Suggested Mayday? Nearly 100K in prison.

[Blagsta]

For the last time, I was not and have never expressed a preference for a specific model of mental health treatment.

Errr...you have actually. Not explicitly, but it is implicit in your insistence that it is purely a medical problem. Again, illustrating the fact that you don't actually have a clue what I'm on about.

 

[agricola]

Do you actually read what I write?

Not explicitly, but it is implicit in your insistence that it is purely a medical problem.

Please, point to where I insist its purely a medical problem.

Again, illustrating the fact that you don't actually have a clue what I'm on about.

Do you? Does anyone? Perhaps you could deign to enlighten us?

I agree its a waste of time though. After all, in addition to your earlier faults you have now started a trend of inventing things I have apparently said, and its hard to challenge that.

 

[Blagsta]

Absolutely pathetic.

I show exactly where one of your statements is wrong, including two quotes from yourself and you make a statement which ignores both of the quotes, my statement and then you change your original statement to something that fits your current mood. Please, show me where I:



If you cant (and you cant) at least have the honesty to admit it, because that is not what I said.

See, this is where it all gets really confusing. You replied to my posts without seperating my points, which makes it very unclear as to which points you are responding to. See, originally I took issue with you saying that spending money on child and adolescent health could be spent elsewhere.

Here's the original exchange (in context this time, not selectively quoted)

I'm not arguing for the abolition of prison. What I am arguing for is an understanding that pure punishment doesn't work and that given there is a massive prevalence of personality disorder, mental health problems, drug problems etc amongst the prison population, something should be done to address these things - hopefully before people get to be in prison. Proper funding for EBD schools and PRU's for example, properly funded counselling and psychotherapy services that don't just rely on volunteers, more therapy available on the NHS (and not just bloody CBT) etc.

Again, we do not have a system of "pure punishment" (though see above), far from it, so how you can claim that it doesnt work when it isnt in existance is difficult to see. As for mental / personality disorders, they should be treated as a medical problem but not at the exclusion of the criminal justice side of things (of course, this should take place before they ever get in trouble with the law if at all possible). Drug problems are IMHO much more a matter of personal responsibility and there should be little or no weighting given to a persons sentence with regards to that (which is not to say that they shouldnt be offered rehab).

As for funding, if there was that kind of money available then I would agree with you, but TBH there are more deserving things to spend the money on.

Now it isn't clear what your last sentence is actually referring to. You talk about drug problems being "more a matter of personal responsibility" (illustrating your ignorance of the subject - which I later attempt to corerct and you completely ignore) and then go on about funding.

I then reply

There's more important things to spend money on that the mental health of children? That's a rather callous attitude. Not to mention short sighted. Spend money on decent mental health provision, counselling and therapy and you'll save it later from being spent on the criminal justice system.

to which you reply

Which is something that is being tried and yet we have a huge youth offending problem (though, of course, you would probably say we havent tried enough). When we are talking about "Why Timmy likes to rob people" and counselling related to that, then yes, I do think there are better things to spend money on - cancer treatments, geriatric provision, cutting the waiting lists etc.

Now, what I'm advocating isn't being implemented much (apart from the organisations that I mentioned - Place 2 Be and Kids Co). My partner worked in an EBD school last year and I can assure you there are no therapeutic interventions offered). You then go on to make some random comment about Timmy robbing people?!?!?



Now lets see what started this? You stated that

"Noone on the thread has said that people (criminals and victims) should be ignored, that they should not recieve treatment (though, of course, that depends on the availability of resources) or that they shouldnt get help to get out of crime(though again, there are not unlimited resources)."

I took issue with this, because you have stated that money could be spent better on other things. I misremebered slightly and thought you had been on about drug rehab (due to you mentioning rehab in the previous sentence), but you were actually talking about not wanting to fund child & adolescent mental health services. So my point stands - you are utterly dishonest in your presentation of what you previously posted - you don't want to fund services that will help people (children!).

 

[Blagsta]

Do you actually read what I write?



Please, point to where I insist its purely a medical problem.

As for mental / personality disorders, they should be treated as a medical problem

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5454264&postcount=61

Do you? Does anyone? Perhaps you could deign to enlighten us?

I already did - another post that you just ignored.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5456079&postcount=66

I agree its a waste of time though. After all, in addition to your earlier faults you have now started a trend of inventing things I have apparently said, and its hard to challenge that.

Stop lying please. I misremebered the details of what you said, due to your confusing writing style. However my point was accurate - you claim that you haven't said you want to deny help, but have actually said you'd rather not fund child & adolescent mental health services. Making you the one thats inventing things you said. A little more honesty from you would be nice.

 

[agricola]

Well, I am astonished that someone so ready to throw about insults about intelligence can write two posts like that and expect that they wont be called on it.

I took issue with this, because you have stated that money could be spent better on other things.

Yes, if there was more money available I do think it can be spent on better, more important things before that which you described. There are considerably more problems in this country than the ones discussed on this thread.

That is not to say that such things shouldnt be funded, or that their funding should be cut, or even that I thought they werent deserving.

I misremebered slightly

Weasel-words of the highest order.

and thought you had been on about drug rehab (due to you mentioning rehab in the previous sentence), but you were actually talking about not wanting to fund child & adolescent mental health services.

What I actually said, which given that it was posted in the post and the post preceding this one, was that I agreed with you but thought there were higher priorities. That is some way from "not wanting to fund child & adolescent mental health services", as should be obvious.

So my point stands - you are utterly dishonest in your presentation of what you previously posted - you don't want to fund services that will help people (children!).

I gave the exact posts that the quotes came from, since you didnt - thats a very strange way of being dishonest (ie: giving people the facts), and that sentence is so crass it belongs in an election pamphlet of some kind. From post # 67

I am not and was never saying (indeed, there was at least one proviso to that effect) that problems like you describe should not be dealt with and treated; what I am saying (and this goes for the rest of my argument) is that behaviour of that kind (and, by extention, criminality itself) should never be excused (which, though it is different from explain, often leads to the same result of an excuse) by it. Just because something is seriously wrong with one child that can not excuse their victimization of someone else.

And finally:

As for mental / personality disorders, they should be treated as a medical problem

Some distance from:

Errr...you have actually. Not explicitly, but it is implicit in your insistence that it is purely a medical problem.

One statement, hardly "insistence" or "purely". In any case, my meaning was clear from subsequent, laboriously repeated posts.

 

[Blagsta]

Well, I am astonished that someone so ready to throw about insults about intelligence can write two posts like that and expect that they wont be called on it.

You're not making much sense I'm afraid.

Yes, if there was more money available I do think it can be spent on better, more important things before that which you described. There are considerably more problems in this country than the ones discussed on this thread.

There are more important things than the mental health of children? Errrr...

That is not to say that such things shouldnt be funded, or that their funding should be cut, or even that I thought they werent deserving.

Errrr...you're denying what you wrote now? You weirdo.

Weasel-words of the highest order.

What, I'm not allowed to slightly misremember stuff? You can't even remember what you've written on here, then deny it when pointed out! You're chutzpa is amazing. Anyway, as I wrote, my point stands - you don't think child & adolescent mental health services are worth funding.

What I actually said, which given that it was posted in the post and the post preceding this one, was that I agreed with you but thought there were higher priorities. That is some way from "not wanting to fund child & adolescent mental health services", as should be obvious.

And you accuse me of weaseling? Your words are there for everyone to read. "there are more deserving things to spend the money on."

I gave the exact posts that the quotes came from, since you didnt -

No, you quoted selectively - I posted the whole exchange you weirdo.

thats a very strange way of being dishonest (ie: giving people the facts),

Except you didn't - you were very selective and quoted out of context.

and that sentence is so crass it belongs in an election pamphlet of some kind.

I'm starting to think you're a bit mad. Selectively quoting things out of context is what election pamphlets do - which is what you did. You're barking mad.

From post # 67

Yes, and this is what you can't get your head round UNDERSTANDING SOMETHING IS NOT THE SAME AS "MAKING EXCUSES" (Why is that so fucking difficult a concept?) - and in fact you do imply that people shouldn't get help - see the exchange we had about bullies for example - an exchange which I don't think you fully understood as I don't think you know what "acting out" means. In fact its quite clear you have very little psychological and emotional understanding at all.

And finally:



Some distance from:



One statement, hardly "insistence" or "purely". In any case, my meaning was clear from subsequent, laboriously repeated posts.

Fuck me, you'll deny the words that you wrote! You're a barefaced liar. Typical fucking cop really.

 

[Blagsta]

Oh and you're still ignoring my argument. Well done.

 

[agricola]

I am ignoring your "argument" because its lost in the vast heap of rubbish, false claim, bare-faced lies and insult you have posted since mid-way down page three of this thread, culminating in the last two posts (which surely set a new standard for you); and because anyone who can spout such rubbish, and use such tactics, must really have nothing worth listening to at all.

 

[JHE]

I am ignoring your "argument" because its lost in the vast heap of rubbish, false claim, bare-faced lies and insult you have posted since mid-way down page three of this thread, culminating in the last two posts (which surely set a new standard for you); and because anyone who can spout such rubbish, and use such tactics, must really have nothing worth listening to at all.

There is some truth in parts of that, but it is unkind and unhelpful to put it so bluntly. Blagsta's distortion of your points may seem to you wilful naughtiness and dishonesty, but you are failing to look at the psychological problems that cause his distortion and failing to look at the social conditions that induce his psychological problems.

What do we want? More therapists, on better contracts & higher pay!
When do we want it? As soon as we've learnt to pontificate against 'the medical model' [a largely imaginary beast] and got our certificates in counselling!

 

[untethered]

What do we want? More therapists, on better contracts & higher pay!
When do we want it? As soon as we've learnt to pontificate against 'the medical model' [a largely imaginary beast] and got our certificates in counselling!

Which cynic was it that said something to the effect of, "The amount of misery in society increases in direct proportion to the means for its alleviation."?

 

[Blagsta]

I am ignoring your "argument" because its lost in the vast heap of rubbish, false claim, bare-faced lies and insult you have posted since mid-way down page three of this thread, culminating in the last two posts (which surely set a new standard for you); and because anyone who can spout such rubbish, and use such tactics, must really have nothing worth listening to at all.

In other words, you've backed yourself into a corner so would rather just throw yer toys out yer pram, rather than come up with an argument yourself? Well done

 

[Blagsta]

There is some truth in parts of that, but it is unkind and unhelpful to put it so bluntly. Blagsta's distortion of your points may seem to you wilful naughtiness and dishonesty, but you are failing to look at the psychological problems that cause his distortion and failing to look at the social conditions that induce his psychological problems.

What do we want? More therapists, on better contracts & higher pay!
When do we want it? As soon as we've learnt to pontificate against 'the medical model' [a largely imaginary beast] and got our certificates in counselling!

Aha. More bullshit from the man with no arguments except a healthy hatred of anyone slightly different from him.

 

[agricola]

In other words, you've backed yourself into a corner so would rather just throw yer toys out yer pram, rather than come up with an argument yourself? Well done

Hardly, though I concede it was a mistake to try and have an honest debate with you.

 

[cemertyone]

Hardly, though I concede it was a mistake to try and have an honest debate with you.

Now ladies don`t be bitchy .....i never thought i would ever agree with you Agricola on anything ... but you have made some valid points which i would like to respond to in time ( if they can give me time on the library computer)........

 

[Blagsta]

Hardly, though I concede it was a mistake to try and have an honest debate with you.

No, you couldn't have an honest debate if your life depended on it, you're such a fucking liar. I've pointed out exactly where you have failed to engage with my argument, and pointed out where you stated things you later claim not to have stated! Have some fucking guts and admit it. I don't think I've ever seen anyone be such a barefaced liar ever on here. Unbelievable!

 

[agricola]

No, you couldn't have an honest debate if your life depended on it, you're such a fucking liar. I've pointed out exactly where you have failed to engage with my argument, and pointed out where you stated things you later claim not to have stated! Have some fucking guts and admit it. I don't think I've ever seen anyone be such a barefaced liar ever on here. Unbelievable!

Um, no, as the thread shows.

FYI, it helps when calling someone a liar if you dont have the evidence which disproves your notion right in front of you, Blagsta. Perhaps you have "misremembered" again?

 

[Blagsta]

I see you are still completely failing to address any of my points and have completely failed to admit your own dishonesty. Instead choosing to accuse me of dishonesty, when I misremembered a minor detail, yet the thrust of that point still stands - that you lied about wanting to help people - you actually think that child & adolescent mental health services are not worth funding. You also lied about not seeing mental health problems as purely medical problems. How you can continue to deny it, when I quoted you, I don't know.

 

[Blagsta]

Anyway, ignoring all your bullshit, I'm gonna try and present my argument again.

Basically what I'm taking issue with is your assertion that individual responsibility and choice is the simple thing you make it out to be. You seem to think that human beings are essentially rational and make rational decisions all the time. We're not. We are just as much ruled by emotion and irrationality as we are by reason. There was a nice extract from the book "Emotional Intelligence" on Radio 4 this morning, (listen to it here ) talking about the role of the amygdala in the brain, in regulating emotion. Basically, most of our emotional impulses are unconscious and pre-rational. Damage to this area of the brain can affect decision making, impulse control etc. Now there seems to be evidence to suggest that abuse and emotional neglect in early life can also affect emotional responses. In fact, all of us have emotional conflicts that are acted out irrationally and not fully in conscious control from time to time - rows with our partner for example, passion, behaving "out of character" when under emotional stress or after drinking etc. Now if someone's emotional development has been compromised due to childhood experiences, this can lead to more extreme irrational behaviour and "acting out" - which can lead to a person taking drugs or drinking, developing a problem with that, getting into fights, shoplifting, not being able to hold down a job or a realtionship or hold onto a house etc. These people often end up being in and out of prison.
My argument is that there should be more help available for such people to help them understand their irrational impulses and emotional conflicts (NOTE: THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS OFFERING EXCUSES FOR THEIR BEHAVIOUR), hopefully at schools (whether mainstream or EBD schools - for kids with emotional and behavourial difficulties). If they end up in prison, there needs to be some way of stopping the pattern repeating itself.
Merely asserting that people have "choices" in their behaviour misses the whole picture and in fact is a very simplistic view of human beings - our choices are always contingent on our psychological, emotional, social and economic circumstances.

 

[agricola]

I see you are still completely failing to address any of my points and have completely failed to admit your own dishonesty. Instead choosing to accuse me of dishonesty, when I misremembered a minor detail, yet the thrust of that point still stands - that you lied about wanting to help people - you actually think that child & adolescent mental health services are not worth funding. You also lied about not seeing mental health problems as purely medical problems. How you can continue to deny it, when I quoted you, I don't know.

For heavens sake, anyone who reads this thread and the quotes you provided knows you are talking rubbish; its not even a matter of implication, its in clear language for everyone to read (and thats without my repeated pointing out of why you are wrong).

My argument is that there should be more help available for such people to help them understand their irrational impulses and emotional conflicts (NOTE: THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS OFFERING EXCUSES FOR THEIR BEHAVIOUR), hopefully at schools (whether mainstream or EBD schools - for kids with emotional and behavourial difficulties). If they end up in prison, there needs to be some way of stopping the pattern repeating itself.

Now, there is nothing wrong with this in principle, though it leaves unresolved what you do when the help you have provided doesnt work - after all, you can only give these people all the help and cannot be there when (and please see below) they are confronted with a choice. Hopefully, most people - given the correct help - will make the right choice, but there will always be some who don't, and the question then comes what do to next in order to prevent further behaviour.

Personally, I think society has a responsibility to its constituent parts to - in whichever is the most effective way - minimize the risk of harm (by whatever means, though we are talking in the real world here). If a person is given all the help, all the facts and still commits crime, then (at present) the best way of dealing with them is to separate them from society, which brings us back to the start of the topic.

Merely asserting that people have "choices" in their behaviour misses the whole picture and in fact is a very simplistic view of human beings - our choices are always contingent on our psychological, emotional, social and economic circumstances.

But they are choices, at the end of the day.

 

[Blagsta]

For heavens sake, anyone who reads this thread and the quotes you provided knows you are talking rubbish; its not even a matter of implication, its in clear language for everyone to read (and thats without my repeated pointing out of why you are wrong).

You're quite obviously reading and replying on a completely different thread. I've quoted you where you say these things - yet you continue to deny you said them!

Now, there is nothing wrong with this in principle, though it leaves unresolved what you do when the help you have provided doesnt work - after all, you can only give these people all the help and cannot be there when (and please see below) they are confronted with a choice. Hopefully, most people - given the correct help - will make the right choice, but there will always be some who don't, and the question then comes what do to next in order to prevent further behaviour.

I agree with most of this - some people will not accept help. Although you are still getting too hung up on the idea of "choice". Language lets us down here - the concept of "choice" implies that we are fully rational reasoning beings - we are not. We are influenced by unconscious emotional stuff all the time, we are to a large extent the product of our upbringings, our environment and our genetics. The idea that we all have equal choices and freewill is just not true.

Personally, I think society has a responsibility to its constituent parts to - in whichever is the most effective way - minimize the risk of harm (by whatever means, though we are talking in the real world here). If a person is given all the help, all the facts and still commits crime, then (at present) the best way of dealing with them is to separate them from society, which brings us back to the start of the topic.

Yes, I'd agree with this - I have already said that I'm not arguing for the abolition of prisons.

But they are choices, at the end of the day.

No, no, no! See what I wrote about "choice" above. You are still thinking that human beings are essentially rational and operate essentially with pure free will on an individual basis - we aren't, we don't. We are a complex mixture of reason and irrationality, conscious choices and unconscious desires, very often in conflict with each other. None of us are purely individuals either - we are all dependent on each other and influenced by each other, by society, by the media, by our schooling, our environments (look at how easily Derren Brown manipulates people for example). We need to move away from the idea that human beings are essentially in full conscious control of what we do at all times - because we aren't. What we can do however is get to know and understand our emotional conflicts and unconscious stuff better, and help other people to understand theirs - especially if their emotional life has been damaged by childhood experience. We can provide equal access to educational opportunities for all, equal access to mental health services, counselling and therapy, provide affordable housing, a properly run benefits service etc - this is all I've ever argued for on this thread.

 

[shave]

So how many people think we should launch a Mayday Monopoly against the Criminal justice system when 100K prisoners is reached?

Do a vote on another thread. I agree prison really dosen't work. But there isn't an alternative is there!

Battle Royale anyone?

 

[agricola]

You're quite obviously reading and replying on a completely different thread. I've quoted you where you say these things - yet you continue to deny you said them!

Post #95 explains why you are wrong, and why you continue to be wrong.

I agree with most of this - some people will not accept help. Although you are still getting too hung up on the idea of "choice". Language lets us down here - the concept of "choice" implies that we are fully rational reasoning beings - we are not. We are influenced by unconscious emotional stuff all the time, we are to a large extent the product of our upbringings, our environment and our genetics. The idea that we all have equal choices and freewill is just not true.

We dont have equal choices and free-will, but thats not to say that individuals (except very deeply troubled people) have no free will or no rational judgement, just different amounts of it (which, of course, is dealt with legally by questions of competency and doli incapax), and I would suggest that the vast majority of people have enough free will to determine what is right and wrong and should make the correct decision. Obviously, under the current judicial system questions like that should be and are (in the vast majority of cases) determined on an individual basis.

Criminals may have low levels of literacy, have drug habits and suffer from mental health problems but that does not mean they are not responsible, or that they dont act rationally (especially when carrying out their crimes). I know you are not saying that what you describe forms an excuse, but that is IMHO what it would rapidly be used for - it is already.

No, no, no! See what I wrote about "choice" above. You are still thinking that human beings are essentially rational and operate essentially with pure free will on an individual basis - we aren't, we don't. We are a complex mixture of reason and irrationality, conscious choices and unconscious desires, very often in conflict with each other. None of us are purely individuals either - we are all dependent on each other and influenced by each other, by society, by the media, by our schooling, our environments (look at how easily Derren Brown manipulates people for example). We need to move away from the idea that human beings are essentially in full conscious control of what we do at all times - because we aren't.

See above. As an aside, at what level do you think a person is responsible for their actions? At all? Should it be determined on an individual basis?

What we can do however is get to know and understand our emotional conflicts and unconscious stuff better, and help other people to understand theirs - especially if their emotional life has been damaged by childhood experience. We can provide equal access to educational opportunities for all, equal access to mental health services, counselling and therapy, provide affordable housing, a properly run benefits service etc - this is all I've ever argued for on this thread.

The first part of that bit sounded a bit too therapist to me, but the second bit makes sense, though of course one encounters questions of how to pay for it as well as everything else that needs doing.

 

[Blagsta]

Post #95 explains why you are wrong, and why you continue to be wrong.

Nope, I responded to that and put you straight. Have a look if you like.

We dont have equal choices and free-will, but thats not to say that individuals (except very deeply troubled people) have no free will or no rational judgement, just different amounts of it (which, of course, is dealt with legally by questions of competency and doli incapax), and I would suggest that the vast majority of people have enough free will to determine what is right and wrong and should make the correct decision.

Yes, but what you have to remember is that our rationality is always in flux, depending on emotional state. Haven't you ever said or done something you wish you hadn't in the heat of the moment?

Obviously, under the current judicial system questions like that should be and are (in the vast majority of cases) determined on an individual basis.

Agreed.

Criminals may have low levels of literacy, have drug habits and suffer from mental health problems but that does not mean they are not responsible, or that they dont act rationally (especially when carrying out their crimes). I know you are not saying that what you describe forms an excuse, but that is IMHO what it would rapidly be used for - it is already.

See, this is where I think you're wrong. Yes of course some people use these things as a swerve - but they're fairly easy to suss out. After working in the drugs field for 3 1/2 years, I can tell when someone's bullshitting me. And you miss my point about rationality - do you think someone shoplifting after smoking crack is acting rationally? Is someone with schizophrenia rational? Is someone with borderline personality disorder rational all the time? After all, these are the people we are talking about. But don't think that I don't think people should take responsibility - of course they should - but often people need help to be able to do that. In fact, that's pretty much what drug treatment is all about.

See above. As an aside, at what level do you think a person is responsible for their actions? At all? Should it be determined on an individual basis?

Its not an either/or thing - see this is where language lets us down. I'm not saying that someone is either responsible or not - people aren't that simple. Yes, it should be looked at on an individual basis.

The first part of that bit sounded a bit too therapist to me,

It works. Also see the links I posted earlier re: personality disorders.

but the second bit makes sense, though of course one encounters questions of how to pay for it as well as everything else that needs doing.

We can afford to bomb Iraq...

 

[agricola]

Nope, I responded to that and put you straight. Have a look if you like.

I did, and still cannot see where you "put me straight" - you just repeated some disproved statements.

Yes, but what you have to remember is that our rationality is always in flux, depending on emotional state. Haven't you ever said or done something you wish you hadn't in the heat of the moment?

Of course, but that (for most people) is rarely something illegal, and even when it is its something that the justice system usually recognizes.

See, this is where I think you're wrong. Yes of course some people use these things as a swerve - but they're fairly easy to suss out. After working in the drugs field for 3 1/2 years, I can tell when someone's bullshitting me. And you miss my point about rationality - do you think someone shoplifting after smoking crack is acting rationally?

Yes, because (while they might not share a "normal" persons viewpoint) they do act rationally - where I started in the West End, we had (and by all accounts they still do have) problems with crack and smack addicts who shoplift to feed their habits but who did so in a very rational way - they all had a plan, knew what shops to avoid, had prepared various things to take with them and and knew where they could sell the gear.

Is someone with schizophrenia rational? Is someone with borderline personality disorder rational all the time? After all, these are the people we are talking about.

Which of course is a different kettle of fish, as the legal system recognizes.

But don't think that I don't think people should take responsibility - of course they should - but often people need help to be able to do that. In fact, that's pretty much what drug treatment is all about.

Good.

 

[Blagsta]

I did, and still cannot see where you "put me straight" - you just repeated some disproved statements.

Errrr...you didn't disprove shit - as I have shown if you care to read it.

Of course, but that (for most people) is rarely something illegal, and even when it is its something that the justice system usually recognizes.

Yes, but we're not on about "most people" are we? We're on about people with personality disorders, neurosis, psychosis etc.

Yes, because (while they might not share a "normal" persons viewpoint) they do act rationally - where I started in the West End, we had (and by all accounts they still do have) problems with crack and smack addicts who shoplift to feed their habits but who did so in a very rational way - they all had a plan, knew what shops to avoid, had prepared various things to take with them and and knew where they could sell the gear.

Yes, I work with crack and heroin addicts in the west end. Not all of them are rational, I can assure you. Smoking crack is not usually conducive to rational behaviour.

Which of course is a different kettle of fish, as the legal system recognizes.

Errrmmm...they're the people I've been on about, which you'd know if you'd read my posts more carefully.

Good.

So you've come round to my way of thinking then? Good.

 

[The Black Hand]

Lets discuss this prisoners proposal for Mayday then?

 

[pk]

Lets discuss this prisoners proposal for Mayday then?

Is that the Mayday you won't be showing up for?

 

[rover07]

I suggest we have an Amnesty.

Let everyone out of prison and start again.

Give all the prison warders a nice holiday...

 

[The Black Hand]

Is that the Mayday you won't be showing up for?

You are a poisonous twat. Get a grip and a life.

 

[durruti02]

I have just noticed the figure of 100K prisoners will be upon us before too long. http://www.alternatives2prison.ik.com/

How about suggesting an action when this hugely symbolic figure is reached?

This could either be an intention to call a large conference of various people to try to unite those with different interests in the Criminal Justice System into a more effective force(s).

OR that we announce the intention to protest about the level of incarceration when this figure is reached.

We could allow 6 months for spreading of the word, again via the different groups and individuals.

OR, we announce a large Mayday gathering (M1) for the first MAYDAY after that figure is reached.

i think that is an excellent idea

and to those who think prison works .. the proof is in these numbers .. prison and our society is NOT working ..

i do not in any way think it is wrong to lock up (even execute) some people who need to be taken out of the loop ... these figures though ask us to question why we have SO many locked up and whether that is working for us as ordinary people

but this is about how as a society we have, in only 20 years, gone from having 40k in prison to 100K and how it iondicates how badly things have gone wrong