Debate on The Socially Deviant.

[Bald Rick]

I'll carry on the debate about the socially deviant and what we should do with them that I started in the cheese bin here.
So, what should we do to the pathalogically violent, the paedophiles, and the
like? Should we execute them and harvest their body organs and parts as I
suggested, or just leave them in nice, cushy prisons at the taxpayer's
expense because it allows us to call our society 'civilised?'

[piemastermike]

hang on, why did you single out paedophiles from any other kind of criminal? What is wrong with rapists and murderers and why don't they get a mention?

[Bald Rick]

Oh sorry. i meant them,too.

[piemastermike]

do you frequent youtube at all?

I'd also just like to point out this post from Mr. Rick to anyone that hasn't seen it

I meant the minority that beat to death a boy becasue he walked into their estate, the minority who stone the emergency services who put out the fires
they start, I meant the minority who hit anyone who they don't like the look of simply because they know they won't be convicted because there's no witnesses or police around to arrest them, I meant the degenerates who
lurk in parks and jump on young children and outrage them, or pretend to be
normal human beings during the day while at night they rape their terrifierd children. Everybody chooses to do what they do. 'Socio-economic factors' are
a typical liberal counter-reaction If you choose to be evil, and hurt others
in society simply because you think you can get away with it, then you deserve to DIE because you're holding back the good who will inherit the earth.
Now, please reply - anyone.?

It feels like a blind stumble through the darkness of socio-economic politics and sociology while shouting random things about people you have read about in the Daily Mail (yup, just getting that reference out of the way quickly).

[Bald Rick]

why do you ask that?

[Splush]

One thing about this topic that always bothers me is that people will generally readily agree that paedophiles (for example) are insane - that their compulsion to commit their crimes is founded on an ill mind - but the same people will often go on to wish the harshest punishments upon them. It seems to me that if somebody is mentally ill it's help they need, not angry punishment. Clearly you have to keep somebody with an uncontrollable paedophilic mind away from potential victims, but it seems like a secure mental ward would be much more appropriate than locking them away with, er, mainstream criminals, not to mention executing them.

[Ham]

surey if you punish them in unthinkable ways or what not then you would be just as bad as them and deserve the same.
Alot of peadophiles are put into mental institutions so they have sufficient help and supervision. Same as suicidal etc, maximum secure unit.

[piemastermike]

That's a very good point splush. It's the same with a lot of criminals like murderers and the like, they have usually had some kind of massive trauma in their life or were just born ill so end up one way or another with a screw seriously mangled, cross threaded and loose. Although the political right think execution and locking up is the answer, isn't it a better idea to try and help people instead? I mean how would you like it if you were born like that and couldn't help it? (just being the devil's advocate to an extent here)

[Bald Rick]

One thing about this topic that always bothers me is that people will generally readily agree that paedophiles (for example) are insane - that their compulsion to commit their crimes is founded on an ill mind - but the same people will often go on to wish the harshest punishments upon them. It seems to me that if somebody is mentally ill it's help they need, not angry punishment. Clearly you have to keep somebody with an uncontrollable paedophilic mind away from potential victims, but it seems like a secure mental ward would be much more appropriate than locking them away with, er, mainstream criminals, not to mention executing them.


This reads like a manifesto for the Liberal Democrats. Paedophilia is about
as curable as homosexuality or a preference for pink. These people want to
have sex with children, and do so with no idea how that causes trauma
for the poor child they molest. They need to be executed to prevent them
commiting crimes.

[argh]

Counselling should be mandatory in schools. The vast majority of children won't have something wrong with them, thats fine, but it's too weed out the children with problems and get them help before they become something horrible. It'd help kids who only harm themselves too, helping the teen anorexics, bulimics and depressed.

Aww shit....I think I plussed that last post by accident.

[piemastermike]

This reads like a manifesto for the Liberal Democrats. Paedophilia is about
as curable as homosexuality or a preference for pink. These people want to
have sex with children, and do so with no idea how that causes trauma
for the poor child they molest. They need to be executed to prevent them
commiting crimes.

or, you could see it from the other point of view which is that they have a mental illness.

Killing them is as bad as killing someone with downs syndrome just because they are ill. Actually, I bet you are mildly autistic (most people are to an extent) so i'm going to kill you for being mentally handicapped.

[Bald Rick]

Actually, I bet you are mildly autistic (most people are to an extent) so i'm going to kill you for being mentally handicapped.

I'm autistic? What on earth gave you that idea?

[Splush]

Can you back up the claim that it's incurable? I don't know either way, but it seems likely that there's at least some proportion of child abusers who could learn to resist their impulses with psychiatric help.

And whether it's curable or not, it doesn't affect the immorality of punishing people for being ill. And if, as you say, they're doing so with no concept of the trauma experienced by their victims then they're technically psychopaths and therefore very, very ill indeed. I suspect most child molesters do understand the trauma, though.

[Bald Rick]

Counselling should be mandatory in schools. The vast majority of children won't have something wrong with them, thats fine, but it's too weed out the children with problems and get them help before they become something horrible. It'd help kids who only harm themselves too, helping the teen anorexics, bulimics and depressed.

Aww shit....I think I plussed that last post by accident.

I compared paedophilia to homosexuality because essentially they are conditions of the nervous system and how certain nerve cells interact with
certain parts of the brain. A sexual image of a man would be evaluated in a
homosexual brain differently than it would be in a heterosexual brain.
Likewise, a paedophile's brain would be wired to find a child sexually attractive.
And execution wouldn't neccesarily be a punishment, rather a means to prevent a crime taking place.

[The Visioneer]

Bald Rick, it could be argued that you are openly advocating the murder of anyone who doesn't conform to a set of standards that you have decided. I could say that, perhaps, you are as bad as the people you want to "punish".

EDIT - I could also say, although perhaps more extremely, that you sound a bit like Hitler...

[piemastermike]

gays have different brains to straight people? You truly are a bigot.

[Ham]

Most peadophiles and sexual abusers have had some major event when growing up which effects the rest of their behavior and lives. When you are young, you learn by the others around you and if someone is doing something bad, you don't learn how to treat other people properly and what is right and what is wrong. People should not be executed becuase someone else has fucked up their lives. I'm not saying what they have done isnt wrong, but they should be helped to understand how things effect other peoples lives.

[argh]

The reactions in their brain to sexual pictures of males and females differ.

Same with pedophiles, but since not everyone with pedophiac impulses with molest children, why should they be executed, before a crime may I add. Should they just be pointed in the way of a midget hooker who likes to dress in childrens clothes?

Every event that happens to you changes and molds you. Even if you don't realise it. Theres also a difference between pedophiles who go after children and ones who like the barely legal, some times before the deadline crew.

[Splush]

gays have different brains to straight people? You truly are a bigot.
To be fair, I was under the impression that this is generally taken as a scientific fact? I don't think it's an inherently bigoted assertion because difference doesn't inherently mean superiority or inferiority.

Although suggesting that people born with abnormal brains should be executed and removed from the genepool has the distinct Hitlery wiff of eugenics about it.

[The Visioneer]

Actually, there is an arguement that homosexuality is a memetic trait, not genetic abnormality; however, I feel that is for another debate...

[piemastermike]

Oh, I thought he was saying that homosexuals have somehow "different" brains other than the sexuality sense.

[Splush]

Well, there's evidence to support the idea that homosexual brains are also different in ways seemingly unrelated to sexuality, like this (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10900997?dopt=Abstract) for example. Interestingly it seems like when these differences are found the result tends to be that homosexual brains are more capable than heterosexual brains at these tasks, so anybody scouring such studies for evidence to support the pathologisation of homosexuality will presumably be disappointed.

[faragher]

Back on topic(ish)

I'm pretty sure that most paedophilia is not mental illness, nor is it the result of any significant difference in your brain, it is just the misfiring of sexual attraction combined with a lack of control. (Please note that I am not excusing this behaviour in any way at all!). Most people, at some point in their lives, will have been attracted to someone who is legally a child - unless your sexual urges suddenly switched on the day you turned 16...

Paedophilia is pretty much a cultural construction anyway - if you are sexually attracted to a 15 year old you are a pervert. 16? No worries!

Having said that, those that have committed crimes against children do need to be dealt with, but there is no way that I can condone the use of capital punishment in any situation - state sanctioned murder is as sick as any crime.

Paedophiles need treatment where possible, and where this does not help, permanent incarceration.

[T3-X]

Paedophilia is pretty much a cultural construction anyway Before anyone else comes jumping in and pointing fingers, I believe what he is referring to is the splitting of hairs in today's society. How a youth can pursue someone of equal mental and sexual competence and get reprisal for crossing an intangible and inaccurate age gap. What he is not condoning is the mistreatment of a child that is ignorant and unprepared to fend off someone physically and sexually developed, let alone participate in a sexual act of any kind.

Back on topic(ish)

Back on topic(ish)

I'm pretty sure that most paedophilia is not mental illness, nor is it the result of any significant difference in your brain, it is just the misfiring of sexual attraction combined with a lack of control.

You say this without understanding how immensely complex the brain is, how hard it is to lay down boundaries. Or how hard it is to say something is part of the brain and something is part of the mind.

What if the sexual attraction of a paedophile was caused from a childhood crush? Hard to believe, but the idyllic, innocent blonde he never got to kiss grade school could have brooded. The attraction, innocent itself at that age, could have been skewed and torn from a mentally abusive mother, compounded with a friendless existence.

The girl he sat behind in fourth grade may now be the girl he sees sitting on a swing across the playground, blonde as ever and equally as innocent. Surely, the way his brain functions compared to mine would be astonishing. He would have subconsciously oppressed any attraction to a more suitable partner, from countless letdowns and unreturned love letters. He held this image of the girl somewhere deep in the back of his mind, back where even he himself couldn't see it, letting the plateau she stood on get higher and higher.

Eventually, through years and years of subtle destruction of boundaries, the monster that he, as well as culture, raised in the corner of his mind would escape. The monster with blonde hair and dimpled cheeks. It would manifest itself as hardly 'voluntary' sexual impulses and a conceived right to act on that impulse.

To all of us, even the man in question, this will seem more like a choice he made himself. But he only chose to unleash the creature, if he hadn't, it would destroy him. He built his entire mind around the plateau the innocent blonde was raised on, and now, if that came crashing down, everything else would, too.

You'd see a man, not one capable of functioning as a normal member of society, like he earnestly was, on the surface. This had his life questions revolve around the blonde, all of his questions and ambitions and habits quietly passed through her, quietly and discreetly leaving her mark on everything that he built himself to be. How could a man like that survive if he saw the monster behind the mask? To know all his actions and directives were controlled by an inhuman aberration. An aberration that was part of him?

Of course he doesn't see what has been pushing him all these years. Of course it would appear to everyone as a voluntary act. After lying to himself all the years, after believing the choice made was his alone. After so much dependence on the lie, would it be possible to tear it down? Would it be possible for him to kill the monster and remain intact?
Would you be able to?

[maxxy_p]

I compared paedophilia to homosexuality because essentially they are conditions of the nervous system and how certain nerve cells interact with certain parts of the brain.Mate, brains change. Paedophiles aren't just robots. They are able to sort their lives out. We could help them by offering treatment.

And execution wouldn't neccesarily be a punishment, rather a means to prevent a crime taking place.Well, execution is pretty much necessarily a punishment. And why would locking them up in a mental hospital or prison not prevent these crimes?

[Gravastars]

Most peadophiles and sexual abusers have had some major event when growing up which effects the rest of their behavior and lives.

I'm not sure why people always jump to this conclusion.

On a related note, the term "pedophile/paedophile" is synonymous to 'child molestation' as heterosexual is synonymous to 'run-of-the-mill rapist'. I always wince at the unproffesionalism displayed when news reporters use the term 'pedophile' for someone who has attacked or molested a child.

The same goes for anyone who associates pedophillia with being infatuated with someone, anyone below the legal age.

Pedophillia = sexual attraction towards children because they are children.

EDIT:
This reads like a manifesto for the Liberal Democrats. Paedophilia is about
as curable as homosexuality or a preference for pink. These people want to
have sex with children, and do so with no idea how that causes trauma
for the poor child they molest. They need to be executed to prevent them
commiting crimes.

Wow, I love the way you are so esoterical about the way of the pedophile. You truly just know what you are talking about.

I guess you're right though- ALL PEDOPHILES WILL HAVE SEX WITH CHILDREN GIVEN HALF THE CHANCE.

[piemastermike]

paedophile

noun
an adult who is sexually attracted to children

Sexually attracted to children, doesn't mean they actually molest them.

[faragher]

You say this without understanding how immensely complex the brain is, how hard it is to lay down boundaries. Or how hard it is to say something is part of the brain and something is part of the mind.
Yeah, lets not go presuming that I don't have knowledge in this area eh?

All I was saying is that I am not convinced that brain chemistry/structure is necessarily different in paedophiles to non-p's. I'm pretty sure that you can't do a brain scan and go "yep - paedo!". There may be commonalties between the brains of those who do commit these crimes, but we need to be careful when we blame something on a "faulty" brain, just as we need to be careful when we blame something on a "faulty" society.

/edit

and I reckon you are overdoing it on the how someone might become a paedophile idea - I would say that the main reason is that certain things attract many people: Youth, innocence, power. All of these are pretty much straigtforward genetic things (probably) - young person has more time for making babies, innocent person is less likely to already be pregnant by a rival, having power over someone is good because they are less likely to run off with a rival.

In most people, these urges are kept in check by the magic of social values - its not acceptable to have sex (or openly state that you want to have sex) with a 12 year old - though this is culturally specific, it is acceptable in some cultures. In some people, these urges backfire (finding children sexually desirable - though I'm pretty sure that this is more to do with power than anything), and the desire to conform to social values not being as strong as those other desires.

Again, I'm really not trying to excuse these behaviours - where child abuse is concerned, I am far from liberal in my outlook - but I do think that we tend to make it more complex than it actually is

[Darkscull]

considering that Mr. hairless richard's friend kratzenbourg has said that he's gay, but doesn't like it and so is living in celibacy (i don't know whether that's actually true though), I think it a bit odd that said Mr. hairless richard is advocating the killing of paedophile's because of who they are, rather than what they do.

[Bald Rick]

considering that Mr. hairless richard's friend kratzenbourg has said that he's gay, but doesn't like it and so is living in celibacy (i don't know whether that's actually true though), I think it a bit odd that said Mr. hairless richard is advocating the killing of paedophile's because of who they are, rather than what they do.

Kratzenbourg is my brother. Honest.

[Scrumpopolis]

I think some clarification of "socially deviant" is needed first. Who are you in favour of recycling Bald Rick?

Paedophiles?
Rapists?
Murderers?
Armed robbers?
Thieves?
People who commit assault?
That fellow who works in the chippy who is always giving you funny looks?

Or will you just decide on a case by case basis?

[Erskien_Parkour]

So Bald Rick sounds pretty much like Hitler right now.

Did anyone else think of Thought Police and 1984 in this thread?

Mr Rick seems to be under the impression we can kill paedos before they commit a crime, you want them to fill out a ticky box form or something?
"Are you planning to molest children in the future? Tick one box only"

[Bald Rick]

I meant of course paedophiles who have commited a crime. Let's not forget
Roy Whitting who murdered Sara Payne was previously convicted of the outrage of a nine-year-old girl. If the penalty for that disgusting act had been execution, a girl would be alive today.

[woody_tng]

What would happen if the person was later found to be innocent. The justice system gets it wrong from time to time. Rather puts a crimp on your right of appeal.

[Youlikeyams?]

Consider The Birmingham Six (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six). They were imprisoned for 16 years and then had their convictions quashed. What if the sentence had been death for the Birmingham pub bombings then 16 years on the government said "whoops, sorry, turns out they didn't actually do it"? Bit too late to undo stuff then, eh?

is it wrong i'm biased against him because he's related to kratzenbourg?

[gembird]

I meant of course paedophiles who have commited a crime. Let's not forget
Roy Whitting who murdered Sara Payne was previously convicted of the outrage of a nine-year-old girl.

Outrage? I'm not entirely sure I know what you mean by that in that context. Wrong word maybe?

Also, you say there that you mean paedophiles who have already committed a crime, but elsewhere you have said
They need to be executed to prevent them
commiting crimes.
so you've pretty much contradicted yourself there. Which is it?

I think the death penalty is wrong anyway (see relevant thread) so I was never going to agree with you, but at least make surte you know what you're talking about.

[LeoZ]

Let's not forget
Roy Whitting who murdered Sara Payne was previously convicted of the outrage of a blah blah blah

wtf is an outrage?

[Darkscull]

wtf is an outrage?

I think it means "Crime, but i'm not satisfied with 'crime', i want a word that expresses how truly more disgusted i am about this than anyone else" in DailyMailese.

it's normally used in a rightwing context. often shortly before the speaker is found out to have committed similar crimes (e.g. quite a few tories recently called up on the same donation related antics that they were 'outraged' at labour for).

i'm not implying that anyone who uses the term to describe a crime (or just something they don't like) is guilty of that same crime, just that the reason they use it is that they think if they don't, people might think it was them.

the effect it has is to make people think that they are somehow involved, which is what determined it's main usage listed above.

[The Visioneer]

Also, if you really are Kratz's brother, I would love to meet your parents and see what your upbringing has been like, because despite what you think, we are the product of our upbringing. I find it hard to believe that yours AND your brother's brains are hard-wired with such extreme views

[Youlikeyams?]

wtf is an outrage?

This thread.
Or whatever the Daily Mail has picked this week.
(sorry meik, had to be done again)

[maxxy_p]

Let's not forgetRoy Whitting who murdered Sara Payne was previously convicted of the outrage of a nine-year-old girl. If the penalty for that disgusting act had been execution, a girl would be alive today.If the penalty had been life and he'd stayed in prison or a mental hospital, it wouldn't have happened either. Why kill people instead of restrain them?

[Smartie]

If the penalty had been life and he'd stayed in prison or a mental hospital, it wouldn't have happened either. Why kill people instead of restrain them?

Unfortunately there is neither enough money, nor space to house people indefinately/ for life.
This is where the system fails.
Life should mean life and it doesn't, so people offend, are sentenced, get out in a ridiculously short time to reoffend. Life can be something as short as 8 years I think, which is just stupid.

I don't know how many new prisons have opened in the last say 10 years, but as the population increases, surely provision to house criminals needs to be increased.
As scientific advances mean we are able to catch more criminals, we need more places to put them, but there's no budget for this, and then criminals try to sue for being mistreated or because something infringes their 'human rights' (which quite frankly they should lose all 'rights' to anything whilst in prison), meaning even less money is available!

[Smokey]

May I just point out that many people who have committed sex offences against children have served their time and not reoffended. Whether they still have urges will be unknown but if they don't reoffend they have reformed. Obviously some people will commit new offences but it is unfair to punish the majority because of the actions of a few.

[Pie hunter D]

May I just point out that many people who have committed sex offences against children have served their time and not reoffended. Whether they still have urges will be unknown but if they don't reoffend they have reformed. Obviously some people will commit new offences but it is unfair to punish the majority because of the actions of a few.

True. There's also 'chemical castration' too. No they don't pour acid on your nob :rolleyes: You take pills to dampen your libido.

[ziggystardust]

What really pisses me off about the Right's arguments against paedophiles, murderers, rapists, etc., is that they use the terms like "paedohile" and "criminal" as if referring to a definite social group, as if anyone who commits a crime is a member of a club. The fact is that our society has made so many acts into "crimes" that any one of us could become a "criminal" at any time.

As to those people that we refer to as paedophiles, they are not squinty-eyed comic book villains sitting in their secret lairs and plotting their next molestation. They are people, just like everyone else, who just happen to have a sexual fetish that is frowned upon by our society. Yes, some may be genuinely mentally ill, but that doesn't make them evil.

If paedophilia is something that we as a society want to deal with, then surely we have to change the way we view the problem. Ever heard of self-fulling prophecy, Mr. Rick? If someone with paedophillic thoughts is constantly told by their peers and the media that they are a monster, then it is possible that they will see this as true, and begin to conform to their newfound label.

Instead, as many people have already said, if we want to deal with paedophilia, we need to help those labelled as paedophiles. Perhaps we could also do something about our view of the "child" as well? It's not easy to conform to Mr. Rick's bigotted viewpoint when 6 year olds are wearing short skirts and make-up.

[Splush]

Unfortunately there is neither enough money, nor space to house people indefinately/ for life.
This is where the system fails.
Life should mean life and it doesn't, so people offend, are sentenced, get out in a ridiculously short time to reoffend. Life can be something as short as 8 years I think, which is just stupid.
I bet they could clear up a lot of space by not imprisoning people who don't present a direct danger to the public, like non-violent drug offences, copyright violation, white-collar crime, first-time petty thieves and such. I tend to feel that prisons should foremost exist to keep the public safe from dangerous people, rather than for retribution. I don't know much about the prison population but I suspect a lot of people could be dealt with by means-tested fines, community service and such, which would save/make us money rather than wasting it, and presumably increase those peoples' chances of rehabilitation.

[gembird]

I'm probably going to get a bit of hassle for this, but when it comes to petty crime I think that the ITV programme Bad Lad's Army is along the right lines. I'm not saying that they should send young guys off to be part of a pretend 1950s army, but I think some military service would help in some cases. A lot of young lads on that programme found that it was finally something they were good at, and it gave them a routine and possibly a career if they decided to join the army for real afterwards- which a fair few did. Plus, as Splush said, people who've committed non-violent crimes generally aren't a danger to the rest of us, so some sort of rehabilitation is a good idea. Better some of the thieves etc are doing something that's useful (to the public and/or for their own future) than taking up space and money that could be better spent elsewhere- perhaps on better security around those who need to be imprisoned.

[Smokey]

I definately agree that more alternatives to incarciration need to be found for people who pose no threat to society. However, with any change to a system a line needs to be drawn somewhere. How much would one have to steal from a company or via cons before they were sent to prison?

[Smartie]

I'm probably going to get a bit of hassle for this, but when it comes to petty crime I think that the ITV programme Bad Lad's Army is along the right lines. I'm not saying that they should send young guys off to be part of a pretend 1950s army, but I think some military service would help in some cases. A lot of young lads on that programme found that it was finally something they were good at, and it gave them a routine and possibly a career if they decided to join the army for real afterwards- which a fair few did. .

I wholeheartedly agree, however I rather think national service should once again be compulsory (as I've said before).
It's still compulsory in many countries and can serve only to install a sense of discipline and pride into the wayward youth. [/offtopic]

[bionic sheep]

Compulsory National Service is a terrible, terrible idea.

I can get behind the idea of community service, perhaps, and possibly voluntary military service instead of a prison sentence would be a good idea, but I don't think that compulsory military service is a good idea at all.

[Splush]

I'm very sceptical about national service. It could instil a sense of discipline and pride, but it could also indoctrinate people into a culture of bullying and subjugation. It seems that people often find it hard to adjust to ordinary life once they leave the army, and have trouble living an autonomous life without regulations to tell them what to do, which is reminiscent of the effects of prison.

If the army turns people into disciplined, upstanding members of society then why do squaddies have such a bad reputation for starting trouble in public?

[gembird]

possibly voluntary military service instead of a prison sentence would be a good idea

Yeah, this is more what I was getting at. If someone is the type of person who would do well in the army, it's a good choice rather than being a repeat offender. I would go a little further and say that sometimes they shouldn't have the choice on a first offence, but should go and do some military training for a short period of time- I'm not saying years. I feel that people aren't always making the best decisions for themselves anyway, or why would they be in trouble with the law?

I don't agree with compulsory national service for everyone though, there are far too many people who wouldn't enjoy it (for want of a better word). I know a lot of my friends wouldn't want to do it as they a)wouldn't want to cut their hair, b)believe in pacifism or c)are geeky types who don't have the right personality to get through it.

[Cjw]

Personally I think the type who are likely to be violent teenagers would thrive in National Service, whilst the social outcast type would just end up being bullied by everyone-whilst they could be out getting qualifications or a job instead.

I'm not a fan of the "shout at someone till they obey" method and I just don't think everyone is cut out for the army. Me personally, I'd much rather be looking after old people or doing some other form of compulsory community service.

[Mittwoch]

Can I just backtrack a little and say that (as far as I understand) paedophilia is the attraction to prepubescent children - and ephebophilia is an attraction to pubescent children. So, technically, being attracted to teenagers is ephebophilia regardless of the age of consent. But paedophilia is (at least in my eyes, and I hope people can understand) far less acceptable since the targets are of an age where they don't know what sex is and don't have such desires.

Let's treat it as on par with other paraphilias - like foot fetishes, s&m, things like that. Obviously it is a far more damaging one when practised, I'm not denying that it's pretty beastly. In fact, it would be better to compare it with paraphilias that practisers of are often defined as 'wrong' but can be consented to - piss fetishes, coprophilia etc. What sets paedophilia apart is that it really cannot be practised between two consenting partners (ignoring age of consent here), because the children are too young to understand what's going on.

It is unreasonable to presume that a paedophile would feel no guilt for molesting a child or even thinking or fantasizing about it - I doubt coprophiliacs would rave on about what turns them on, either. This suggests there is a road to recovery, as, even if it is just from society's pressures, sexual deviants will probably feel at some entirely sober moment that perhaps what they're doing is wrong. Obviously paedophiles should be prevented from molesting children, but I think it would be wrong to play upon this moment of sense and indoctrine them with 'paedophilia is wrong' - like cjw said, I'm not a fan of 'shout at someone until they obey'. I think it would be more constructive to offer them help, and I think we'd be surprised at how many people take it. There are many stories of heroin addicts turning their life around (though I realise that's a different case, I'm just trying to make some sort of understandable anaology), so why should paedophiles not be offered the same amount of help if they're willing to change?

It may also be noted that some people just care for children and enjoy their company, and don't have any sexual desires towards them. A bit weird, I know, but it's not unheard of and I think people are very quick off the mark to see somebody interacting with a child they 'shouldn't be' and fling accusations.

[Splush]

A hippy friend of mine in university used to go on about how we should make everybody spend a year after school in something like the peace corps, going around the world helping out in places with problems, and seeing the rest of the world in a positive context rather than the context of being ordered to shoot people. I'm still not a fan of any compulsory service like that, but it's definitely a more appealing idea than the military service, to me. It would have all the benefits in terms of instilling discipline and pride, but without the negatives of the aggressive, jingoistic cultural context.

[gembird]

A hippy friend of mine in university used to go on about how we should make everybody spend a year after school in something like the peace corps, going around the world helping out in places with problems, and seeing the rest of the world in a positive context rather than the context of being ordered to shoot people. I'm still not a fan of any compulsory service like that, but it's definitely a more appealing idea than the military service, to me. It would have all the benefits in terms of instilling discipline and pride, but without the negatives of the aggressive, jingoistic cultural context.

That's a very good idea actually. Obviously not the compulsory part, but perhaps everyone should be encouraged to do some sort of service of their choice? You get the older generation being happy because they feel the young people are doing something, and there's a choice so that people can choose to help out, to defend or whatever they want. I think perhaps if people intend to go to uni they should wait until afterwards though, as some people never go back.

[Darkscull]

I've just had an idea.

A lot of the problems that young people have faced in recent generations haven't really been present in earlier times.
I mean, whether it was a good or bad thing overall, there used to be certain paths that you could go down in life. proper careers/vocations, academia, etc. obviously there were chances to get out of that sort of thing and do something that you define yourself a bit more (music, for example), but otherwise there were pretty clear paths you could go down, and you would know what you were doing, and what you needed to do and such.

Nowadays, due to the (supposed) dissolution of the class system, and the fact that anyone can pretty much do anything, a lot of people are paralysed with choice (many people don't have anything in particular that they want to do with their lives, especially not at the age where you have to start working towards that), or are just a bit complacent (which our school system tends to do to you) and think it'll all sort itself out.
There is very little effective guidance and education about what to do after school (it all consists of emphasising the fact that "you can do anything!", which tells you nothing).

Obviously, some people do well with the way it is now, but those sorts of people will do well whatever the system's like, however there are obviously many people who don't do well with the way it is now.

I'm not suggesting going back to what it used to be like ('cos although there were many paths to go down, your choices were limited depending where you were starting from), but maybe there's something we can take from that.

people talking about compulsory (or not) military service, or compulsory (or not) time in the peace corps made me think that it might be good to have several such schemes set up, and people get to choose which they will take (if any).
It will give modern-day careers services (like connexions *spits*) something to do. The various keyskills gained from each path could be mapped out, as well as where that could lead you afterwards. So people could look through various options, or decide to go straight into 'the world of work', or whatever (emphasis on it being the individuals choice, and the alternatives would be necessary, of course).

examples would be: military service, volunteering abroad (or locally, but still organised), higher education (degrees), vocational courses/apprenticeships (teaching you a trade sort of thing), etc. (or, of course, just leaving to get a job and seeing what happens).

I hope i've explained that well enough.

what do people think?

edit: I've just realised gembird actually said the beginnings of this idea, i've just expanded on it

[gembird]

I think you and I could rule the world. At least, until I got powerhungry and became a dictator.

I like what you said though, that was what I was thinking of but I hadn't thought about it enough to come up with that sort of detail.

[Pie hunter D]

I'm probably going to get a bit of hassle for this, but when it comes to petty crime I think that the ITV programme Bad Lad's Army is along the right lines. I'm not saying that they should send young guys off to be part of a pretend 1950s army, but I think some military service would help in some cases. A lot of young lads on that programme found that it was finally something they were good at, and it gave them a routine and possibly a career if they decided to join the army for real afterwards- which a fair few did. Plus, as Splush said, people who've committed non-violent crimes generally aren't a danger to the rest of us, so some sort of rehabilitation is a good idea. Better some of the thieves etc are doing something that's useful (to the public and/or for their own future) than taking up space and money that could be better spent elsewhere- perhaps on better security around those who need to be imprisoned.

Agreed!
Iv'e been saying this for a while actually since the whole bad lads army deal! The military doues instill a lot of values. Skoo, you said you were woried about bullying etc, and this does happen in the military, but there is a zero tolerance policy. If theres a suspicion or confirmed case of anything untowards the full weight comes down on that person and it's not pretty!
I've actually seen CO's personally beat the shit out of bullying offenders than send them to the brig! Having gone through the whole army deal I have to admit, even though I was brought up Mil I learned a lot more respect and moral when I was in there! I was always a good kid too!
That might be slightly biast but i've seen it work and I stand by it.

[McStabby]

Gladiator battles.

[maxxy_p]

If the army turns people into disciplined, upstanding members of society then why do squaddies have such a bad reputation for starting trouble in public?These guys have volunteered. It might not be what the army does to you, but who joins it in the first place.

It may also be noted that some people just care for children and enjoy their company, and don't have any sexual desires towards them. A bit weird, I know.This isn't weird. Don't teachers choose their career because they like children? Don't most people care for children? Doesn't everyone enjoy seeing children having fun? Hasn't the instinct to care for children been ingrained in each and every one of us over millions of years of evolution? What?

[Darkscull]

This isn't weird. Don't teachers choose their career because they like children? Don't most people care for children? Doesn't everyone enjoy seeing children having fun? Hasn't the instinct to care for children been ingrained in each and every one of us over millions of years of evolution? What?

kind of offtopic, but I actually lol'd at that.

I hope you're taking the mick, or were you home schooled or something?

[Broche]

If the army turns people into disciplined, upstanding members of society then why do squaddies have such a bad reputation for starting trouble in public?


This is very true. You do have to remember that the army teaches people to kill. You can't expect someone who has gone through years of strict military learning, been sent to war and killed to be able to rejoin the rest of society easily. Many ex-soldiers do have a lot of problems fitting back into society, so I can't see national service helping people who already are having those problems.

[gembird]

To be fair, I wouldn't say a full two years of military service, including the possibility of getting sent abroad to be shot, was a good idea for someone who got caught stealing. I know that wasn't aimed at me, but I thought I should point out that I'm not for encouraging people to kill, just instilling some discipline and awareness of rules into people.

[maxxy_p]

kind of offtopic, but I actually lol'd at that.

I hope you're taking the mick, or were you home schooled or something?No. I'm serious. You get grumpy teachers, and teachers acting like dickheads, and some who are disillusioned with the system, sure, but I'm equally sure that the majority of teachers fundamentally chose to work in schools because they like children. It's not like they're all on some massive power trip. Look back at your teachers and you realise they were mainly trying to help you.

[GorillaBearBear]

They might become teachers out of a love of their chosen subject rather than a love of children. I'm pretty sure that's why my sister-in-law chose it as a career and that's why I want to do it. I don't have any feelings either way about the students, I just a) want to make them like the subject as much as I do and b) have a job where I can keep doing what I love. But yeah, I don't think anyone would bother becoming a teacher if they actually passionately hated kids. Also, I guess primary school teachers are definitely more in it because they like kids. Probably.

On the subject at hand: I say we just reopen the workhouses. Why the fuck was King's Bench closed anyway!?

[Darkscull]

No. I'm serious. You get grumpy teachers, and teachers acting like dickheads, and some who are disillusioned with the system, sure, but I'm equally sure that the majority of teachers fundamentally chose to work in schools because they like children. It's not like they're all on some massive power trip. Look back at your teachers and you realise they were mainly trying to help you.

I can safely say that I know/knew, and know of many teachers who approach teaching as a job, nothing more, and an undesirable job at that.
not just disillusioned (I know what that's like, I've helped break in a few student teachers before*), but genuinely just there because it's their job (how they got into the job in the first place varies, but these are often the people who did a too-popular degree and ended up not finding the work they wanted)

I'm not saying that there are no teachers who like children and are trying to help etc, just that they are far from the only teachers out there.
In my experience I'd say about a third of teachers I've encountered didn't (and never did) like teaching, a half went in with high hopes but became disillusioned and such, and the remaining fraction are those who are still enthusiastic and such.

To bring this closer to the topic at hand:

The indifference and such of teachers is probably partially caused by the indifference and bad behaviour of many children, but it also serves to increase that very indifference and encourage bad behaviour. It's a vicious circle, as it were.

now, the attitudes of teachers haven't changed much over the years, but previously it didn't affect the students in the same way because (as I said previously in this thread), they knew where they were going, to some extent, and whatever position they ended school at, there was a clear path.
That's possibly oversimplifying and idealising it a bit, but I believe the concept is sound.

but now that it's completely up to the individual to sort themselves out (teachers don't really help much, they and various careers services concentrate on those who have already sorted themselves), the mutual indifference hurts children's chances in life.
I mean, even though the importance of GCSEs is taught to children, it doesn't really get across how stupidly important they are, and the 'alternatives' that are starting to be introduced aren't really viable yet, but are marketed as being great, and so the general impression is that if the normal GCSEs and stuff aren't your thing, there'll be something you can do.
however, without a certain amount of GCSEs then unless you're lucky you'll never break above minimum wage without going back and getting some GCSE equivalents (which aren't really equivalent in anyone eyes), which is easier said than done in many peoples situations.

Of course, it is possible to leave school with few qualifications, but get a job and work your way up, or go and get more qualifications to get a job, or go to uni. you could leave school with no GCSEs and end up a rocket scientist, but you'd be paying off the debts racked up in order to do that for the rest of your life.
That doesn't happen very often because it would require a big change in character and attitude, and a bit of luck in trying to fund yourself.

I'm not saying that it's all the fault of society, or the education system. it's not all the fault of anything. A lot of it is down to the personality and attitude of the individual which, although it is affected by the time spent in school and such, is not entirely caused by such influences.

this is a very long, possibly rambling post, so i shall stop.


*I don't mean break as in break their spirit or anything, I'm referring to when you get the overly optimistic ones who need to be shown a bit of reality. It's better done by people with some sense who know what's needed than for it to happen naturally with the nasty kids they'll inevitably encounter, because that breaks their spirits entirely.

[Splush]

I think the root of a lot of the 'antisocial' behaviour people are so concerned about these days is socioeconomic. This isn't an exciting new idea, I only bring it up because I don't think anybody else mentioned it, perhaps because it's obvious. Sending people overseas to build self-esteem may be beneficial, but when they come back to a society where they're looked down upon with suspicion based on the socioeconomic circumstances of their birth the feelings of alienation that their position in society generates won't just go away. I tend to think the main reason for people committing antisocial behaviour (assault, theft, vandalism) is just trying to exert control over their environment, if mainstream society perceives you as just another one-dimensional member of an underclass army of chavs/hoodies/whatever who they just want to disappear then any little bit of control you can exert in society must be immensely satisfying.

I think a strong welfare state can help this to an extent, but class distinctions clearly exist regardless of how nice your council house is. I think the only way to reverse the vicious cycles of class would be a major cultural revolution that would somehow liberate us from class divisions and cultural capital.

I feel like the way our society works now is that 90% of us are basically happy with the status quo, and the other 10% is made up of thoroughly alienated people are just an inherent by-product of the majority's happiness. But we in the majority want to pretend that the 10% doesn't exist, perhaps just to ease our consciences. People will brush off the idea of economic determinism, and say things like "He knew stealing was wrong, why didn't he get a job like everybody else?", but the person saying that probably didn't grow up in a sink estate with a single parent who couldn't afford to spend time with them, who never took them into the town centre, who couldn't offer them an education beyond the bare minimum, blah blah blah. Not that some people don't manage to join mainstream society from that sort of background, just that it's easy to see why a lot of people don't. I hate to come across as a textbook woolly liberal, but I feel like economic determinism, while not the only influence on a person, is still a very real phenomenon that people seem to find it all too convenient to brush off.

I'm just blethering now, I don't really know what I'm getting at.

what do people think?
I like this, but it's all about how it's presented, because right now people can easily join the army or go abroad with VSO if they want to, but there's a lot of people those options obviously don't appeal to. So maybe we don't even have to add new opportunities, just promote existing ones.

[Darkscull]

I think the root of a lot of the 'antisocial' behaviour people are so concerned about these days is socioeconomic. This isn't an exciting new idea, I only bring it up because I don't think anybody else mentioned it, perhaps because it's obvious. Sending people overseas to build self-esteem may be beneficial, but when they come back to a society where they're looked down upon with suspicion based on the socioeconomic circumstances of their birth the feelings of alienation that their position in society generates won't just go away. I tend to think the main reason for people committing antisocial behaviour (assault, theft, vandalism) is just trying to exert control over their environment, if mainstream society perceives you as just another one-dimensional member of an underclass army of chavs/hoodies/whatever who they just want to disappear then any little bit of control you can exert in society must be immensely satisfying.

I think socioeconomic factors were mentioned in the thread that caused kratz to make this one, but I must confess that apart from him, I kind of took for granted that people on here would know this.
It's always seemed obvious to me.
I will be surprised if people haven't heard of this idea, but I realise that some may disagree.

I like this, but it's all about how it's presented, because right now people can easily join the army or go abroad with VSO if they want to, but there's a lot of people those options obviously don't appeal to. So maybe we don't even have to add new opportunities, just promote existing ones.

well apart from fixing the gaps in vocational training and such, I agree that all these opportunities are already here.
I think I may not have phrased it well, but I did mean to promote the opportunities that currently exist.
The main new part of the idea was the mapping out of possible routes and the promotion of various opportunities through them, rather than just listing possibilities and saying "you could do any of these", which is what is done now.

[Splush]

I think socioeconomic factors were mentioned in the thread that caused kratz to make this one, but I must confess that apart from him, I kind of took for granted that people on here would know this.
It's always seemed obvious to me.
I will be surprised if people haven't heard of this idea, but I realise that some may disagree.
Yeah, I didn't think I was saying anything exciting and new, it just seemed odd that it hadn't been mentioned yet. I never saw the thread that provoked this one.

I just feel like when people are talking about ideas for getting people out of antisocial behaviour it often feels like we're just skirting around the core of the problem, maybe ignoring it because it's simply too hard to deal with.

[Roachy]

So, executing people for paedophillia is pretty much a stupid, nazi-reminiscent idea.

Like Splush said, it's help they need, not killing.

To be honest, to say that you would go around killing people for having something wrong with them is pretty much social deviance in itself.

[Discodoris]

Defining social deviancy is the problem with this. Is everybody that breaks laws socially deviant? Is every law entirely just and beyond moral reproach? I don't like any lines being drawn that say killing someone is a morally good idea - history seems to teach us that the exact opposite is true, the more society condones killing as a "punishment", the more violent society is liable to remain. More creative solutions are required to react to transgressors of society, not just "lock 'em up and throw away the key". Some will remain dangerous threats, but even these could be constructively used for society - I favour the thought of establishing recycling centres next to secure institutions, so that the sorting of various materials could be accomplished, as an example.

[GorillaBearBear]

I think a strong welfare state can help this to an extent, but class distinctions clearly exist regardless of how nice your council house is. I think the only way to reverse the vicious cycles of class would be a major cultural revolution that would somehow liberate us from class divisions and cultural capital.

Just thought I'd pick up on the point of class divides because it raises two interesting points. Firstly, that although I suppose the form of it has changed, this sort of thing really isn't new, and is almost entirely because of Britain's strong class divide. Whether it's riots during the 1970s or the 1830s, it's pretty much always been lower classes fighting for a better life which has been denied them by the upper classes. Of course in those two periods, it all seems a bit more noble because their rage and discontent was channeled by heavy politicisation - before the reform acts there were a lot of political labour organisations springing up around Britain, and in the 70s there were barking mad opposition leaders and Trade Union leaders channeling these feelings towards something. For various reasons Britain doesn't have such a politicised lower class anymore.

The second point I was going to make is that, I presume unintentionally, the current form of the welfare state (amongst other factors) means that the lower classes are effectively put into ghettos. I wouldn't be able to tell you first hand, but I imagine some of these council estates are a pretty oppressive environment for a young man to be in.

My third, altogether less informed and less meaningful point, is that maybe this stuff wouldn't be such a big problem if the chancellor didn't just have a piece of paper in that red suitcase that says "fuck the poor."

[Darkscull]

For various reasons Britain doesn't have such a politicised lower class anymore.

I think this is one of the major problems that is faced in trying to oust social inequality.
not just the lack of politicisation, but the related (and possibly causally linked) fact that the problem of social inequality is seen as not existing. I don't mean better off people ignoring the worse off people (although that is true for the worst of the worst off people, who are in actual dire straits), but rather that the issue is hidden.

I mean, due to the nature of our economy and society (and culture, to an extent), the living standards of about 98% of the population are the same, regardless of the wealth distribution within that amount (1% is the rich people, the other 1% is the really really poor people. It may be larger proportions than that for each, but you get what I mean).
People living on council estates still walk around with Ipods and have flashy cars, and expensive clothes, they just also have large debts. Those who don't live in council housing, but also still don't earn much will be in the same situation.
Because of how easy it is to do that, most people (whether they're 'lower class', or not) don't fully realise all the implications, or how far they're falling into debt and such.
I mean, even people living solely on benefits can get credit cards and loans now, how stupid is that? Some people in that particular situation may feel they don't need to know implications, or do anything about their situation because the worst that can happen is that they are made bankrupt, and lose some of the stuff they bought with borrowed money. they'll still have a council house, and none of their benefits can be taken for paying off debts (since the amount they can take is any extra after your living expenses are covered, and benefits are supposed to be exactly what you need)
Obviously not all people do that, and I'm not saying that as an argument against the welfare state, but rather against letting people borrow money so easily.

anyway, the point of saying all that is that there is not the same need for change that was once felt among those at the 'bottom rung' of society. That does not mean that change isn't needed, just that the need for it has been brushed under the carpet.


The things I've just described are one reason why many people are trapped in a state of dependency on the state, or hovering just above that position. It's extremely hard to climb out of the holes that have been dug, although it is possible.
there are other factors that contribute as well, and the idea of 'ghettoes' isn't too far off really.

My third, altogether less informed and less meaningful point, is that maybe this stuff wouldn't be such a big problem if the chancellor didn't just have a piece of paper in that red suitcase that says "fuck the poor."

well, it's not quite 'fuck the poor'. it may be 'forget the poor', but it's mainly 'please the rich above all', except near election times when it's 'pander to the middle class above all', either way the poor get sidelined.

[gembird]

The second point I was going to make is that, I presume unintentionally, the current form of the welfare state (amongst other factors) means that the lower classes are effectively put into ghettos. I wouldn't be able to tell you first hand, but I imagine some of these council estates are a pretty oppressive environment for a young man to be in.

That's true- I mean, I'm not saying "Ooh, things was hard for us back in the day" and implying that I've had some horrible life up until uni, but Mum lives on a council estate and most of the kids did just give up on getting anywhere because they were told they wouldn't ever achieve anything. I feel bad for some of the people I went to school with because unless you're really clever and/or determined*, there really isn't much of a way out of the cycle of growing up, having kids at nineteen, going on the dole, becoming a grandparent by forty and never leaving the same town you grew up in. It's no wonder a lot of lads get into trouble, it's probably a combination of frustration and having nothing else to do. It's a shame really.

But I'm going way off-topic, sorry. Just wanted to say something to agree with part of BaaBaa's post.

*which is hard if all the authority figures in your life say you're crap.

[GorillaBearBear]

I mean, due to the nature of our economy and society (and culture, to an extent), the living standards of about 98% of the population are the same, regardless of the wealth distribution within that amount (1% is the rich people, the other 1% is the really really poor people. It may be larger proportions than that for each, but you get what I mean).


I disagree. I think that the difference between various classes is more of a gradient than a ladder. That is to say, the person on the next level of wealth from most people is fairly small. It is true that there are people at extremes but the fact that these people are in council housing and have massive debts means that they are basically worse off than my family - and I'm not in that 1% of rich bastards by any stretch. The fact that they still have nice things is more a product of our consumer culture than any change in social hegemony.

Linking this in to politicisation, I basically mean that I don't think that is the reason people are less driven to better their lot. Obviously most people probably are better off than people of the same "class" were even 50 years ago, but so is everone else, so I think in terms of change it's minimal. Having said that, it probably contributes to them feeling less like they need to do anything about it, but I think that is only part of the reason. What the reason actually is I really couldn't say. It's possible that national pride isn't such a powerful force anymore. We can't be proud of our industry as much as we used to. Our economy is based more on things that are reserved for a "higher" cultural milieu. Patriotism (and I don't mean Nationalism) isn't there, so the desire to make a country better is less strong, I suppose. It would explain the vote apathy of late. It doesn't help that no one really addresses their needs specifically in the political world. They are too far removed from it. I think I need to think on this a bit more though, so I'll leave it there for now.



well, it's not quite 'fuck the poor'. it may be 'forget the poor', but it's mainly 'please the rich above all', except near election times when it's 'pander to the middle class above all', either way the poor get sidelined.

It's not quite the same, but I think pleasing the rich in this case basically means fucking the poor. Keeping everyone on fairly level tax brackets is not a good idea. "Only £15,000 a year and a family of 4? Deal with it, suckas!"

[Darkscull]

I think you've misunderstood me slightly, GBB.
my use of 'living standards' was probably a bit off.
I did say that wealth distribution was different within that section, and I suppose how 'well off' you are is proportional to that. what I meant was that on the surface, there aren't as many immediate differences as previously.
I mean, before, either side of class boundaries there would be those who could only have chicken for their sunday dinners on one side, and those who could have nice beef, or lamb or something on the other (obviously just an example, and a not very important one, but you get the idea, hopefully). More visible differences would be stuff like different quality clothes, etc.

I know that this is a product of our consumer culture, that's part of the point i'm making:
nothing has changed in the social hierarchy (well, obviously there are some changes, but not as big as people like to think), but people can't see the patterns of it as clearly as before, and so that reinforces the ideological beliefs that it's all gone.


It's not quite the same, but I think pleasing the rich in this case basically means fucking the poor. Keeping everyone on fairly level tax brackets is not a good idea. "Only £15,000 a year and a family of 4? Deal with it, suckas!"

well, yes, but I was just referring to intent. They aren't fucking the poor because they think they should, or for the lulz or anything, rather it's a byproduct of the thing they've decided to do.

[Smartie]

Don't most people care for children? Doesn't everyone enjoy seeing children having fun? Hasn't the instinct to care for children been ingrained in each and every one of us over millions of years of evolution? What?

I'd have to emphatically say NO! to that one, from my personal view.

[maxxy_p]

I don't think it's weird at all to like children. They can be lovely.

[gembird]

They can also be horrible little shits. As much as it's natural to like kids, I don't. I can't stand them.

But yes, you're right that wanting to spend time with children isn't always weird, in that lots of people are foster parents, teachers or nursery workers.

[Splush]

I feel like the middle class has built up such an image as the correct class that everybody wants to be middle class and maybe it just isn't practical. When there's people living above their means to try to maintain a middle class lifestyle it's understandable that those who fail to maintain that lifestyle would feel disenfranchised. It's like being working class isn't a legitimate lifestyle, so people either try to graduate to the middle class or they fall down into an underclass. Me and my family are pretty much textbook upper middle class and I'm not really equipped to make fair generalisations about stuff like this, but it's certainly the way I feel things have gone.

I wasn't around before the 80s, but I hear tell of a legendary time known as the 1970s where most people were working class, and they knew they were working class and were proud of it, because being poor wasn't pathologised in the way it is now, and consumerism hadn't really taken hold so people didn't have such clear ways to display their class. This all sounds horribly patronising, but the working class used to have the image of being the backbone of britain; good, honest people of virtue. Now this wave of nu-snobbery has everybody clambering over each other to label people chavs, and mark them as somebody you ought to cross the street to avoid.

I did my sociology honours project on this sort of stuff so I feel like there's loads I could say but I dunno where to start really. I feel like talking about removing class distinctions is the pipe dreams of radical socialism (thus fairly unrealistic) or the illusions of postmodernist conservativism (i.e. us rich people should pretend there's no such thing as class because it stops us from feeling guilty and lets us be 'tought on crime' without thinking about its origins). I think it makes sense to accept that the class structure isn't going away, and work on making each class legitimate in its own right, instead of having TV that bombarding us with 'aspirational' programmes that encourage everybody to join the middle class by buying a second house in Spain, and governments that think that its in everybody's interests to have a degree.

The second point I was going to make is that, I presume unintentionally, the current form of the welfare state (amongst other factors) means that the lower classes are effectively put into ghettos. I wouldn't be able to tell you first hand, but I imagine some of these council estates are a pretty oppressive environment for a young man to be in.
On a brighter note, this seems to be changing at the moment, with mixed tenure schemes (council tenants, private renters and private owners all living along side each other) popping up in various places. Nobody builds high rise council flats any more, and they'll gradually be knocked down and replaced with less oppressive arrangements. It's not going to remove class distinctions or anything, but it could make a big difference for some people I bet.