After watching what was happening for a number of days, first in London and then in other English cities, I was amazed at what the young men (were there girls too?) were doing to property belonging to other people who had nothing to do which started the riots. I do not know the circumstances in which the 26-year-old man was killed, but I do believe that if the shooting was justified or not, it really is no reason to riot. If a riot started every time someone was killed, then why don’t they riot when a bystander or a robbery victim is killed.
They should help the police catch those that do wrong instead of rioting just to complain against the law. They do this, I think, because they have no regard for the law. And why don’t they have any regard for the law. It all starts at home. Point of fact; when they interviewed one of the rioters about why he was rioting, he said “Because I can.” Then they asked him if his parents knew that he was out rioting and he said, “Sure. They don’t care what I do.” This is one of the major reasons that there is so much violence with the young people. They do it because they can and none of their elders seem to care.
The title of this blog is an old saying that I learned as a boy from my elders in the city in which I lived. At first I didn’t really understand what was being said, but as I began to grow older and looked around, I began to deduce just what was meant by those words. It’s not that you have to beat your child, but there are times when punishment is in order. I know that there are a lot of people out there, including some parents who would disagree with me but that is what makes the world so different. We can differ with each other without having to go to blows. If a child does not stop when you say No!, just by threating to punish them, what do you do? I have seen too many parents who just keep saying no, no, no, no, no, no, and they keep on doing what they want because they know they will not be “punished”. So they grow up thinking they can do anything they want, because people only say NO. Punishment is a big joke.
What is happening is that all the parents are waiting for the authorities to control their children, as long as they don’t hurt them. The London police decided (a little late I think) that they needed to be more forceful. And what did the parents do? They complained because their little Johnny was being arrested for destroying property and stealing. Their little Johnny wouldn’t ever do anything wrong. Would he?
I am not advocating using a stick or belt or piece of wood or iron. I am against striking a child on the head or body, but sometimes they need to be lifted (a slight distance) from the floor by being spanked on their behind to let them know that YOU are the boss and not them. Maybe then there would be less violence in the streets if parents used better control over their children. That someone can call the police and have you arrested for controlling your child is beyond my scope of imagination.
I call the people who think so are a product of the Spock Syndrom. I am not talking about the Dr. Spock on the TV series Star Trek, but the Dr. Spock who wrote the book that said that you should not hit your child to control him. Hitting him or her would make a psychological impact on them where they would not be able to perform correctly in public. Dr. Spock later said, just before dying, that his book that he wrote was all wrong and that his idea about punishment was counter to good law and order.
Where do you stand on such an idea? Are you for or against punishment (slight) to children who misbehave and act like monsters in stores and on the street because they know their parents will not do anything. If they do, they (the child) can call the police and have his parents put in jail for child abuse. But who is supposed to punish the child if he kills another human being. His parents can’t. His guardians can’t. Only the law can and then the lawyers blame society for being the bogey man when they want to do justice.
I have heard in my travels that at one time anyone who robbed a store or another person with a weapon, was guilty of 1st degree murder. The reasoning was that if they went with the weapon they were ready to kill someone to get what they wanted. Ergo: 1st degree murder. Maybe we are getting too soft with criminals in thinking about their civil rights, but what did the criminal do with the victims civil rights? And what does the court think about it? Couldn’t they at least protect the victim and his civil rights?
Please, please let me know what you think and maybe we could start something to change the way in which the law thinks about victims. Lee Stone.
- Why UK riots are not like the Arab Spring (lebanonspring.com)
- Spock at 65: Five Ideas That Changed Parenting (healthland.time.com)
- Example of bad parenting – UK riots (brainguff.wordpress.com)
- In response: Riots in England (talesfromscotland.wordpress.com)
- Riots (jimdew.wordpress.com)
- London calm as week-long rioting ebbs; 1200 arrested – CTV.ca (news.google.com)
- London Riots – Police, where art thou? (madrambler.wordpress.com)
- Riot suspects fill weekend courts (bbc.co.uk)
- Who Is Responsible for Raising Our Children (vineandbranchworldministries.com)
- Bkit mahalagang pag aralan ang kasaysayan (wiki.answers.com)