Originally Posted by angelrose

CITIZEN SMITH - You say that poverty should be eradicated - how do you suggest this is achieved?

You cannot just state the obvious and call that a solution.
Great ideas, but putting them into practice is a whole new ball game...

Its piss easy- just take the excess money of the richest 5% (for example), tax, tax and tax the super wealthy and use the money to eradicate poverty.

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

Its piss easy- just take the excess money of the richest 5% (for example), tax, tax and tax the super wealthy and use the money to eradicate poverty.

Eureka!!
Schmit has solved poverty!

Clown...

Originally Posted by British

Eureka!!
Schmit has solved poverty!

Clown...

To be fair, if you were fully committed to it you could fund living for millions of people with the wealth of the richest few people in the world quite easily.

Originally Posted by DougieG

To be fair, if you were fully committed to it you could fund living for millions of people with the wealth of the richest few people in the world quite easily.

Yes, but when's that ever going to happen?
MPs have been furnishing themselves on our money. And I've no doubt that is still happening under a different guise.
Some people are just too damn greedy. More is never enough. The majority of us only want to be comfortable. But those greedy swines in Westminster grow fatter and heavier under the weight of their modern day Robin Hood actions.

Hell'll freeze over before those fatheads share their wealth.

Also, people need to have personal worth. People fair well when they have worked for a living, and accomplished things. Give hand outs to a lazy drug user, is that going to change his/her outlook?

I'm affraid the problem needs more than sharing to solve it

Originally Posted by British

Eureka!!
Schmit has solved poverty!

Clown...

Well, I was asked, and I delivered the answer.... maybe you just don't like it....

Originally Posted by octopus

I CERTAINLY DISPUTE IT! How do you account for the fact that some killers and crimminals are worth millions?

The key word there is SOME,

Originally Posted by octopus

Putting that aside; poverty does NOT give a person the right to take another persons life, or indeed commit crime;

I said it is a cause, I didn't say it was a excuse for committing a crime.

Originally Posted by octopus

the truth is they do it because in main they like it, or are too lazy to work.

WTF??????

No-one wants to be poor, and just because someone is poor doesn't make them lazy. Poor people are some of the hardest workers around. You hear of single parents with children who have to work 2 or more jobs to just scrape by.

Originally Posted by octopus

In the UK a person is attacked every 30 seconds for no reason, and it is because of this misguided liberal thinking, that we have this situation, and with the 3 main stream parties approach to crime, this is set to continue.

You blame liberal people for crime? Let me guess you would solve crime by killing/imprisoning all the poor people since they are so lazy?

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Correct the intelligent way to deal with crime is to deal with the causes, and as you said poverty is one of the main causes of crime (even though some members of this forum dispute that).

Hi,

poverty has NEVER been a cause of crime - some of the poorest people on the planet are so honest they will sit and look at another man's food as they starve.

Poverty is nothing more than an excuse for crime - much of which is based not on need but on indolent greed.

More money is stolen by the well off than was EVER stolen by the poor!

In a period of financial difficulty you only need to look at the incomes Politicians and the parasites in QUANGOs grant themselves at the expense of the poor.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Originally Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins

Hi,

poverty has NEVER been a cause of crime -

Poverty is nothing more than an excuse for crime - much of which is based not on need but on indolent greed.

More money is stolen by the well off than was EVER stolen by the poor!

In a period of financial difficulty you only need to look at the incomes Politicians and the parasites in QUANGOs grant themselves at the expense of the poor.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Your right about wealthy people being more greedy, but;

some of the poorest people on the planet are so honest they will sit and look at another man's food as they starve.

Anyone who would starve rather than stealing is going wrong somewhere. I have never done a proper crime,but if I was starving and I needed to get some food or cash, and really felt I had no option- then of course I would steal, and some people in poverty feel that need.
But I agree that the massive amounts rich people steal are disgusting- they have no need for it, no excuse.

Schmit seems to be changing his tune. Blowing hot and cold.
Nothing quite as appealing as the indecisive for getting the revulsion glands pumping.

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

Its piss easy- just take the excess money of the richest 5% (for example), tax, tax and tax the super wealthy and use the money to eradicate poverty.

Why this would NEVER happen:

• The super wealthy wont like your plan
• The super wealthy are the ones with most power and influence
• Therefore - it wont happen

Sounds more like a communist theory to me, and they have their fair share of paedophilia throughout history!

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

Your right about wealthy people being more greedy, but;

Sorry I though people would comprehend - it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with wealth or poverty but EVERYTHING to do with integrity & morality.

These are commodities virtually unknown in a chip on the shoulder want based society of envy - as you keep portraying your values.

It has everything to do with Need NOT Greed or envy.

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

Anyone who would starve rather than stealing is going wrong somewhere. I have never done a proper crime,but if I was starving and I needed to get some food or cash, and really felt I had no option- then of course I would steal, and some people in poverty feel that need.
But I agree that the massive amounts rich people steal are disgusting- they have no need for it, no excuse.

You might find if you disgarded the envy and chips on your shoulder you might find life had greater values.

YOU CHOOSE your station in life - NOTHING is forced on you. I agree that most people who start with a poverty of spirit wind up broke!

Drive can not be replaced by envy or resentment with any hope opf benefit or satisfaction.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Originally Posted by angelrose

Why this would NEVER happen:

• The super wealthy wont like your plan
• The super wealthy are the ones with most power and influence
• Therefore - it wont happen

Sounds more like a communist theory to me, and they have their fair share of paedophilia throughout history!

Hi,

Nooooo - it won't happen because it doesn't work!

Redistribution of wealth is a nonsense concept - steal ALL the money from the wealthy and give it to the poor and within 5 > 10 years you will have a new wealthy group and a new poor group and 90 of each group will be as per original.

Wealth is NOT a matter of inheritence beyond DNA.

Just as a predisposition to the inadequacies of pederasty are largely genetic so also is wealth.

One of the youngest ever self made Millionaires was 13 and employed almost everyone in his family! He made his money making up coin sets from change!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

I was being sarcastic in my "eureka" post 'cause I really thought that it was so blindingly obvious that such a plan would NEVER work. Clearly the likes of (I thank you, you thank me) Smithy and Kiwi live in some sort of parallel existance where the Muchkins live in perfect harmony.

Originally Posted by angelrose

Why this would NEVER happen:

• The super wealthy wont like your plan
• The super wealthy are the ones with most power and influence
• Therefore - it wont happen

Sounds more like a communist theory to me, and they have their fair share of paedophilia throughout history!

Just a few statistics to show why it couldn't/wouldn't happen. It's estimated that the total world's wealth is around $125 trillion; that's 125 followed by 12 '0's. The current world population is currently around 7 billion; that's 7 followed by 9 '0's. Let's assume that it was possible to cash in the entire world's wealth and distribute it evenly amongst the population, this would give every single person on the planet around $18,000 or £10,000 to live on for the rest of their lives.

Now in reality I doubt whether much more than 0.1% of the world's wealth could actually be cashed in; a huge amount of it is simply paper money and is dependent on other investments to hold any value of its own - for example the value of a house relies solely on someone else having the money to buy it. The remaining 99.9% is also heavily tied up as unsaleable assets and in commerce and investments of all sorts, and if those businesses, whether they be the biggest multi-nationals to the smallest one man concerns, were even able to cash in their assets, trade, even on a local level would cease and there'd be no capital left anywhere to invest for future income.

So assuming that people would still need to by things with their money, even food and drink, on the basis of being able to use 0.1% of total world wealth, still $125 billion, the result would be that everyone would receive just £10 each, then the pot would be empty. Wow, that's really going to help end world poverty isn't it!

Originally Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins

YOU CHOOSE your station in life - NOTHING is forced on you. I agree that most people who start with a poverty of spirit wind up broke!

Drive can not be replaced by envy or resentment with any hope opf benefit or satisfaction.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

very American- you choose your own "station" in life, yes you might be born into poverty and have no chance of a decent qualification, be dragged down by crime around you, and be in an impossible position in terms of employment, but you make your own station!
Those kids with wealthy parents who go straight to fee paying schools, live in a safe area, and can always fall back on Daddy's cash don't have any advantage. They get everything through hard work.
Aren't the rich just all lovely, hardworking, honest citizens?

And no, its not just a moral issue.

Originally Posted by Midas

Just a few statistics to show why it couldn't/wouldn't happen. It's estimated that the total world's wealth is around $125 trillion; that's 125 followed by 12 '0's. The current world population is currently around 7 billion; that's 7 followed by 9 '0's. Let's assume that it was possible to cash in the entire world's wealth and distribute it evenly amongst the population, this would give every single person on the planet around $18,000 or £10,000 to live on for the rest of their lives.

Now in reality I doubt whether much more than 0.1% of the world's wealth could actually be cashed in; a huge amount of it is simply paper money and is dependent on other investments to hold any value of its own - for example the value of a house relies solely on someone else having the money to buy it. The remaining 99.9% is also heavily tied up as unsaleable assets and in commerce and investments of all sorts, and if those businesses, whether they be the biggest multi-nationals to the smallest one man concerns, were even able to cash in their assets, trade, even on a local level would cease and there'd be no capital left anywhere to invest for future income.

So assuming that people would still need to by things with their money, even food and drink, on the basis of being able to use 0.1% of total world wealth, still $125 billion, the result would be that everyone would receive just £10 each, then the pot would be empty. Wow, that's really going to help end world poverty isn't it!

Yes but it's not about money is it, it's about who owns the means of production, you can keep your pieces of paper, the majority of the worlds population and I just want to have equal access to food, water and power. Then you'll be free to make as much money as you like to buy your plasmas, cars and holidays by selling any other service you like.
Anyway having just split this thread lets not create yet another, especially when it would be more suited to here!
Is Poverty a major cause of crime?
I almost can't believe that anyone would question that it isn't! Crime is far more prevalent where poverty is also, in part because drug use is also more prevalent. Is it an excuse? Maybe it is sometimes, abject poverty destroys hope and without hope then where's the purpose in any sort of life?
Anyway I'm off to find the prozac...

Originally Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins

Hi,

poverty has NEVER been a cause of crime - some of the poorest people on the planet are so honest they will sit and look at another man's food as they starve.

Poverty is nothing more than an excuse for crime - much of which is based not on need but on indolent greed.

More money is stolen by the well off than was EVER stolen by the poor!

In a period of financial difficulty you only need to look at the incomes Politicians and the parasites in QUANGOs grant themselves at the expense of the poor.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Well said indeed well said, rather than human being be self-sufficient and diciplined otherwise luxery life will continue to draw them into crimes.

Depends on your definition of poverty especially in this country compared say with India or Pakistan, crime and poverty is linked by a convenience rather than fact. There are many things that create crime like drugs social inequalities one parent families the so called dysfunctional families, illiteracy emotionally damaged children caused by sexual or physical abuse. Not to be ignored a growing gang culture also white collar crime IE:Bankers.

One can't avoid the breakdown of Morals a form of moral poverty exist in our society today equally the revolving door policy of the judiciary and the short term sentencing given to career criminals, is a much bigger reason for a high crime rate IMO.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

I almost can't believe that anyone would question that it isn't! Crime is far more prevalent where poverty is also, in part because drug use is also more prevalent. Is it an excuse? Maybe it is sometimes, abject poverty destroys hope and without hope then where's the purpose in any sort of life?
Anyway I'm off to find the prozac...

ye, thankyou- POVERTY DESTROYS PEOPLES HOPE.

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

ye, thankyou- POVERTY DESTROYS PEOPLES HOPE.

Governments create poverty by not educating people or by educating people for jobs that don't exists thereby destroying any hope of obtaining a job.

Poverty is a choice.

Criminals are the cause of crime.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Poverty is a choice.

How did you reach that stupid conclusion and can you prove it? that i would love to see.

Originally Posted by pauili007001

Criminals are the cause of crime.

Governments have the power to prevent crime the fact that they choose not to use them is indicative of the liberal Laws and policies of the government of the day.So you could say the government creates criminals imo.

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

ye, thankyou- POVERTY DESTROYS PEOPLES HOPE.

Yes, it does. But it isn't the poverty that causes crime. Although, it doesn't help.

It's a vicious circle.

Originally Posted by fubar

How did you reach that stupid conclusion and can you prove it? that i would love to see.


Governments have the power to prevent crime the fact that they choose not to use them is indicative of the liberal Laws and policies of the government of the day.So you could say the government creates criminals imo.

I reached this conclusion by observing the poor, they refuse to work or choose to work in easy jobs that offer low pay, they therefore choose the easy job or not to work because they are lazy, it is that choice to be lazy that makes them poor.Poverty is therefore a choice.

If there were no criminals there would be no crime.Criminals cause crime because they are greedy but too lazy to work for what they want so they steal it instead.

If poverty causes crime, why didnt i become a hardened criminal given that i grew up in the most extreme poverty, the poverty my father chose to raise us in.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

I reached this conclusion by observing the poor, they refuse to work or choose to work in easy jobs that offer low pay, they therefore choose the easy job or not to work because they are lazy, it is that choice to be lazy that makes them poor.Poverty is therefore a choice.

i noticed you reached your conclusion by observing the poor as I'm sure if you asked them or gave them a choice to be richer they would no doubt choose to be richer (not given, not money)just a better education would be a start imo.

Very arrogant of you to say that just because you avoided poverty those that are still in poverty choose to be poor as there are many poor people who have 2 jobs an attend college to get a proper education that they never received at school just reminds me of your extreme narrowmindness and inverted snobbiest opinion IMO!

Originally Posted by pauli007001

If there were no criminals there would be no crime.Criminals cause crime because they are greedy but too lazy to work for what they want so they steal it instead.

There are plenty of people who steal while working so thats a little bit of a lame excuse. Society in general can cause crime it's equally the fault of government who choose to turn their back on the poor as if they suffer from some incurable disease becuse if thay face it thay have to admit that their policies are failing the very people thay surposed to help.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

If poverty causes crime, why didn't i become a hardened criminal given that i grew up in the most extreme poverty, the poverty my father chose to raise us in.

On this i agree.

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The whole point of the criminal justice system - it's raison d'etre is to protect the rich from the poor. Being poor is pretty much a crime in this country anyway. So of course poverty causes crime as being poor IS A CRIME as far as the law is concerned! Although increasing;y the crime of being poor is being replaced by the much more serious crime of being young

If this was in "the other place" I might have thought it was a little joke, as it is not, I think it is a total joke, complete rubbish.

It is an affront to honest poor people to suggest that the cause of crime is poverty.

I was born into poverty. My education was terrible. And appart from a bit of apple raiding when I was a kid, I was good. I was tought to respect and be polite.
When I left school I was apprenticed as a wood carver. And I worked damn hard.
Now, I do well. I do well enough to be far from poverty stricken.
I wasn't born a criminal. I was born unfortunate.
And although I can point out times in my life when I wanted something to take away the pain of life, I stuck it out. And I have personal worth. I'm proud of myself. And I'm proud of all who has done well from poverty, too
My worst crime is being cought doing 35 in a thirty zone
And I know many others have gone this path...
But unfortunatly some will take a path that destroys lives.

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

As I dont really believe in 'right and wrong' I would never thought it possible to be wrong on so many different levels and to propose an argument with no merit at all.

If there was no law there would be no crime - that is of course a trusim, however if there were no criminals there would still be crime as there would still be laws and the possibility of breaking them. The most obvious thing to point up here is that criminals are not born they are made. I believe you have been in trouble with the law yourself Pauli. Did you not say you;d been court marshalled over some incident with the police? Or did I misunderstand?

Anyway if it was the case that means you are a criminal, lazy etc etc and you are the cause of crime...doesn't make any sense does it?

N I have no criminal record, i was on OCs orders several times and was jailed for breaking military law( having 2 pints is a breach of military law if you just beat the guard commanders section in an inter section competition.Losing your MOD 90 is also a crime, even if you lost it whilst being violently mugged by 5 asian gangsters and 12 West Yorkshire plods in Huddersfield on the evening of the 13 september 2001.It is a crime to lose it, even if it was stolen, you still do your 28 days in MCC.That is not the same as being a rapist, a murderer or a burglar, but i am sure that in the opinion of lf to be mugged by these criminals and their WY police assistants, the actual muggars were simply misunderstood and i should be forced to recompense them for the guilt they feel because they violently robbed me!!

Real crime is caused by criminals and nothing else all the rest of the flim flam ****e you spout is irrelivant.Theft is a choice, murder is a choice, rape is a choice, all are crimes comitted by criminals, not all criminals are poor not all the poor are criminals therefore criminals cause crime not poverty.

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

Despite very high drug use amongst the wealthy, how come the vast majority of convictions for drugs are on the poor?

Because the poor generally have to commit other crimes to fund their habit, resulting in them getting caught. Often the drug conviction follows on from an arrest for another offence.

How come poor people are far more likely to be stopped by the police?

Because in general it's people from the poorer end of society who are the ones who are far more obvious with regards to the likes of antisocial behaviour and drunkenness, and they are the ones who are more likely to cause damage because of it. They are also the ones more likely to commit crime in the first place, hence it pretty obvious that they'll come under greater police scrutiny.

How come the police only use physical force against poorer members of society?

Because they're far more likely to resist violently perhaps?

How come most crimes are based on the protection on private property which is of course to defend the rich from the poor?

Private property should be inviolate regardless of whether you're rich or poor, it's simply that people on lower incomes generally take far less care over the protection of their property than the rich, hence are easier to steal from with less risk of being caught.

Originally Posted by Barry

If this was in "the other place" I might have thought it was a little joke, as it is not, I think it is a total joke, complete rubbish.

complete rubbish? You don't accept that poverty can be soul destroyingly, tragically negative on a persons feelings of self worth? You cannot accept that it is possible that as a direct result crime can be seen either as an attractive option or as the only one in order to get a better way of life.

It is an affront to honest poor people to suggest that the cause of crime is poverty.

Quite obviously it doesn't equate that being poor automatically means one has an inherent propensity to commit crime. However if you are in an environment surrounded by crime, you are more likely to accept it as the norm. To British and Pauli and everyone of millions of poor people who have actively sort non criminal solutions to help raise themselves out of poverty, I genuinely applaud you; but I still think we need to look at ways to help those who haven't got the same strength of character, avoid going down the wrong path.
I also think that going thirty five in a thirty zone is a crime and it makes no sense that we view that as an acceptable breaking of the law, when the shop lifter who steals to support a habit is "low life scum". Unless of course we assume that it is all about property and therefore also about the law protecting the rich from the poor.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

I also think that going thirty five in a thirty zone is a crime and it makes no sense that we view that as an acceptable breaking of the law, when the shop lifter who steals to support a habit is "low life scum". Unless of course we assume that it is all about property and therefore also about the law protecting the rich from the poor.

I don't agree with you on this, there's a big difference between someone breaking a technical law based on an arbitrary point on a scale of speed to someone stealing the personal property of another person.

Originally Posted by Midas

I don't agree with you on this, there's a big difference between someone breaking a technical law based on an arbitrary point on a scale of speed to someone stealing the personal property of another person.

Big surprise! Proving my point that we value laws which protect private property over others, why is that?

Hi,

for the sake of debate let us take just one narrow issue.

It is my contention that the poor have a tendency to be inherently more honest less inclined to crime and more dependable.

You said:

Originally Posted by Opinionated

However if you are in an environment surrounded by crime, you are more likely to accept it as the norm.

So in that narrow context what is your response to the criminality of the British Cabinet under Tony Blair with regard to lies to Parliament, lies to the public, lies to our allies and the resultant unlawful preemptive strike to effect regime change, remove France's influence and restore the US$ as the reserve currency of choice for trade in oil as a Crime Against Humanity and a series of gratuitous and obscene War Crimes.

Alternatively the criminality of the board of Northern Rock as it deliberately, knowingly and wittingly bought in toxic assets from the USA to boost its apparent assett base to enhance gearing to supply more money for the sub prime market. A sort of Faustian Ponzi scheme buying in dud money to gear to create 10 >15 times more dud money to lend out to sequentially reposess and bankrupt a probable 1 in 10 to generate cash to revalue property and create working cash!

Both wealth based crimes have led to the creation of poverty and misery on a scale rarely seen in human history!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Big surprise! Proving my point that we value laws which protect private property over others, why is that?

Less of the WE!!!

The reason society MAY do it is that crimes against the person are rarely serial, rarely profitable and rarely planned.

The French defence of 'Crime of Passion' but one must be minded that the French have a very different codex of morality to that of Britain largely due to our codex of law which is by its nature 'Natural' Law in derivation through the Parles Mount whereas French law is largely 'Justinian' in origin with a heavy overlay of Code Napoleon.

In Britain laws of property tended to be a matter of the State but laws of morality were clerical and frequently addressed by the Church.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Originally Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins

It is my contention that the poor have a tendency to be inherently more honest less inclined to crime and more dependable.

I will agree that there is great nobility in poverty - after all the vaste majority of the world is poor.

So in that narrow context what is your response to the criminality of the British Cabinet under Tony Blair with regard to lies to Parliament, lies to the public, lies to our allies and the resultant unlawful preemptive strike to effect regime change, remove France's influence and restore the US$ as the reserve currency of choice for trade in oil as a Crime Against Humanity and a series of gratuitous and obscene War Crimes.

My response is that anyone can commit crime obviously and that Blair should be up before the Hague!

Alternatively the criminality of the board of Northern Rock as it deliberately, knowingly and wittingly bought in toxic assets from the USA to boost its apparent assett base to enhance gearing to supply more money for the sub prime market. A sort of Faustian Ponzi scheme buying in dud money to gear to create 10 >15 times more dud money to lend out to sequentially reposess and bankrupt a probable 1 in 10 to generate cash to revalue property and create working cash!

My response is to point you to the second part of my argument concerning why we take crime commited mostly by poor people more seriously than those commited by middle and upper classes.

Both wealth based crimes have led to the creation of poverty and misery on a scale rarely seen in human history!

agreed!

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Big surprise! Proving my point that we value laws which protect private property over others, why is that?

Because private property has been bought and paid for by virtue of our own hard work.

Originally Posted by Midas

Because private property has been bought and paid for by virtue of our own hard work.

Hah!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

The key word there is SOME,




I said it is a cause, I didn't say it was a excuse for committing a crime.



WTF??????

No-one wants to be poor, and just because someone is poor doesn't make them lazy. Poor people are some of the hardest workers around. You hear of single parents with children who have to work 2 or more jobs to just scrape by.



You blame liberal people for crime? Let me guess you would solve crime by killing/imprisoning all the poor people since they are so lazy?

Well, the fact that some crimminals are millionares proves that poverty is not a reason for crime. Yes, some people are driven to crime through circumstances, but if you allow that to be a reason you are on the slippery slope of a breakdown of law and order to which we are seeing in the UK at the moment. In my own life I have seen adverse financial circumstances - but guess what? I worked hard, and gone on to an even keel. I didn"t go out and rob, I didn"t go out and murder! I am not rich now, I only have a normal lifestyle; but I don"t expect anyone to provide me with a living, everything I own is mine by my own efforts - these parasites your defending can do the same. Liberal thinking is the biggest cause of crime, and it is a menace. Liberal thinkers are in the main people that do know what they are talking about. As a former secruity officer I have crime, I have seen vandalism and I have seen violence. Take these people from the justice system who allow child sex offenders out early; I would wager they would not allow these so-called people near their own children - just everybody elses; and where is the financial incentive to commit that type of crime? The mistake people like yourself make when trying to help these "people" is that you judge them by mine, and your standards - YOU CAN"T! Would you murder a child? OF COURSE NOT! THEY WOULD THROUGH! and in some cases think nothing of it. These people are a breed of their own - SCUM! With respect, the sooner people like yourself realise this the better.

Originally Posted by octopus

Well, the fact that some crimminals are millionares proves that poverty is not a reason for crime.

No, it proves it is a cause of crime, instead of the cause of crime.

Think of it this way,

If you are poor that can cause alot of stress, because of the inability to pay bills. That stress can lead people to things like alcohol abuse, which can lead onto violence.

What about a "victim mentality" that can be caused by poverty. Some poor people who work incredibly hard and still struggle to get by. Then they see groups of wealthy people who some have achieved this wealth and do very little work. Some poorer people will resent that, that could be a reason.

Then there is the simple fact that alot of poor people are forced to commit crime to feed their family.

In capitalist societies there will always be a handful of rich people, and alot of very poor people. Capitalism uses cheap labour, because there is always a demand for cheaper and cheaper goods. Any one who says people are poor simply from laziness hasn't a clue what they are talking about. Yes SOME poor people are poor because they are lazy but the majority of them are not.

For example the minimum wages in most countries are abhorrent. Here it is $12.50 or 5.32 pounds. Imagine trying to live off that, it would not be easy.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Big surprise! Proving my point that we value laws which protect private property over others, why is that?

This is not true, moral crimes, such as theft rape and murder are the crimes that our laws should enforce, they are the most damaging and violent of crimes.When a person has worked hard to own property it is very hard for them to see it destroyed or stolen, theft is a crime against the person, it is a form ov violence, as is burglary.

Driving laws are enforced differently and are rarely(note i said RARELY) considered under CRIMINAL LAW.Speeding will generally not carry a custodial sentence, or even a criminal conviction, it may cause the loss of driving rights.Speeding is breaking a rule of the road it is not a crime of violence directed against an individual(theft murder and rape are).

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

No, it proves it is a cause of crime, instead of the cause of crime.

Think of it this way,

If you are poor that can cause alot of stress, because of the inability to pay bills. That stress can lead people to things like alcohol abuse, which can lead onto violence.

What about a "victim mentality" that can be caused by poverty. Some poor people who work incredibly hard and still struggle to get by. Then they see groups of wealthy people who some have achieved this wealth and do very little work. Some poorer people will resent that, that could be a reason.

Then there is the simple fact that alot of poor people are forced to commit crime to feed their family.

In capitalist societies there will always be a handful of rich people, and alot of very poor people. Capitalism uses cheap labour, because there is always a demand for cheaper and cheaper goods. Any one who says people are poor simply from laziness hasn't a clue what they are talking about. Yes SOME poor people are poor because they are lazy but the majority of them are not.

For example the minimum wages in most countries are abhorrent. Here it is $12.50 or 5.32 pounds. Imagine trying to live off that, it would not be easy.

Twaddle!!
If poverty is one of the causes of crime why does it not follow that most rapists are impoverished?
Or as there are extremely wealthy child molestors in the world does that meen that wealth is also a cause of crime?

In recent sting operations UK police found that the majority of people who download kiddie porn in the UK were Plods, nurses, Drs, teachers and social workers, can we gather from this that working for the government is a cause of crime, or membership in a Union is a cause of crime.There is ONE cause of crime, that is CRIMINALS(people who choose to commit crime for their own selfish needs and pleasure).

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

No, it proves it is a cause of crime, instead of the cause of crime.

Think of it this way,

If you are poor that can cause alot of stress, because of the inability to pay bills. That stress can lead people to things like alcohol abuse, which can lead onto violence.

What about a "victim mentality" that can be caused by poverty. Some poor people who work incredibly hard and still struggle to get by. Then they see groups of wealthy people who some have achieved this wealth and do very little work. Some poorer people will resent that, that could be a reason.

Then there is the simple fact that alot of poor people are forced to commit crime to feed their family.

In capitalist societies there will always be a handful of rich people, and alot of very poor people. Capitalism uses cheap labour, because there is always a demand for cheaper and cheaper goods. Any one who says people are poor simply from laziness hasn't a clue what they are talking about. Yes SOME poor people are poor because they are lazy but the majority of them are not.

For example the minimum wages in most countries are abhorrent. Here it is $12.50 or 5.32 pounds. Imagine trying to live off that, it would not be easy.

I have done - and less. Britain has only had a minimumn wage for about 10 years - and I worked for around 2 decades before that. I am sorry, but poverty is not a reason for crime, maybe in the developing world, but the developed world has things like social secruity.

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

My word trust you to excuse the inexcusable. This is so anti poor. You think poor people are more likely to be violent and anti-social ( HOW OFFENSIVE - looks to pauli for righteous indignation)even if this is so why do think this is? Is it not for the reasons I have already said that whole system is designed to criminalise the poor inorder o protect the unjustly owned property of the few?

You honestly believe that they're not more likely to commit more crimes and exhibit more bad behaviour? Perhaps if you reread what I said, it was "Because the poor generally have to commit other crimes to fund their habit..."; "Because in general it's people from the poorer end of society who..."; "Because they're far more likely..." - exactly where in that have I been offensive and exactly where have I even implied that it's all poorer people? You've obviously been doing some very selective reading of the media and of police statistics of late, is all I can say.

Ok try defending this one

Why did (I witnessed this) 5 police officers feel the need to beat a 15 year girl until she had a miscarriage

Why should I even try to defend the indefensible. We can all pick out isolated incidents to try to prove our case, the more emotive or newsworthy the better eh!

Originally Posted by Midas

You honestly believe that they're not more likely to commit more crimes and exhibit more bad behaviour? Perhaps if you reread what I said, it was "Because the poor generally have to commit other crimes to fund their habit..."; "Because in general it's people from the poorer end of society who..."; "Because they're far more likely..." - exactly where in that have I been offensive and exactly where have I even implied that it's all poorer people? You've obviously been doing some very selective reading of the media and of police statistics of late, is all I can say.

Crime stats are bollox. Stop believing everything with a number next to it. You dont know enough about how the data are collected and manipulated to comment, to be fair, neither do I for that matter but I have had to look at crime figures and stats in some detail coz it was my job. I think Tim Bateman's (smart guy works for Nacro and so is NOT a theorist) critiques of youth crime data are worth you looking at as it raises more general issues about how crime data are collected and interpreted. I hope you realise that your unquestioning acceptance of numerical data (coz it is simplified and so you can understand it yet political theory is beyond you) is very irrational. I mean I could use stats to prove almost anything. I mean do you realize how THEORETICALLY Biased this sort of stuff is and how it is increasingly being discredited from al sides (from the social constructivist angle and also from econometrics experts who think their methods are being bastardised by social scientists and criminologists) ???

Now of course the poor are statistically more likely to commit crime as stats are based on police reports and the police target poor areas so the numbers mean nothing except to confirm the police tend to target poor people. (to slightly over simplify)

I guess this means an end to my self imposed strike on posing rational arguments

I think its easy to blame crime on poverty. I am from the ousted underclass, a generation of children growing up in a house hold of benefit claimers. As far as am concerned the crime stems from the results of being brought up void of discipline and respect. Crime can only be acclaimed to poverty in the sense that in the absense of aspirations and an outlined future, and as a result crime is rather amusing way to spend their time. unfortunetly its not so amusing. The privilaged do not commit as many crimes as they have far more to lose as a result. A life succombing to the needle or to the blade is as dragic, however the idea that it is purely a result of being part of the under privilaged is niave to say the least. Its the hand that wields the blade, and the mind that partakes in the dealing and smuggling of drugs, anti social behaviour is the result of disrespect to others around you. The out come of a growing population is always going to be rising crime. Blaim it on poverty if you wish, but your only Absconding the responsibility of the person commiting the crime

Originally Posted by Rick Maxwell

I think its easy to blame crime on poverty. I am from the ousted underclass, a generation of children growing up in a house hold of benefit claimers. As far as am concerned the crime stems from the results of being brought up void of discipline and respect. Crime can only be acclaimed to poverty in the sense that in the absense of aspirations and an outlined future, and as a result crime is rather amusing way to spend their time. unfortunetly its not so amusing. The privilaged do not commit as many crimes as they have far more to lose as a result. A life succombing to the needle or to the blade is as dragic, however the idea that it is purely a result of being part of the under privilaged is niave to say the least. Its the hand that wields the blade, and the mind that partakes in the dealing and smuggling of drugs, anti social behaviour is the result of disrespect to others around you. The out come of a growing population is always going to be rising crime. Blaim it on poverty if you wish, but your only Absconding the responsibility of the person commiting the crime

That is left-wing/Liberal ideology in a nutshell - blaming it on poverty; oh! he"s had a hard childhood, never had an ice cream, never had a bike, never had a holiday. THAT DOES NOT GIVE HIM THE RIGHT VANDALISE, RAPE, STEAL AND MURDER.

I agree, i do think there is no coincedence that crime is higher amongst the underclasses, but that may just purely be because there are more of them than the privilaged. The most alarming part of the crime issue are the levels of unreported crime, and that is the crime that affects people day in and day out.

oh and any advice to those wishing to commit any crimes, my advice would be go big, become prime minister or something, and get a really strange friend, erm call him alistair or something. Commit crimes against humanity and war crimes. you may just get invited onto a morning show to have a little chat with Fern Briton. Fingers Crossed.