UK: Put 'Shameless' Families in Military Re-Education Camps

The title of this post was not renamed to sensational but to more accurately define the article it refers to.

Tory crime tsar: Put 'Shameless' families through two years of boot camp hell

Media outlets and politicians like to rephrase things and use euphemisms but what they are talking about is basically the equivalent of a Chinese re-education camp. People who are not doing as the government wants could be re-educated in camps. They are judging people on what they expect them to do (bad things) and for what they are not doing (getting jobs and being responsible.)

While there is a probability that these "problem" families will cause additional issues and may indeed be a burden on society I have to wonder about the tactics be offered up as a solution. It seems ripe for abuse to me.

Feckless families should be put through ‘two years of hell’ in boot camps to turn their lives around, a crime tsar has urged.

Layabout parents – like the characters in hit TV show Shameless – would undergo an ‘intensive’ programme to keep them out of crime and unemployment, says Adam Simmonds, Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Northamptonshire.

He said derelict Army bases could be used to house them while they were taught basic household skills, ordered to stop drinking and smoking, and given basic job training.

Their children, meanwhile, would be educated properly. ‘You’ve got to break the cycle, tackle that poverty of ambition,’ Mr Simmonds told The Mail on Sunday.

- Disused Army bases would be redeveloped into housing for families
- They would be on intensive programme to stay out of crime and in work
- Northamptonshire PCC Adam Simmonds claims it will 'break the cycle'

Maybe it will "break the cycle" but one has to wonder just how slippery such a slope will become. Anyone think this is a good idea?

reply to post by Bassago


No, I don't think I'd put this at the top of my list of good ideas. But slippery slopes: Our modern collectivist governments loves 'em some slippery slopes—can't find one they don't love. Slippery slopes are how they get their way....

reply to post by Bassago


Ripe for abuse? How in the world can anyone think putting families in a camp to teach them how to behave is even remotely a good idea? How can you author a post about FEMA camps and not realize how bad this is? Are you ready to accept re-education camps as long as they're only for the "deadbeats?" Unbelievable!

I personally would like to see the chav scum rounded up and put in camps.

If they are are truly talking about the "shameless" types of folks, grandmas at 30 years old etc, bottle of pikey white cider crowd, I'm all for it.

I just have to take a walk up Annie pit, or over Northside, trawl around Westfield and it's obvious something should be done about the trash of our society.

reply to post by theantediluvian

Ripe for abuse? How in the world can anyone think putting families in a camp to teach them how to behave is even remotely a good idea? How can you author a post about FEMA camps and not realize how bad this is?

I author and post to inform and discuss issues.

The FEMA thread I did previously was satire. Lighten up a little maybe.

eta - I believe I was clear that the idea of camps might not be a good idea. If you need it clearer, FEMA type camps are a bad idea.

reply to post by Bassago


The idea is not bad - take those who tax the system and try to get them to input to the system.

To bad an idea is a long way from a plan, and a plan a long way from execution. Governments amd contractors rarely seem to score all the way through on this. Possible pitfalls:

1. If there is a profit to be made, highly probable that profit will come first regardless if the plan is being served or not.

2. What will the over sight look like on this? Who is the judge of a good family?

3. Almost the definition of a slippery slope here. Even if no laws are broken, off they go to camp.

4. Who pays for this? As if I have to ask. Better yet, if these folks are in there for any length of time, where do they go once they 'graduate'? They have no home, no job.

4a. If you have lazy folks to begin with, then give them a a house/meals/etc, what is the incentive to leave? Fine, yell at me, it's almost lunch time anyway.

reply to post by Bassago


When the media are controlled by the biased and the elite (which they most certainly are) how can you expect them to show the poor person suffering depression, unable or incapable to find a job and struggling just to eat with no heating or electricity sitting dirty blankets and eventually turning to shoplifting were there thin pale complexion has them catagorised rightly or wrongly as smack heads.
NO the media focuses on the few whom have a big house and 9 kids and lots more money than the average person paid for there children to support them, back when the government subsidised the factorys we had industry and plenty of jobs, we needed a workforce but now the rich elite just want to not pay any tax so they will find excuses to destroy the safety net that they themselves will never need.
There are scoundrels whom fiddle the system but that is down to poor accounting on the part of the departments paying these benefits more than anything else, remember how lain duncan schmidt claimed he could live on £56 pound a week but then refused to prove it.
That is because by and large the vast majority of out of work job seekers are recieving no more than £56 pound a week though many are recieving rent as well and to reduce how much they pay these people the government had decided to pay them the money as they used to and not there landlords giving these poor the choice between eat or pay the rent.

If these were good people in power they would instead focuse on house building and public works to maintain work and this would ensure our country (not the fat vile ridiculous international bankers in the city of london) would work and run smoothly, public works are necessary for the nation, also the foreign immigrants are not the boost they are trying to sell them as since there are litterally not enough jobs to go around and they are being employed over our people by unscrupulous employers.

God knows I could go on and debate this all day long.
The overall wealth of the country can easily go up but what good is that to the population if they recieve no share in it, the wealthy get wealthyer and the poor are being driven into the ground by these crooks.

S+F thanks for bringing this to our attention.

I don`t see anything wrong with this, the real problem might be that they will like the camps so much they won`t want to leave.
History has proven that free welfare with no strings attached just breeds more generations of welfare recipients.

reply to post by Tardacus


They are called workhoused or debters prisons and are a breach of international human rights laws, Anybody proposing these is in breech of those laws but Britain is a permanent member of the UN security council and remember it was us that brought those laws in but back then we were a better people, a chritian country and there are so many anti christian people her now it is sickening and god knows I hate them so yes I am temtped to turn to the dark side.

woogleuk
I personally would like to see the chav scum rounded up and put in camps.

If they are are truly talking about the "shameless" types of folks, grandmas at 30 years old etc, bottle of pikey white cider crowd, I'm all for it.

I just have to take a walk up Annie pit, or over Northside, trawl around Westfield and it's obvious something should be done about the trash of our society.

Adolf Hitler would shake your hand, good sir.

reply to post by Tardacus


From the article:

Feckless families should be put through ‘two years of hell’ in boot camps to turn their lives around, a crime tsar has urged.

Somehow I get the feeling that those sent to the camps are not going to like it much, let alone want to stay.

theantediluvian
reply to post by Bassago

 

Ripe for abuse? How in the world can anyone think putting families in a camp to teach them how to behave is even remotely a good idea? How can you author a post about FEMA camps and not realize how bad this is? Are you ready to accept re-education camps as long as they're only for the "deadbeats?" Unbelievable!

edit on 17-11-2013 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)

Agreed, I can't believe these stiff upper lip aristocrats think it is a good idea to imprison people for being poor. Why don't you just gas em and get it over with lol. That is what you want to do. Right.

Wow don't ever talk about us yanks again. Wow just wow.

The Bot

dlbott

theantediluvian
reply to post by Bassago

 

Ripe for abuse? How in the world can anyone think putting families in a camp to teach them how to behave is even remotely a good idea? How can you author a post about FEMA camps and not realize how bad this is? Are you ready to accept re-education camps as long as they're only for the "deadbeats?" Unbelievable!

edit on 17-11-2013 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)

Agreed, I can't believe these stiff upper lip aristocrats think it is a good idea to imprison people for being poor. Why don't you just gas em and get it over with lol. That is what you want to do. Right.

Wow don't ever talk about us yanks again. Wow just wow.

The Bot

How can there really be people in the western world who are ready to accept re-education camps for anyone? Who doesn't understand that putting people in camps is not at all compatible with concepts like liberty and freedom?

I've seen people misquote, misconstrue and misapply the following to the most petty things in recent months, typically when discussing something like PPACA penalities:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

-- Martin Niemöller

and yet none of these lovers of liberty, worshipers of the constitution are outraged by the mere idea of putting people in camps alone? This is the EXACT situation that quote refers to. This thread proves how effective the scapegoating of the poor by the right's propaganda has been.

Why waste resources on that when you can just put them all to death?

That's the 'slippery slope' that was mentioned. If someone isn't living the life you think they should live why allow them to live at all?

reply to post by theantediluvian

and yet none of these lovers of liberty, worshipers of the constitution are outraged by the mere idea of putting people in camps alone? This is the EXACT situation that quote refers to. This thread proves how effective the scapegoating of the poor by the right's propaganda has been.

How do you know we are not outraged? The whole idea of re-education camps is abhorrent to most of us. Bringing the issue and stories to light is one way of resisting TPTB. Every Google search that hits this topic may wake someone else up.

How is this thread proving most posters think camps are a good idea? Just because a couple posts were not up in arms or even supportive of the idea? Additionally this is not just a right-wing idea. This is a 1% elitist idea. The left-wing is just as culpable in this matter. In the US it was Obama who recently signed the NDAA into law. Welcome to the super camps.

Bassago
reply to post by theantediluvian

 

and yet none of these lovers of liberty, worshipers of the constitution are outraged by the mere idea of putting people in camps alone? This is the EXACT situation that quote refers to. This thread proves how effective the scapegoating of the poor by the right's propaganda has been.

How do you know we are not outraged? The whole idea of re-education camps is abhorrent to most of us. Bringing the issue and stories to light is one way of resisting TPTB. Every Google search that hits this topic may wake someone else up.

How is this thread proving most posters think camps are a good idea? Just because a couple posts were not up in arms or even supportive of the idea? Additionally this is not just a right-wing idea. This is a 1% elitist idea. The left-wing is just as culpable in this matter. In the US it was Obama who recently signed the NDAA into law. Welcome to the super camps.

Let's see:

While there is a probability that these "problem" families will cause additional issues and may indeed be a burden on society I have to wonder about the tactics be offered up as a solution. It seems ripe for abuse to me.

eta - I believe I was clear that the idea of camps might not be a good idea. If you need it clearer, FEMA type camps are a bad idea.

Why bother to pretend? *Might* not be a good idea? Does that not imply that it *might* also be a good idea?

I personally would like to see the chav scum rounded up and put in camps.

Feel the outrage!

The idea is not bad - take those who tax the system and try to get them to input to the system.

Truly, palpable outrage!

I don`t see anything wrong with this, the real problem might be that they will like the camps so much they won`t want to leave.
History has proven that free welfare with no strings attached just breeds more generations of welfare recipients.

It's obvious just how abhorrent everyone finds this. Out of 10 posters so far, 5 have been outraged, 2 are pretty ambivalent, and 3 were in favor.. The problem is that you seem to think that in premise it has merit put in practice it might be a slippery slope. Here's the newsflash: anyone who could even briefly consider this has already slipped.

As I've stated on numerous occasions, I'm often disappointed in the President's actions. He's threatened, hell promised to veto the NDAA unless it was amended and then ends up signing with a signing statement about how he's not going to use it. We could start another thread and argue whose fault it is that the Feinstein-Lee amendment was turned into mush. I personally put a lot of blame on McCain, but I don't think he wants to put people in camps so much as he's overzealous about fighting terrorism. I'm glad you're concerned about threats to your own civil liberties, I'm just of the opinion that you and many others are less concerned about those of the people you deem "a burden."

No I would fight that tooth and nail.

But (and there is always a but) what about a chose to participate?

Someone like myself for instance,I refuse to take government assistance, but I have a very LOW education.

Currently I'm not allowed to work, now this may change soon, but if not I'll be needing a skill set.

Easy to do for hard working guy like me, right?

No! For reasons I can't understand I can't bring myself to get an education.

I quit school at 14 to work on roofs, it was easier to me. I've gone several times to get a GED only to find myself making excuses to quit.

So,I say if I could sign up for a kick in the rear (you do this you agree you belong to us) by a boot camp style get it together boy! I believe I'd do it.

We should talk about this, keep an eye on how it's done, but some people really need an extra push in life.

reply to post by theantediluvian

It's obvious just how abhorrent everyone finds this. Out of 10 posters so far, 5 have been outraged, 2 are pretty ambivalent, and 3 were in favor.. Here's the newsflash: anyone who could even briefly consider this has already slipped.

Newsflash: People have different opinions, live with it. Maybe you should start that thread and only allow people who agree with you to post on it. This is a discussion thread if it offends you move along to something else.

I'm often disappointed in the President's actions.

Now there's an ambivalent statement, where's the outrage?

I personally put a lot of blame on McCain, but I don't think he wants to put people in camps so much as he's overzealous about fighting terrorism.

John McCain doesn't fight terrorism, he consorts with terrorists To me that makes him a terrorist.

I'm glad you're concerned about threats to your own civil liberties, I'm just of the opinion that you and many others are less concerned about those of the people you deem "a burden."

Actually I'm very concerned about civil liberties. My thread history will support that. So try to stick to the topic and quit the personal attacks.

reply to post by terriblyvexed


Thanks for this reply terriblyvexed, I find it a point of view no one has touched on yet. I think enforced military camp life is be a bit draconian though. I'd rather see programs available to any who need them to help you get those skills you require.

From the sound of it you've fended for yourself from a young age. You should have the opportunity to to advance yourself (without any camp.)

reply to post by Bassago


Well like I said make it a choice,I don't believe in government enforcing anything on you.

I was the only person I know who wasn't upset with the law about not allowing drop outs to get their license till they were 18, or got a GED.

Of course if it turns out I can't return to my previous career, that in it's self will be more than an incentive to do what needs to be done.

It wouldn't hurt for government to make it a little easier to get instructors to help you along, or at least the state.