Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Naughty children to be registered as potential criminals
Telegraph.co.uk ^ | 25 November, 2001 | David Bamber

Posted on 11/25/2001 1:24:43 PM PST by Servant of the Nine

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-71 last
To: Servant of the Nine
Naughty children to be registered as potential criminals.

SO ,DOES SANTA GET A COPY OF THE NAUGHTY LIST ?

51 posted on 11/25/2001 6:22:27 PM PST by Captain Shady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bettina0
and let the teachers do something else for a living

Rolling a condom over a banana isn't really a skill transferable to most other professions. At least not at the hourly rate they're getting to do that in government schools.

52 posted on 11/25/2001 6:31:13 PM PST by Doctor Raoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Comment #53 Removed by Moderator

Comment #54 Removed by Moderator

To: 7OA.D.
The Enclosure (not Closure) Laws were attempts to rationalize the completely irrational inherited medieval landownership patterns. For the most part, they involved giving each landowner one solid block of land in a district rather than dozens of tiny parcels scattered all over the place. They also usually involved splitting up "the commons" among the landowners.

They resulted in an increase of agricultural production that varied from 2-4 times the amount produced under the old system.

The end result was that those who received amounts of land insufficient to support them as farmers, even subsistence farmers, had to move off the land into the cities. Since this provided the work force for the Industrial Revolution, it was not entirely a bad thing.

Anybody who has studied the situation has agreed that the Enclosure Acts were necessary. The problem is that they were in many cases carried out too harshly. A more gradual approach would have been a lot less destructive to the local economy and culture.

55 posted on 11/25/2001 6:53:09 PM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: 7OA.D.
I'm sorry, but totalitarian or despotic are not particularly appropriate words for describing British monarchy. Both refer to government which is essentially unchallenged.

In its early years the British monarchy was circumscribed by the nobles, who forced the Kings to make many compromises, including Magna Carta.

The Crown was at its peak of power perhaps from Henry VIII to Elizabet I. Both these monarchs knew how to manipulate their subjects to retain their support. Neither ever tried to just ignore their subjects' opinions.

Charles I tried to ignore public opinion, and lost his head over it.

James II tried the same and was run out of the country.

Since then, the Crown steadily lost influence, first to the aristocracy and then to the commoners.

George III attempted to bring the Crown back to a position of power, which was a key reason many powerful Brits supported the Americans.

I challenge you to point to any period in British history where either totalitarianism or despotism is an appropriate term to describe the form of government.

56 posted on 11/25/2001 7:00:51 PM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

Comment #57 Removed by Moderator

Comment #58 Removed by Moderator

To: 7OA.D.
Do you really think it was practical to farm 15 tiny strips of land scattered over 5 miles of terrain? That's what farmers faced daily in England before the Enclosures.

I'm not defending the way they were carried out. The wealthy, being the ones in power, came out with the majority of the goodies from the division of the land.

But this was not something the US ever had to face, since our landownership patterns were rational from the start.

BTW, there has been a lot of propaganda for the last two centuries about the devastation of the peasantry caused by industrialization. As with most of today's criticism, it historically came from upper-class individuals bemoaning the loss of this lifestyle. You will notice the remarkable absence of people actually wanting to live (themselves) as peasants. It is quite easy to show that most people in 18th and 19th century England were financially better off as factory workers than as farm laborers. The downside, of course, was recessions and financial crises when work was not available.

59 posted on 11/25/2001 8:00:26 PM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

Comment #60 Removed by Moderator

To: 7OA.D.
Disease, overwork and malnourishment in filthy overcrowded cities made them better off?

Ahh. The myth of the noble yeomen rears its head. The poor didn't suffer from disease, overwork and malnourishment when they lived "on the land?"

I think you have a somewhat romantic view of what life was like for for the lower strata of village people prior to industrialization.

Child labor and most of the other evils of the early industrial system merely became concentrated and therefore noticeable when the industrial revolution kicked in. They had always existed, just dispersed and therefore a lot easier to ignore.

In the long run, of course, the increased productivity of the industrial system allowed a far higher standard of living for everybody.

If you care to research it, there is lots of information available about the relative standard of living for industrial vs. agricultural workers in say, 1760 or 1820.

61 posted on 11/25/2001 8:45:55 PM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: 7OA.D.
You obviously don't understand what the Enclosure Laws did. They did not confiscate land from any individual. They merely redistributed it.

So if you had owned 100 acres split up into 15 separate parcels prior to Enclosure, you would still own 100 acres after Enclosure, just in one solid block. In addition, you would have received a piece of the formerly common lands proportionate to your percentage of the area being enclosed. This might have added another 15 acres to your possession.

Everybody who owned a significant amount of land came out ahead on this deal.

The losers were those who owned only a tiny amount, perhaps little more than an acre, which was insufficient to support a family. Without further access to the resources of the common lands, they were forced to sell the land they did own to an adjacent landowner and move to somewhere there was demand for their labor.

BTW, the commons, which nobody owned, were terribly exploited, leading to the famous concept of "The Tragedy of the Commons."

I recommend this essay on this topic: http://www.aloha.net/~jhanson/page95.htm

62 posted on 11/25/2001 8:57:37 PM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

Comment #63 Removed by Moderator

To: 7OA.D.
The peasant after all could breath fresh air, gather, hunt and did not have to resort to prostitution or theft to survive. True, it was a bare existence but his ancestors had adapted to this life for eons.

Gathering and hunting would get him hung, or hadn't you heard about the poaching or Forest laws? What makes you think that rural poor people didn't have to resort to prostitution or theft to survive?

The biggest complaints about concentrated poverty have always come from those who view it, as opposed to those who live it. It (understandably) grosses people out. That doesn't mean dispersed rural poverty is better for the people who are forced to live that way.

Please point out which provision of the American Bill of Rights would have had any application whatsoever to Enclosure.

These rights just were not relevant.

64 posted on 11/25/2001 10:18:14 PM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

Comment #65 Removed by Moderator

Comment #66 Removed by Moderator

To: Jason_b
How do we know we don't already have something like this in our country? Maybe we just have not found out about it yet.

We're already suspending kids for drawing guns (the horror), screening fictional essays for disturbing indications (shudder),
and require pyschoactive medication for unruly boys. What's a database going to do ?

67 posted on 11/25/2001 11:17:50 PM PST by dread78645
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #68 Removed by Moderator

To: dread78645
Keep it on all file. It will follow the kid around for the rest of his life.
69 posted on 11/26/2001 3:33:36 PM PST by bettina0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: independentmind
It's also what happens when you have massive family breakdown.

This is the lunacy that becomes necessary, when you lose your sense of community and Nation--as is the case in urban Britain. This is the legacy of Socialism.

I will grant you that Socialism breaks down the family structure. But in the British case, where ex-Colonials have been admitted into the already rather crowded island of Great Britain, in great numbers, some of that breakdown has been imported. For example, there are huge numbers of Jamaicans in Britain, today. The family structure in Jamaica collapsed about a century ago. The bastardy rate soared to 70% by 1920, at which time the idealists stopped keeping statistics. (It is a very interesting subject for study. As the literacy rate rose, under efforts to promote universal literacy, so did the percentage of births out-of- wedlock. Obvioiusly, something was being left out of the educational process!)

We had better look very carefully at what "Multi-Culturalism" brings with it, before we continue on the same mad path as the Brits. In a community where everyone has the same loyalties and a sense of social cohesion and tradition, there is great pressure for the errant child to shape up. This cataloguing of potential problem children from age 3 up, is not only unnecessary, it would appear to be outlandish. It makes sense only because of the fragmented communities that the Left has created, in its pretense of an undifferentiated humanity.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

70 posted on 11/26/2001 3:48:10 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
Is it too soon to get my grandsons on the list? I think they may qualify.
71 posted on 11/27/2001 8:33:16 AM PST by cajungirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-71 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson