manofstrad Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 we've been here before, m, and we couldn't agree last time. i still think it's the same. Fair enough Kaimani, It would be pretty boring if we all thought the same. What do you think to the engineering of the tags to pick up changes in mood and temper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 What do you think to the engineering of the tags to pick up changes in mood and temper? I think you're taking the ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Qualify by 3 years without work despite being shown many. Instant qualification if you start claiming and are a member of a workless household for over ten years. The ultimate penalty would be relocation to a council house that's the cheapest the state can find wherever it is. If you contribute nowt you don't need to keep living where you are. Vouchers alongside this that can only be exchanged for food. Luxuries come with a job. Alternatively forget tagging and make any 'jobseeker' who's been valiantly seeking for 3 years and somehow found nothing go straight to vouchers. As for sex offenders the tag would prove after the event yes but we are not at the stage yet of predicting crime like in that Tom Cruise film. Better than them floating around unchecked. Alternatively lock em up forever, in open prisons of course to please the muesli's but then cost is the problem. i think i might be one of the meuslis you speak of. but, like i always say, i'm left about a lot of things and right about others. back to the topic- i agree in principle with what you're saying. but punishing children for their parent's faults is unfair((instant qualification if you come from a household with 10 years no work)) the three year thing, if the jobs are there i agree, take them. vouchers have been proven over and over to make the situation worse as people so messed up as to end up on them usually have other problems. they don't have cash so exchange vouchers for whatever iit is they want. but vouchers don't have money value so they need, say £50 worth to buy something that'd be £25. they end up owing bad people money. more than they already do. you're right to want to change the system, but i think knee jerk reactions or 'morality' trips hardly ever work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Fair enough Kaimani, It would be pretty boring if we all thought the same. What do you think to the engineering of the tags to pick up changes in mood and temper? :hihi: if someone is a danger and we can prove they a danger then i say keep them locked up till they become otherwise or they become, well, dead. i think the tag you mean would cause more trouble than good. what happens if they get excited?? electric shock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofstrad Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 :hihi: if someone is a danger and we can prove they a danger then i say keep them locked up till they become otherwise or they become, well, dead. i think the tag you mean would cause more trouble than good. what happens if they get excited?? electric shock? :hihi: No, No I was thinking more of an alarm call to the Police when the subject's chemical balance became unstable to dangerous levels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofstrad Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 :hihi: if someone is a danger and we can prove they a danger then i say keep them locked up till they become otherwise or they become, well, dead. i think the tag you mean would cause more trouble than good. what happens if they get excited?? electric shock? I think that is the best idea of the lot, but it isn't happening is it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 snip<we are not at the stage yet of predicting crime > snip. . Actually we are very much advanced at predicting crime. The problem is we don't implement it, for all sorts of reasons. Certainly we can't see into the future as you've suggested, but all present means have failed. The system isn't designed to eradicate crime, it's designed to punish it, which in itself propagates it. If you read "A Mind to Crime", link supplied, you may find it informative. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-Crime-Anne-Moir/dp/0451196295 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Hmmm kind of a good idea in theory but in practise i'm not so sure besides being unemployed is not a crime. it might not be a crime but to some people on here being unemployed is worse than being a criminal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 it might not be a crime but to some people on here being unemployed is worse than being a criminal True, but, the OP isn't a 'real' person, just a rather weak comic persona. Don't sweat about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 :hihi: No, No I was thinking more of an alarm call to the Police when the subject's chemical balance became unstable to dangerous levels? Your understanding of biology and human beings is pitiful, and your idea is a nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.