Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mr Q

Welfare State To Blame For Youth Crime..

Recommended Posts

It has always struck me as odd that the Left cannot see how the welfare state is a curse. It is either naive, or wicked, of them not to make the link between it and the gruesomeness of our sink council estates, the amorality of many of the people who live on them, the perpetuation of an underclass in a society as rich as ours, the failure of so many of our schools, and the utter lack of value being obtained for taxpayers' money. Leftists love welfare because it satisfies their lust for redistribution of wealth, however crude the fix may be. It also gives them a clientele to control. All in all, it is a corrupt, corrupting, demoralising and poisonous concept.In a humane society the state has a role in the private lives of certain individuals. It should see that people are educated. It should see that those who suffer misfortune can cope and, as far as possible, thrive again, whether they be widows, orphans, the indigent elderly, or the mentally or physically disabled.advertisementHowever, it does not have the wherewithal to run people's lives; and in most cases it does not need to. It is that last point that leftists often have trouble accepting, hence a shocking public spending total of nearly £620 billion that now even some Labour MPs, notably Denis MacShane on this page yesterday, are saying is destructive.Why is it that the criminal underclass can carry on as it does? It is because the state pays for it to do so. Why do children grow up feeling they have to kill each other at the slightest provocation? Because the state has removed the need for them to grow up in a coherent family unit, in which such feelings would seldom be fed. Why, when sociologists from Charles Murray onwards have linked single parenthood, social and economic failure and crime, does the state still sponsor so extensively single parenthood as a career option for young women? Because it assists the socialist state's mission to control and expand a clientele.Why should respectable families like those of Jimmy Mizen, murdered aged 16, or Robert Knox, murdered aged 18, be expected to continue to pay taxes in order to maintain a system in which delinquency is bred as deliberately as Gloucester Old Spots in a pig farm? Because few dare, even in the face of all this evidence, to challenge the spraying of billions of taxpayers' pounds over the demoralised and blatantly undeserving poor.I am well aware of the disgrace of courts not imposing the stiff sentences at their disposal for the carrying of knives. I couldn't care less if this were to mean scores of thousands of teenagers being banged up on hulks in the Bristol Channel for two years, or preferably longer.A message has to be sent, and our judiciary is failing utterly to protect the public in not sending it. But that, helpful though it would be, would deal only with the present problem. What will deal with the next crop of offenders, now growing up in their patriarch-free communes, larded by the taxes of other children's parents, awaiting their turn to drift out on to "the street" and begin the mind-numbing quest for "respect" - from which the chances now seem to be that they will end up either in prison, or quite possibly dead?Society can only address this problem if it grasps the evil of cradle-to-grave welfarism. We know why the welfare state was invented; it was because the Attlee government owed it to voters who had suffered in the 1930s, and, having served their country heroically in the war, deserved a treat.Conservatives supported them in this notion because they were afraid of the working classes cutting up rough with them - anyone who doubts this should read the cabinet papers of the Macmillan era, and just see the naked fear of the lower orders that seeps out of them.But that was another age; an age when the definition of poverty did not include not having access to a colour television and a fridge. It was also a time of relative social order, and what the welfarists never predicted (though to be fair the father of the welfare state, Lord Beveridge, did grasp this, and hence the modesty of his original proposals) was that welfarism would be the means of so many people wrecking the social order, and doing as they pleased at the state's expense.Certain youths have no sense of responsibility because their parents have none. Their parents have none because it is a function of the welfare state to turn adults into children. When self-reliance becomes not merely an option, but an eccentricity, then the ethics of how we conduct ourselves in relation to our fellow citizen become completely distorted. People are granted "rights" without having earned them by exercising what the philosopher David Selbourne has called "the principle of duty".Duty itself, in this context, becomes a sickening equation: the duty of the good citizen to pay taxes so that the feckless one can do his, or her, duty and become a claimant. The only party empowered by this arrangement is the state, while the rest become working and non-working slaves. In that sort of world human life is indeed pitifully cheap, and aspiration is killed without any knife having to be plunged into its ribs. What we see now is the ultimate dividend of the policy of management of decline; and my God, how we have declined.Labour is terrified of welfare reform. The Tories make the odd statement about it, but their real intentions are made clear by their addiction to public spending. They should recall Barry Goldwater's cry in The Conscience of a Conservative when he said: "I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom." Now it is not merely the freedom to flourish away from the control of the state that people need, but the freedom
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...5/28/do2801.xml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to say i agree with quite abit of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D You have just given me an idea & made the next few weeks of my life easier.Also, skim read but can't deny there's a bit of truth in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously parents who show no responsibility for there own welfare, will have a huge influence on how there children will see life, they will know no different. I blame the parent’s not the welfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some truth but there is bullshit in that article.This toff is trying to say everyone on welfare are savages basically

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D You have just given me an idea & made the next few weeks of my life easier.Also, skim read but can't deny there's a bit of truth in there.
Lolhow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is some truth to the article but it only applies to a certain group of peoplealthough the author depicts it as though it is true of every person who receives benefitsway too much generalisation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
way too much generalisation
yeah slightly.but he does say certain families/youths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D You have just given me an idea & made the next few weeks of my life easier.Also, skim read but can't deny there's a bit of truth in there.
Lolhow?
You may find out soon if all goes well. (Nothing wondrous). *Packs camera & makes a trip to Ferrier*& agree with violet. People need stop referring to 'everyone'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4th paragraph is complete bullshit.3rd from last paragraph was basically all he needed to write. Rest of it is rose-tinted/exaggerated/over generalised/convoluted bulllshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tibbius
Certain youths have no sense of responsibility because their parents have none. Their parents have none because it is a function of the welfare state to turn adults into children. When self-reliance becomes not merely an option, but an eccentricity, then the ethics of how we conduct ourselves in relation to our fellow citizen become completely distorted. People are granted "rights" without having earned them by exercising what the philosopher David Selbourne has called "the principle of duty".Duty itself, in this context, becomes a sickening equation: the duty of the good citizen to pay taxes so that the feckless one can do his, or her, duty and become a claimant. The only party empowered by this arrangement is the state, while the rest become working and non-working slaves. In that sort of world human life is indeed pitifully cheap, and aspiration is killed without any knife having to be plunged into its ribs. What we see now is the ultimate dividend of the policy of management of decline; and my God, how we have declined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree with some of that tooMost of us who are from London will never be able to buy a propery down here. In 10 years time I think London will be full of rich people and poor people. The peolpe in the middle can't do anything - they don't get any benefits and can't afford the prices, but the rich can afford the prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of it is true, but he goes over-the-top with it.He sounds like some Eton-educated prick who just got home after being sucked for his wallet by some unruly youths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He sounds like some Eton-educated prick who just got home after being sucked for his wallet by some unruly youths.
Remarkably close to the mark :D He's the stereotypical upper-class toff on a constant bender of ignorant moralistic hatred. Anyone who is looking to him or the Telegraph for nuanced insight on social matters are really barking up the wrong treeUnderstandable though coz tbh I'd be angry at the world 24/7 if I looked like this toosimon_heffer.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People are granted "rights" without having earned them.
Ashman.People like him think they deserve say council housing more than someone who is, say running away from war or political exile (i know not all of them are. Like being born in britian makes you entitled to all this aid from the government.Alot of what that guys saying is true:children are raised by parents on benefitschildren grow up into adults with little aspirationssign on....have childrencicle repeats itself.problem is each woman has like 3 kids so the problem grows in size with each generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×