 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Some kids just need a beating. Just why would you ever bully a blind person!!!
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-27323114 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-27323114[/url]
Yeah physical abuse is the answer.
true, not physical abuse, just castration so they can't breed more little pricks 'll do.
agreed al - should make them spend a few days cleaning up dogshit at a guide dog centre, though
so it's genetic?
That is pretty damn low
Stevenage... just say no.
Honestly how depraved has bloody society become, even in my darkest times, hanging out with the very worse kids in the neighbourhood getting up to all the sorts of things scallies got up to back then, mugging a blind person and a woman at that?
They'd have had their balls cut off..
Probably as genetic as the terminal offended-ness of some on this forum
[i]physical abuse is the answer.[/i]
I agree with Al on this one.
mugging a blind person and a woman at that?
... which didn't happen here, of course.
Yep I agree with Al's sarcasm in that one.
Derekfish, what rose tinted decade are we talking about?
I agree with Al on this one.
birching in public...
OP, felt just the same way when I read the article earlier. I was really angry for a good few minutes. WHY!!!! WHY!!!!!
Honestly how depraved has bloody society become, even in my darkest times, hanging out with the very worse kids in the neighbourhood getting up to all the sorts of things scallies got up to back then, mugging a blind person and a woman at that?They'd have had their balls cut off..
This world you describe never existed.
mikewsmith - Member
Yep I agree with Al's sarcasm in that one.Derekfish, what rose tinted decade are we talking about?
The fifties and sixties were my teen years, which included Teds and Razors and my mates girl getting her face slashed with one, knife fights galore in the Mods & Rockers period, plus the usual drugs of the era, bikes, blagging and general stupidity of feral youth, but no, no-one would attack a blind person, not then, everyone would turn on them and they'd have had the living shit kicked out of them.
Nope derek they just had priests raping children and all that. Racism everywhere and sexism to add to it. Glorious times.
The 60s ay where you could slash a girls face with a razor or murder kids then leave their corpses on Saddleworth Moor never revealing to their families the location. Happy times.
I think on reflection, given the choice of the two I'd take the occasional mugging of a blind person(*) rather than the blissful idyll that DF describes.
(* - which, at the risk of repeating myself, [i]didn't actually happen [/i]in the linked story, outside of someone on the Internet's imagination.)
Yeah physical abuse is the answer.
Physical abuse isn't the answer. It's the question.
The answer is "Yes!"
No blind person was the victim of a crime between 1950 and 1970? I'm doubtful.
Well given the fact none of you lived through the period and I did and this is the first I've heard of intimidation of a blind woman, I'm afraid as usual your perceptions are as warped as normal.
Better go google assault on blind women in the fifties, see what you come up with, we didn't have rolling 24/7 news media back then, so life did seem less threatening and having recently survived extinction at the hands of a genuine oppressor there was no need for the media to be manipulated by a lame left wing Government (Blair)to create a climate of fear.
Racism? I don't think I even came across the word til much later in life, but then large tracts of the country had nobody other than caucasians living together, the whipping boys back then as I recall were probably the Irish, not that we had any of them round us.
On the buses, men got up for women, even us kids used to have to mind our p's and q's, open doors for ladies get up when a grown up entered the room, low level politeness and good manners which as we all knew, cost nothing.
You wouldn't know unless you experienced it, but trust me it was generally better then than now and I wouldn't swap having lived my life through that period to be young today and put up with this crap. (Including listening to half the bollox some of you lot spout from time to time).. 😉
Undoubtedly many things were better - the general manners and so on which you mention. But as alluded to with the extreme examples above, other things were worse, or at least are less ignored and dealt with better these days - domestic violence, child abuse, racially aggravated crime just to pick a few. Is it better now or was it better then - who can say, it's entirely subjective depending on your circumstances then and circumstances now.
Expectations were different back then, and I hate to say it folk were happier 'in their place' to use a bad expression. There was no TV, mobile phones, mass communication and the news media was more rigorously controlled. I recall as a cub journo, not even being allowed a camera near the court steps and being hauled over the coals for even the most basic presumption if not backed by facts and a notebook.
There was a lot wrong in the world also, can't deny that, but a lot of the time out of sight out of mind lead to a more contented populace. I recall trying to uncover a wages scandal in which our town council were colluding with big London Insurance companies to fix the wages low, thus saving their own wage bill, the story never saw the light of day, our own newspaper owner also saw the benefit of a lower local wage structure and we had to eat it or lose our jobs even though we ran quite a tight closed shop union member only office, but it was a battle even the Union didn't want to fight.
Quite what that's got to do with blind people I don't know, sorry, I've wandered off on one again..
Ha, just had a thought, had the blind woman been assault by the newspaper owners son, would that have even made the news? Probably not, not that I think it would have happened, there was just a different code of acceptable behaviour at every level..
Ah so as it wasn't reported it never happened.
Exactly. I expect that was a contributory factor more often than not..Drac - Moderator
Ah so as it wasn't reported it never happened.
Priests could never be accused of sexual molestation of small boys, nobody would want to read that in the paper now would they?
Derek,I'm 60 this year,and I'm not sure I recognise the world you describe,which century was it exactly?
I'm sure a few former TV personalities and DJs would also agree that the 60s and 70s were a far happier time.
If they can train the dog to help the blind person, why does it not include physical protection, i'd love to see a pooch go ape on a scrotes nuts!
Got to admit that I also lived in Derek's world of 60s.
Better go google assault on blind women in the fifties
Googling racism and LGBT assaults brings up a lot of results, do they count?
But yes, it seems a lovely place to live. So long as you know your place, and are white, straight, and ideally male.
It's an exceptional case, chosen to highlight the use of cameras.
Doesn't happen here, or Norfolk where she'd moved from. I could show you 20 thoroughly decent teenagers I teach for every one of the crims in that example. Kids I teach volunteer as carers for a terminally ill old lady. Bullies by definition pick on weakness - all verbal by the sound of it. How do we know what shite they themselves have to endure - perhaps from relatives brought up in the 60's.......
Jimmy....cough.......Saville
I'd force them to live in a totally blacked out house for a week and see how they feel about their antics after that. Having once been temporarily blinded, it gave me a whole new perspective on just how strange the world is without sight.
awful.
piemonster - Member
Better go google assault on blind women in the fifties
Googling racism and LGBT assaults brings up a lot of results, do they count?But yes, it seems a lovely place to live. So long as you know your place, and are white, straight, and ideally male.
And middle to upper class, you forget, the class system was still very prevalent back then.
As to straight v not, it just wasn't on the Agenda, sexuality never really got discussed folk kept it to themselves in my part of the world, hence why there was such a liberalisation in the late sixties and early seventies when it was pretty much anything goes.
You couldn't stay in a B&B unless you were married, two gay guys back then would have more chance (except they wouldn't be advertising the fact). It quite literally all changed in 1967-8 as the birth pill came on the scene there was then unbridled activity until around '83 I guess it was when AIDS first appeared over here.
Sexual attitudes were very very different to the way they are now, particularly with the young, hence all these poor old sods getting pulled for it now. Well that and a lack of com-pen-say-shun and ambulance chasing lawyers getting rich from persuading old women that they were victims instead of the groupies some of them were.
Sexual attitudes were very very different to the way they are now, particularly with the young, hence all these [b]poor old sods[/b] getting pulled for it now.
Wow
muggomagic - Member
Sexual attitudes were very very different to the way they are now, particularly with the young, hence all these poor old sods getting pulled for it now.
Wow
Don't go jumping to conclusions and go getting me wrong, I have four daughters myself and if one of those nonses had touched one of them I'd have swung for it, but it's the attitude I'm trying to illustrate.
Google' Blind Faith Album cover' you'll find an album sleeve picturing a topless pre pubescent girl, these girls were quite literally throwing themselves 13-14 yrs old at the pop stars and celebrities of the period, nothing was said.
I'm frankly surprised the yew tree investigation hasn't reeled in hundreds of sixties and seventies rock stars, how Mick Jagger is still walking around free is beyond me..
So you think if the girls throw themselves at the celeb then it's not right that they are charged with assault?
Stuart Hall raped [b]girls[/b] as young as 12
Jimmy Savile's youngest victim was 5
Gary Glitter was charged with assault of girls aged 10 and 11
I don't understand your sympathy towards them.
They aren't getting done for shagging 14/15 year olds who wanted to shag them, they're getting done for things like indecent assault and rape - predatory offences where the victims did not consent to the activity. Big difference.
There were plenty of perverts and kiddy fiddlers caught and punished then as I dare say there are now, difference was they'd get a beating on the way to and once in jail, the relevant question is why nobody cried rape at the time. Particularly in cases of high volume. Savile was well known as a perv, nobody liked him, he was protected by the same sort of shield many high level police and judge paedophile rings operated, probably sill operate, have we even discussed free masonry? It was all too powerful back then. So was the homosexual protection network, which like it or not and it may offend modern sensibilities but it was a source of male child abuse.
Girls had no place being left alone in the company of the likes of Hall, Gilter and Savile, but you have to question where were the parents? It wasn't like now, hordes of single parent or irresponsible types that didn't care, the family unit was still pretty strong, so what were those girls doing in the various dressing rooms? Were they idiots? Every kid new the risks of the dodgy type that wants you to sit on his lap, it wasn't any different then from that respect. But as I said, there wasn't the financial inducement to cry rape and for some there was an element of fun about it who'd 'had' which celeb..
so in summary, the world you call perfect was full of peodophiles, everything was fine if you hid anything that made you different and nothing was wrong as nobody reported it, even if you did the media wouldn't make a fuss and not bother reporting it nationally.
What a wonderful time.
mikewsmith - Member
so in summary, the world you call perfect was full of peodophiles, everything was fine if you hid anything that made you different and nothing was wrong as nobody reported it, even if you did the media wouldn't make a fuss and not bother reporting it nationally.What a wonderful time.
Yep, I guess that about sums it up. What you didn't know couldn't hurt you..
and of course folk were too polite to talk about anything involving the 's' word, but when all things were said and done, a lot safer place for a blind woman and her dog to go for a walk.
Ha, just had a thought, had the blind woman been assault by the newspaper owners son, would that have even made the news?
...
a lot safer place for a blind woman and her dog to go for a walk.
For a third time; she wasn't assaulted.
Your argument appears to be that in your glory days we were awash with thugs and nonces, but we used to deal with that with either acceptance or mercenary vengeance so that makes it all ok.
So the moral is she should have kept quiet and not gone to the papers, because if we don't know about or talk about it the world is better off. Yeah I'm glad I didn't grow up in the sixties then.
thejesmonddingo - Member
Derek,I'm 60 this year,and I'm not sure I recognise the world you describe,which century was it exactly?
I recognise it. But it depends where you were.
When I spent a year in England (Southampton) I was impressed by how civilised the likes of dances were - no frisking for weapons as you went in; the ability to go to the toilet at a venue and not have some drunk pick a fight; and even once when I spewed over the back of a big lad's leather jacket and I thought I was dead, he said that's ok, it'll rinse off. Back home we had knifings at dances - including fatal, fights in the bogs, and alcohol fueled aggression everywhere. I thought England was a lovely place.
The only time I had a problem was when I was buzzed by a mob of mods on their scooters trying to run me off the road on my motorbike, and that was easily fixed by booting one of the pricks off his bike.
It was razors in Glasgow, knives in Edinburgh, bottles in Dundee as I recall, and whatever was handy in the Highlands. But I think the big difference was once you were down, you were down, sticking the boot in was regarded as cowardly, and generally you only had to fight one person at a time even if they were mob handed.
thejesmonddingo - Member
Derek,I'm 60 this year,and I'm not sure I recognise the world you describe,which century was it exactly?
Same age, and it was the last century. And the world I grew up in was pretty much as Derek describes.
It was a standard joke about priests and choirboys back then, though, which shows that abuse went on, but was not really talked about like it is now. Back then there weren't the rolling news channels looking for new exclusives, there wasn't the pervasive media looking into people's lives, no social media, really only two TV channels.
People got on with their lives, knew their neighbours, but knew very, very little of the world outside of their locality. Few people had cars, nobody travelled abroad for their holidays, it was a pretty insular world for a great many people.
No, not at all, I'd been making the point that it just wouldn't have happened to a Blind Woman in the cities/early sixties there was a code of honour even amongst thieves and thugs and acceptable level to what was and wasn't 'done'. The rest was highlighting the probability of why there are so many latter day abuse scandals, I won't say it was common place but I guess kids were more streetwise as to the likelihood of being fiddled with by nonses, unless you were unlucky enough to have been in boarding school where likely you'd have been buggered senseless. It's also the reason for scepticism about Yewtree, why didn't all those women complain at the time, it's not as if nothing would have been done about it, the reason they didn't was because of the 'shame' factor and the no win scenario of an embarrassing court case, at least these days there is good or bad, the compensation carrot.Drac - Moderator
So the moral is she should have kept quiet and not gone to the papers, because if we don't know about or talk about it the world is better off. Yeah I'm glad I didn't grow up in the sixties then.
Cougar - Moderator
Your argument appears to be that in your glory days
Not my 'glory' days, if such a period existed, for me it was probably the eighties, no back then I was just another abuse victim that dealt with it the way we all used to, by laughing it off, luckily no penetration in my case, just the usual hand up the shorts trouser leg by one of the Scoutmasters.
derekfish - MemberWell given the fact none of you lived through the period and I [s]did[/s] read the Daily Mail and fantasise about it on regular basis and this is the first I've heard of intimidation of a blind woman, I'm afraid as usual your perceptions are as warped as normal.
No, not at all, I'd been making the point that it just wouldn't have happened to a Blind Woman in the cities/early sixties there was a code of honour even amongst thieves and thugs and acceptable level to what was and wasn't 'done'.
Yeah right you keep believing that.