Sunday, August 14, 2011

For Sunday

A few things to quickly think about.

Perhaps there IS justice, after all:

Rioters to Be Stripped of State Benefits in Britain's Online Petition

It's what you deserve, rioters.

This is priceless:

A suspected looter in this week’s riots and his mother are being thrown out of their council home.

In the first case of its kind, Daniel Sartain-Clarke, 18, and his mother have been served with an eviction notice as council bosses seek to turf them out of their £225,000 taxpayer-subsidised flat....

But Sartain-Clarke’s mother said her human rights had been ‘taken for granted’.

Spanish-born Maite de la Calva, 43, said: ‘I understand there are people who have got to face justice because all this has been madness and savagery.

‘But, I believe our human rights have been completely taken for granted. Daniel was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As a mother, I’m not responsible for my son’s actions and they are penalising me for his actions.’

Why should her crappy parenting be to blame?

If she was any kind of mother, she would help convict him.

An Australian with quite a few ounces of sense:

What have been the most sickening responses to the riots in England?

Contender number one is the left-wing writer who could not even stomach the very respectable efforts by certain middle-class whites to organise a clean up of the mess in the wake of the riots. These broom wielding members of the public alarmed Mr Lefty to the point that he described their tidy up efforts as:

the closest thing to popular fascism that we have seen on the streets of certain 'leafy' bits of London for years.

Some of his fellow lefties agreed with him:

Wit: This is really very good. Thanks for writing this. The Left needs to defend the riots; not to valourise the burning of grannies’ cars, but to make clear that we reject the whole bourgeois construction of events, that we stand in solidarity with the oppressed and that, when it comes to it, we will, without hesitation, join the “rioters” to overthrow the legitimised exploitation, state-sanctioned violence and sham “democracy” that oppress us all.

Polly: Agreed. I’m concerned how cowed the Left is currently by the backlash which is patently more frightening than the actual events.

So some on the radical left see the riots as a legitimate uprising against the bourgeoisie which the left should "without hesitation" join in; the middle-classes who stand in their way with broom sticks are, in this view of things, "fascists".

Will these pampered leftists feel the same when the "rioters" steal their cell phones, belt them in the face, force them to strip in broad daylight and set fire to their apartments?

Reap what you sow, morons.

Are you an elitist douchebag? Take the test and find out.

You would think these people are OECTA or something.

Distorting words and meanings, one leftist at a time.

JAWS and Peanuts in a delicious combination of hilarity.


Anonymous said...

First, why should a looter and rioter's mother be punished for her adult son's crimes? I mean, even if she was a lousy parent (and you can not prove she was) what her son does is still not her fault. He made his own choices. As soon as you blame parents for what their children do, especially grown ones, you remove the idea of personal responsibility.

Second, why should he be evicted for committing a crime that doesn't effect the owner of the building in which he lives.

Unless his crime was assisted by his mother *AND* effect the building owner, their eviction is both unethical an unlawful. Being a criminal doesn't give people the right to treat you how ever they please and does not take away your rights to shelter.

~Your Brother~

Osumashi Kinyobe said...

Because these wards of the Crown are apart of the entitlement culture which believes they deserve everything they don't work for and are responsible for nothing. Look how she phrased her response: "As a mother, I’m not responsible for my son’s actions..." So who is? His father? Yes, this pathetic man-child made the rotten choices he did but at what point did the mother ever delineate her parenting acumen or encourage him to face the music? She is making excuses for him.

Both these people are examples of Britain's failed socialist experiments. Even if one WERE to place full blame on one or the other party, neither of them would accept it.

And apparently you CAN be kicked out of subsidised housing if you commit a crime.

Anonymous said...

You can get kicked out of subsidised housing if *you* commit a crime. Why should his mother be kicked out? I believe his prison sentence will be enough of a removal from the premises as he needs.

It doesn't matter one bit if she is making excuses for him or not (though I don't believe she should be and is deluded for doing so) because it still doesn't make her responsible for what *he* decided to do. She cannot retroactively enable him to commit a crime in the past.

She could say she is upset, or she could say she is *glad* he did it, and neither will change the fact that she is not responsible for what *he* did, unless she told him to do it, told him how to do it or physically helped him do it.

Furthermore, the only reason I believe everyone is so comfortable for the severity of her punishment for not actually committing a crime is because of the severity of the damage caused by the many crimes of many others.

If this was him, by himself and not riot, this wouldn't even be a concern. He would go to jail and she could stay where she is. Why? Because he is an adult who is responsible for his own actions, especially when not under his mother's watchful eye.

There are other ways to punish people for bad parenting. Punishing a women for lotting and rioting she didn't commit is not one of those ways

~Your Brother~

Anonymous said...

~Your Brother~ mentioned this post to me, and he told me your arguments and I've heard his (and heard and heard and heard) but I just want to know why the mother should be blamed? Or her parenting is called into this at all?


Anonymous said...

"I know you are keen on my saying that you are right but I won't."

Of course not.

"And it might give you some sort of glee to say we should do away with due process or personal responsibility"

Actually, it would not. I've been saying over and over again that individuals should be accountable for their own actions, particularly adults, and not their mothers. It is you that does not seem to believe that a grown man is responsible for his own actions, which is why you are so content with his mother paying the price. You have said, over and over, that she should be held accountable. On top of that, you have failed to give a proper reason why. The best you have come up with is, she is behind on rent, her son is accused of a crime (there for she is a bad parent), and she is on welfare.

By the way, you shouldn't start sentences with the word "and."

"but I won't say that, either."


~Your Brother~

Anonymous said...

"Yes, I believe Daniel Sartain-Clark is guilty of the crimes of which he is accused. As he is harboured by his mum..."

No, he lived in his mother's house, and he was arrested for being on the scene of a crime. He didn't go home and tell his mother that he did what he is accused of, to have his mother tell him she will hide him. She instead says that she does not believe that he is guilty, but if he is he should pay for his crime, and that she should not be punished for his crime. There is at least some semblance of sanity in the British judicial system as they haven't been thrown out already, and this is actually going through the courts first.

You done anything but establish a reason for why de la Calva should be punished for a crime she had nothing to do with.

"he deserves to be kicked out."

Didn't I establish this at the start with "I believe his prison sentence will be enough of a removal from the premises as he needs?"

"Miss de la Calva will ALWAYS get free housing somewhere else, just not her soon-to-be former taxpayer funded home."

Really? Where? Who will provide this free house? What do have to base this statement on? Have you looked at the stats for homelessness in the UK?
Statutory Homelessness: March Quarter 2011 England

"That's the great thing about post-war Britain- a hand reaching out will always get something."

Isn't the whole point of this affair that she is going to have her home and benefits taken away?

If anything, this could hurt her for the rest of her life. Besides the fact that people will know her name and face, this will stay on her record. She will not be able to get these benefits again. Ideally, I would like to see her pay for everything herself, like those of us that hold jobs, but we have no idea what her circumstances are or why these benefits were given to her in the first place.

"Sartain-Clark lives with mum, on the taxpayer pound, has violated the rules of living on the taxpayer pound and should face the consequences."

He is accused of a crime, but for the sake of arguing, we will assume his flimsy story is bogus and that he is guilty. That still does not translate to his mother sharing his guilt. The fact that British law says they could potentially kicked them all out does not negate the fact that this very law, contradicts other British laws regarding personal responsibility and right to shelter, or the fact that it is an immoral law. I am all in favour of personal responsibility, which is why I oppose punishing people for the crimes of others.

"I asked you what you think should be done with him."

I answered you, didn't I?

"I believe his prison sentence will be enough of a removal from the premises as he needs."
"If this was him, by himself and not riot, this wouldn't even be a concern. He would go to jail and she could stay where she is."
"If he is guilty, and I am inclined to believe he may be, then that is still not her problem besides she can only see her son once a month behind bullet proof glass."

Both implicitly and explicitly I have said that he should be incarcerated.

"A thirty day sentence?"

You're the one who favours every ridiculous ruling the British authorities make. If you stand by their stance on punishing his mother for his crime, and the same people give him only thirty days in jail, then you should stand by that as well. It is their law after all.

"What will he do then? Return to the taxpayer funded home with mum having learned nothing."

Unlikely as he would have a criminal record. None of which has any bearing on what should become of his mother.

Answering a question with a question is not an answer. Neither is changing the subject.

~Your Brother~

Osumashi Kinyobe said...

Why would he leave his mum's home (in which he is listed as a dependent and for which he can be kicked out legally) in the middle of a riot? His mother comes up with a few interesting and utterly implausible reasons for his being in a smashed up electronics store (which the CCTV everywhere in London no doubt spotted him).

Why does the mother feel she is entitled to live in a $360,000 government-subsidized apartment? She WILL get another apartment as it is not the first time a criminal on the dole can apply for one.

Miss de la Calva certainly does not mind splashing her identity on the front pages of the Daily Mail or using the services of an eager councilman. I don't think her reputation means that much to her. She certainly wouldn't defend someone caught in a ransacked store under the flimsiest of pretenses.

I never said Sartain-Clarke SHOULDN'T be punished for HIS crime, only that, as a dependent in publicly funded housing for which all feel entitled to have while many are now homeless due to rioters setting THEIR apartments ablaze, he and his mum should be evicted. If anything, it will be a deterrent. If someone who claims Christianity as a characterization (even in Britain) really adheres to that faith, then she would accept the measures her dependent meted out.

Osumashi Kinyobe said...

As I have said over again, Sartain-Clarke SHOULD pay for his crime and so should mummy, who listed her poor boy as a dependent in her publicly funded apartment.