than was the case in the 80's & the upward trend is obvious.[/b]

But gun crimes are relatively rare (out of around 6 million offences in 02/03 10,000 involved firearms so 1/6th of a percent) , also overall the number of criminal offences has dropped since 1995 (see http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page54.asp). The overall figures for violent crime have also dropped from a peak in 1995, so really looking at the graphs it's only guncrime and violence against the person that has increased but they changed what was counted from 1998/99 in violent crimes against the person to include all sorts of new things including possetion of a weapon. Handguns were made illegal in 1997 (I think or 1998) and possetion of an illegal firearm counts towards the statistics from the BBC website from 1998 - the bbc figures don't remind you of this. The BBC article also says that most of the increase is to do with gangs selling crack cocaine so I really don't think that this shows that young people are more likely to be criminally inclined.

Originally posted by DeepThought
But gun crimes are relatively rare (out of around 6 million offences in 02/03 10,000 involved firearms so 1/6th of a percent) , also overall the number of criminal offences has dropped since 1995 (see http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page54.asp). The overall figures for violent crime have also dropped from a peak in 1995, so really looking at th ally don't think that this shows that young people are more likely to be criminally inclined.

My point was that you are much more likely to be a victim of gun crime now than you were in the '80s, however remote.
Of course it depends on how accurate the figures are.
A lot of headline violent crime figures are actually extrapolations as outlined here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/20/nknife320.xml

"There is a wide recognition in policing and criminal justice circles that, unlike gun crime, the pattern of knife crime has not been closely monitored. There is little doubt that gun crime, particularly handgun crime, has more than doubled since Labour came to power - again despite legislation, in the form of a post-Dunblane ban on handguns.

The estimate of up to 57,900 annual "knifing or stabbing" victims comes from the Government's Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (OCJS) which, like the bigger British Crime Survey (BCS), questions people about their experiences of crime."

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
My point was that you are much more likely to be a victim of gun crime now than you were in the '80s, however remote.
Of course it depends on how accurate the figures are.
A lot of headline violent crime figures are actually extrapolations as outlined here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/20/nknife320.xml

"There i bigger British Crime Survey (BCS), questions people about their experiences of crime."

An increase in guncrimes doesn't indicate that kids are more violent now - as these statistics only talk about overall figures and don't give a by age breakdown. I really don't think that I am more likely to be a victim of a shooting now than I was in the '80s - apart from by accident. The increase in gun-crimes is in part due to the new offence of owning a handgun in the first place, but mostly due to the gangs who control the crack cocaine trade using them against each other. Since I have absolutely no intention of becoming involved in selling crack I'm not any more likely to be shot at. Unless you are unlucky enough to be stood in the way when they open fire you will not see any of it. Having said that, in an effort to undermine my own point, the last but one shooting in Hackney involved some people opening fire on a man in a car and his eleven year old son - who both fairly miraculously escaped totally unharmed - a woman who was walking past was hit in the foot by a ricochet. The fact that the intended victim had an 11 year old son implies that those involved were all at least in their 30's - so this isn't stuff you can blame on youth.

The upper bound on knifings that article gave is 60,000 a year, so this is 1% of all crimes (using the overall figure for 2002) the interesting thing about that article is that it didn't say that under 25's were more likely to commit an offence with a knife, but that under 25's were more likely to be the victim.

I don't think that focusing on crimes with weapons really advances the debate though - generally that's the preserve of organised crime not young people being louts, nor does it do anything to undermine my basic point which is that the kids of today are really no worse than we were or, for that matter, those of any other generation.

Originally posted by mrstabby
That'll keep them out of poverty.
You can't incite people to be good parents financially, they have to know how to be good parents in the first place.

An excellent point. I'd start by eliminating the failed NHS and other welfare programs. People need to learn early that you can't count on anyone but yourself in this life otherwise you've got socialism and the misery is spread around evenly.

Originally posted by Dolphin55
I am sorry to say I don't agree with you.
As an example National Service is compulsory in Denmark,Germany and Greece their Assault figures are 1.8, 1.4 and 0.3 per thounsand population. In the UK it's 7.45 Assaults per thousand.

In addition 42% of prisoners in Greece and 30% in Germany are non-nationals.

There may be no correlation though between countries that have national service and lower rates of physical assaults. Could be that there are more police on the corners of those countries with lower instances of physical assaults. Also, people should be paid for their labor. Drafting people into national service means that they are doing enforced labor while earning no wages and paying no taxes.

Originally posted by DeepThought
A correlation does not correspond to a causal relationship. I don't know about Greece, but in both Germany and Denmark there is a decent benefits system where the amount of money the unemployed are expected to live off is liveable. So maybe that's the solution instead, give poor people more money and then they won't be so desperate.

There are studies in the U.S. that show when the unemployment benefits are cut or run out, people get a job quicker. However, in Europe's defense, it is much harder to hire and fire workers so cutting back on unemployment benefits might not solve the problem of sloth. Instead, it would probably be better to ease up job regulations for employers to hire whomever they want at a price both parties agree to.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Wasn't this predicted some 40 years ago in the Anthony Burgess novel: A Clockwork Orange?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

There are other major cultural differences -- I suspect that in Italy and Greece, that being a father actually carries some respect and authority (i.e., the fathers haven't been lampooned by the pop culture and emasculated by the family courts).

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
This is a very good post. I would wreck it if I could. However, referring to the denial of individual autonomy by the state, even for the noblest reasons, as "only a positive thing" seems to be speaking a bit too soon.

Socialism by any other name. National service is great as long as it is someone else's kid doing it. I think it would be pretty dull taking care of a national forest or hauling bedpans in a hospital for no pay. The national service movement is gaining traction in the U.S., but my big fear is that the Baby Boomers (a.k.a. "the most selfish generation"😉 will use their voting strength to turn everyone into an indentured servant to care for them in their geezerhood.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
An excellent point. I'd start by eliminating the failed NHS and other welfare programs. People need to learn early that you can't count on anyone but yourself in this life otherwise you've got socialism and the misery is spread around evenly.
also
There are studies in the U.S. that show when the unemployment benefits are cut or run out, ...[text shortened]... p job regulations for employers to hire whomever they want at a price both parties agree to.

The NHS is a fantastic success - or would be if the government stopped trying to run it down as a preliminary for privatization.

What, I wonder, happens to those who don't find a job quickly? Now you see the basic point you really can't seem to get your head around is that an employment contract is not a contract between two equals. The employer is by far the more powerful negociating party, this means that the price of labour tends towards whatever the minimum is to keep someone alive.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The NHS is a fantastic success - or would be if the government stopped trying to run it down as a preliminary for privatization.

What, I wonder, happens to those who don't find a job quickly? Now you see the basic point you really can't seem to get your head around is that an employment contract is not a contract between two equals. The employer is ...[text shortened]... is means that the price of labour tends towards whatever the minimum is to keep someone alive.

I don't agree; for example, when David Beckham goes to negotiate with whatever club desires his services, it seems to me he comes out pretty good. When the local school superintendent negotiates his contract with the local school district, he seems to come out of it with more than a whole skin. Fact of the matter is, when you're young, inexperienced and have little in the way of skills to barter with in negotiations with your employer, then of course you're going to get the short end of the broom handle. But you're not always going to be stuck sweeping floors.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Socialism by any other name. National service is great as long as it is someone else's kid doing it. I think it would be pretty dull taking care of a national forest or hauling bedpans in a hospital for no pay. The national service movement is gaining traction in the U.S., but my big fear is that the Baby Boomers (a.k.a. "the most selfish generat ...[text shortened]... ng strength to turn everyone into an indentured servant to care for them in their geezerhood.

Why in the name of hell are you rambling on about? "Socialism by any other name. National service is great as long as it is someone else's kid doing it." Was the u.s. a socialist country when rich college kids dodged the draft back during Vietnam? 🙄

"I think it would be pretty dull taking care of a national forest or hauling bedpans in a hospital for no pay. " Who ever mentioned no pay?

D

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
There may be no correlation though between countries that have national service and lower rates of physical assaults. Could be that there are more police on the corners of those countries with lower instances of physical assaults. Also, people should be paid for their labor.

Could be that in these countries people are not living in a pressure cooker society. If you lose a job its not the end of the world. Everyone you meet is not a paranoid freedom junkie wanting to pull a piece on you just because you cut them off in traffic.

Don't let a perception of the myth of a patriarchal culture allow you to infer relationships in a society that are nothing more than a projection of a media propagated psuedo mafia culture, that is not only simplistic and incorrect its actually condescending and slightly insulting.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
I don't agree; for example, when David Beckham goes to negotiate with whatever club desires his services, it seems to me he comes out pretty good. When the local school superintendent negotiates his contract with the local school district, he seems to come out of it with more than a whole skin. Fact of the matter is, when you're young, inexperien ...[text shortened]... the short end of the broom handle. But you're not always going to be stuck sweeping floors.

The problem with your point is that the vast majority of jobs don't require the kinds of skills that give you a compensating edge with employers. You'll always be able to find some exceptions, but a process of deskilling tends to drive down wages in higher paid jobs. Most employers don't individually negociate starting wages with candidates, it's more of a take it or leave it thing.

As an aside on deskilling, labour saving devices, that should reduce the amount of work we all need to do, paradoxically increase it. The machines remove the need for the skills that used to be essential for a given industry and so workers with those skills find themselves surplus to requirements and replaced by unskilled labour who are payed less.