TV and Radio   permalink

Dicipline is one of the main foundations of society

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 18 of 18
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Monty Cuthbert (U14913651) on Sunday, 19th June 2011

    The ending of National Service put all 18 to 21 y.o on the streets instead of receiving 3 years of social and personal diciplines. Since then there has been a downhill slide in all types of crime and anti-social behaviour. Not immediately because initially most of the youths in this era had parents who had been taught diciplines by parents, schools and the army, but as time has moved on generation after generation are getting further and further away from any form of behaviour training. Mods and Rockers, Football hooliganism, crime and drugs all grew from the diminishing state of dicipline. Later parents many who don't know the meaning of the word took their anger to the schools if their child was punished for wrong doing. In turn schools that used to punish their pupils if seen doing wrong, even outside school hours, stopped doing so and took an attitude of no involvement outside the school grounds.
    Anti-social behaviour grew unchecked and the age of involvement got younger. These children have grown up, become parents and the state of society worsens.
    I am not suggesting that National Service should be brought back, but some sort of personal and social mind building of the youth ought to have been built in to replace it. Perhaps in the schools. Many youth clubs have been closed due to an opposition gang culture who's leaders want control of the youths and have used vandalisation and intimidation to prevent or deter youths from using them.
    In todays situation, where lost ground needs to be recovered, where communities are split into mistrust between the old and young, my way of correction would be to introduce a greater level of mananditory community relating inside school hours by teachers and outside school hours by council youth workers involving both youths and parents. A door to door newsletter written by youths ought to be produced and delivered to all residents informing them of the work and activities that the youth are doing in the community and asking for suggestions from the residents as to what more they can do for them.

    As for the already offending the Government ought to introduce uniform waste disposal, recycling across the the country. Councils should return to one wheelie bin emptying a week, all householders should be given a supply of strong re-usable clear plastic bags,.different types of waste ought to be put in a different bag but all bags put in the one wheelie bin. At the depot offenders who have earned themselves Community Service or otherwise gaol sentences ought to segragate the bags into different piles by type of visible content, the contents of the bags then should be sorted by other offenders into recycleable and non recycleable items and materials, and then each item dealt with in a green appropriate manner. The value of this would mean a great deal more waste would be recycled, meaning less landfill in a less costly manner than the mix of manners in which this service is being handled nationwide currenty . The youths would not only be serving a useful service to society, but depending on the length of service there could be promotion positions within the service and the possibility of skills being learnt within the area of recycling that could aid them into employment beyond their sentences.
    I see this as a possible Win Win Win all round.

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Betty (U1722779) on Sunday, 19th June 2011

    The ending of National Service put all 18 to 21 y.o on the streets instead of receiving 3 years of social and personal diciplines.

     


    I thought only men were eligable for National Service?

    Don't forget that the majority of young men of that age actually live with their parents, at least half the year, too. Only a small proportion of just under half the population are 'on the streets'.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Monty Cuthbert (U14913651) on Monday, 20th June 2011

    Quiet right Betty, but as said I am not advocating a return of National Service and anything introduced would need to cater for both sexes. Though thinking back I believe girls were a lot more feminine in manner back then than lots are now by picking up some of the wrong traits of equality.
    Again perhaps my terminology of youth on the streets is open to interpretation. My meaning had nothing to do with where they were living, it was relating to the lack of ammenties available to keep them entertained within communities due to the fact that up until the stopping of National Service they were absent from the community being taken care of by the army.
    Ballroom dancing was a major social activity upto this point also, even in villages, it was a major boy meets girl activity, were men would be polite in requesting a girl to dance with him. There were periods of time on the dance floor whilst the record was being changed when conversation between the two meant boy got to know girl and relationships started. Courtships not instant bedroom relationships.
    This also changed, girls were left dancing around their handbags until the boys came in after the pubs had shut. I could have murdered Chubby Checker for introducing the twist which began the trait of boys and girls dancing separately and reducing the need for lads to learn dance steps.
    Then dance hall owners realised that they could get ten times as many couples on to the floor, therefore ten times the income by playing mod dance music than they could by catering for ballroom dancers. Ballroom dancing all but died. Modern music was loud, many of the persons doing it where drinking conversation was stiffled by the loud music and lads and lasses got to know each other in the bedroom. Births increased and marriages became short lived.
    I know the whole thing is not as simplicistic as what I have written, but there is room for debate for anyone who wishes to do so

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Betty (U1722779) on Monday, 20th June 2011

    Though thinking back I believe girls were a lot more feminine in manner back then than lots are now by picking up some of the wrong traits of equality.

     


    No. There is no evidence that girls are less feminine in terms of their physiology or psychology than they were decades ago. What you are seeing is cultural change; women's expression of their femininity is different within some social groups. It isn't 'male' behaviour, but a different expression of femininity.

    Ironically, the 'ladette' behaviour I think you are referring to is mostly observed in women who take very traditional views about gender roles. They are not the women who are aspiring to be company directors or lawyers, but women who aspire to be wives and mothers, supported by a man who is working or at least bringing in more money than they do. It has nothing to do with equality. The young women you see drunk outside Costcutter on a Friday night are as likely to be putting up with abuse from male family members and boyfriends as any woman you remember from your youth.

    I don't know what the answer to youth disaffection is. Far too many young people expect too much from life and from the adults around them, refuse to take responsibility for themselves and end up feeling angry and hard done by. I'm not sure National Service would sort this out. It would be rather harsh to insist that the majority of nice, polite, well behaved teenagers had to do it, just so that the thugs and couch potatoes got a dose. My children certainly don't need special training to get them ready for adult life!

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Monty Cuthbert (U14913651) on Tuesday, 21st June 2011

    This has drifted away from disciplines in society towards changes, actual or perceived in the sexes. Man, rightly or wrongly has for many generations beleived his role to be one of protector and provider and I believe he has an in built aggression that has enabled him to perform this role. Women for some time have ruled the roost in a management and caring role, not saying men don't care, but this balance changed, maybe due to women the essential work women did during the war. With more and more so called jobs for women being developed men ceased to be the sole bread winner. One can say this was a good thing. In many ways I agree, but looking back it took one mans wage to run a house, I know other things have contributed, but with husband and wife working now many struggle to keep their heads above water with the same bills. Many children are, not necessarily neglected but they do not get enough parental attention and we swing back round to disciplines.
    As things have progressed many young men do not know their role anymore. Many young women end up being single parents either deliberately to gain a council house or through relationship failure through not knowing their man before marriage, sorry what marriage, I should have said before becoming pregnant.
    Sorry, I know these messages are full of generalisations, many, in fact most youths grow up perfectly well and I am sure this includes your, as well as mine, but I maintain attitudes need to be addressed and soon.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Madame De Pompadour (U1749776) on Tuesday, 21st June 2011

    So its all the wimmin's fault according to you Monty?

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Betty (U1722779) on Tuesday, 21st June 2011

    Sorry, I know these messages are full of generalisations,

     


    So why not reflect on what you want to say, and write stuff that is actually true and accurate instead?

    It's as if you feel compelled to present a 'Daily Mail' view of the world, when you clearly know that the world is far more complex than that.

    Don't apologise for your messages. If you read through what you have written and find that it isn't quite accurate, you can always change it before you post.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by spacelizards (U2490505) on Tuesday, 21st June 2011

    To be fair, I don't think Monty was saying that young men's lack of coherent role was the wimmins fault.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Clark Gwent (U9935581) on Wednesday, 22nd June 2011

    I think it would be only fair if, were national service reintroduced, women should go instead of men. After all, men have fought the last however-many wars and it's about time ladies had a go!

    Men could stay at home if there were a war, having affairs with American GI women.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by spacelizards (U2490505) on Wednesday, 22nd June 2011

    I think it would be only fair if, were national service reintroduced, women should go instead of men. 

    Eh, maybe if we were the ones *starting* the damn things....

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Abubakar55 (U14258389) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    I think it would be only fair if, were national service reintroduced, women should go instead of men. After all, men have fought the last however-many wars and it's about time ladies had a go!

    Men could stay at home if there were a war, having affairs with American GI women.  
    Do we have to sleep with Americans?

    Couldn't we ally ourselves with a prettier Country? smiley - winkeye


    On a more serious note, I see the benefits of National Service but we are a very different time to the fifties and doubt it would have the effect on society its being touted to have.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Monty Cuthbert (U14913651) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    Phew, thank you all for responding, my partner was getting rather concerned about my one to one debate with Betty.
    Lets get back to basics, I do not believe I am sexist, I do not blame either sex for the current state of affairs, but I do believe that generally the public have a tendancy to take little interest in happenings around them until they are bitten and then blame everyone barr themselves for it happening. All I have stated ( in a blunt or generalistic manner) is my belief that personal and social diciplines need re-introducing into society. I have stated my belief on how they came to be reduced and how I think they could be improved again through schools. I have stated what I believe would be a community and national beneficial all round method of making anti-social and minor offence offenders repay society whilst creating future career opportunity for themselves and lower waste disposal costs for Government and Councils and that ultimately means the tax payers.
    From the responses so far I have no idea whether or not you agree or disagree with the principle.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by ronaharmony (U14830516) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    Monty, forget Betty and thank you very much for thought provoking posts.
    You are a serious visionary, analysing in depth, a 'big picture'; like the political statesman who, uninfluenced by has personal beliefs, is concerned about national affairs and ignoring important but irrelevant local pressures.

    Now, I am going to get blown out of the water as a sexist but here goes.
    Like you, I am definitely not a sexist. But................
    the female respondents to your OP have, as usual, been shallow. I say 'as usual', because truly visionary females are extremely rare and that can be very frustrating if you are trying to debate in depth.

    Women are superb functionaries but hopeless visionaries.

    People are trained to do a job and my lifetime experience tells me that women have the edge of men as reliable functionaries. Just look at WW2 women's abilities in the fields and factories and fighter delivery.
    However, when it comes to invention, design, modification and implementation of political policies, science and technology, etc., etc., vision seems to be a man's thing, and a minority of men at that.
    Maybe it is only men who can "zoom out", see the 'big picture', and "zoom in" again with fresh or even revolutionary ideas.
    In my own non-fiction library covering a huge range of topics, I have about 2,540 books - 4 women authors.

    Looking at the 'big picture' of societal influences, women's 'liberation' has been negative; women in politics has been neutral (Maggie wasn't terrible positive); and so on; any real 'big picture' positives?
    What is the point of pushing 'equality' when the visionaries we desperately need are going to be men? We don't want just neutral effects, we need the occasional positive.

    I have had a lifetime of trying to engage in synoptic debate, frustrated by women's (and many men's) - "me, me, me" short-sighted, petty parochial nimbyism.

    I completely agree with your sentiments and your novel proposal.

    Cheers







    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Betty (U1722779) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    Like you, I am definitely not a sexist. But................
    the female respondents to your OP have, as usual, been shallow. I say 'as usual', because truly visionary females are extremely rare and that can be very frustrating if you are trying to debate in depth.

    Women are superb functionaries but hopeless visionaries.

     


    As someone already said, so much facepalm, so little time.

    Gobsmacked.

    (Are you my father in law?)

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by mmartini51 (U13705077) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    I am definitely not a sexist. But.... 

    smiley - laugh

    I am definitely not a racist. But...
    I am definitely not a homophobe. But... 


    smiley - laugh

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by ronaharmony (U14830516) on Friday, 24th June 2011

    I hope the facepalm was after you re-read the irrelevant dross you had written.

    The OP (the first this poster has ever written) was well-considered, the broad sentiments and a visionary proposal were crystal clear; AND, there was UTTERLY no allusion to 'female', 'women', 'girls',.... NONE.

    Your puerile 'contribution' (P2) was to highlight some nit-picking technicality.

    Your next rant (P4) ; "I don't know what the answer to youth disaffection is: My children certainly don't need special training to get them ready for adult life!" Wow.....bully for you!.......real positive contribution.

    And your P7 takes the biscuit!!.
    This first-time poster has written intelligent, concise, thought-provoking posts which you rebuke with:
    "So why not reflect on what you want to say, and write stuff that is actually true and accurate instead? It's as if you feel compelled to present a 'Daily Mail' view of the world, when you clearly know that the world is far more complex than that. Don't apologise for your messages. If you read through what you have written and find that it isn't quite accurate, you can always change it before you post."
    Spectacular put-down!!!!!!

    No, I am not your father-in-law, but I have several daughters-in law with your militant brand of angst-ridden, scornful, derisory, sarcastic, scolding, scathing, recriminatory, 'feminism'...............Ah well, such is life, I cope fine.

    I've enjoyed corresponding with you; like Monty Cuthbert, I too have naively taken your bait in the past ... a bit rueful about that! ..............sorry the board is closing..........all the best, Cheers.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Monty Cuthbert (U14913651) on Friday, 24th June 2011

    I thank all who have responded, it is the first time I have tried this method of debating, it was very interesting. Considering that I only mentioned National Service as a point from where I believe after its ending social and personal disciplines started to fall away, I was suprised that it took so much flack in the responses, even more so that I would be surprised if many, or any of the respondees were ever called up. I missed it by a couple of years, having said that I joined up for nine years when I was 22.
    Reverting to my original debating point, I recieved no criticism of the idea, either for encouraging schools to link more with the community or my idea of offenders sorting refuse, not that I recieved many words of support either so I have put my ideas forward to the Department of Justice and the Environmental Agency to see what they say.
    The majority of responses showed unproductive negativity, which is another trait that the majority of the population of this country needs shaking out of.
    I don't mind criticism, in fact the reason I tried this method of communication was to gain other views on my idea. Ideas can be improved by wider influences, but none where recieved.
    I am none to sure the Government intended achieving what they have but I welcome U-turns caused by public concern. It means an idea was put forward and the public made their points, the points are considered and the ideas are changed accordingly. Why do we have to have a crisis before it happens. All people have to do is think about what they would like to see changed, study the full picture and stop behaving like sheep letting the media, (good news doesn't sell papers), lead them on.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Betty (U1722779) on Saturday, 25th June 2011

    I hope the facepalm was after you re-read the irrelevant dross you had written.

     


    Clearly you are unable to follow this kind of conversation. You're not really in a position, therefore, to comment on my posts, or anyone elses.

    Report message18

Back to top

About this Board

The BBC Religion and ethics message boards are now closed.

They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available.

Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

We will be introducing a new blog later in the year. Aaqil Ahmed, Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion & Ethics, has a blog with more details.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

Opening times:
No longer applicable

This messageboard is post-moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.