Sunday, January 29, 2012

David Lammy: Labour was wrong to ban smacking

There is a bizarre story in The Mail on Sunday in which Labour MP David Lammy attributes last year's riots to his party's 'smacking ban'. He calls for 'a return to Victorian laws on discipline' because parents are 'no longer sovereign in their own homes'.

Setting aside the political reality that no British citizen has been sovereign in his or her own home since UK accession to the European Economic Community in 1973, His Grace is at a loss to know what Mr Lammy is talking about.

The Mail story appears not to be fabricated, for it quotes the Tottenham MP at some length. And you'd expect a former education minister to know what he's talking about. Yet he calls for 'a reversal of Labour’s 2004 decision to tighten up the smacking law':
Previously parents could use ‘reasonable chastisement’, while the new definition prohibits any force that causes ‘reddening of the skin’. Mr Lammy poured scorn on that description, saying it was irrelevant to black children.

He said: ‘Many of my constituents came up to me after the riots and blamed the Labour Government, saying, “You guys stopped us being able to smack our children.”
‘When this was first raised with me I was pretty disparaging. But I started to listen. These parents are scared to smack their children and paranoid that social workers will get involved and take their children away.

‘The law used to allow “reasonable chastisement”, but current legislation stops actions that lead to a reddening of the skin – which for a lot of my non-white residents isn’t really an issue.’
And it transpires that Mr Lammy was interviewed by Iain Dale on LBC Radio, 'after he had made a call on the Mumsnet website for smacking to be legalised'. Further, Mr Lammy 'set out his support for scrapping the smacking ban in his book Out Of The Ashes: After The Riots'.

Right.

There is no such ban, Mr Lammy.

This being the case, it is rather difficult to attribute last year's riots to the prohibition of smacking. It is also a moot point to suggest that 'reddening of the skin' is 'irrelevant to black children'. This being the case, black parents would be more likely to ignore the non-existent ban and carry on smacking regardless.

Does anyone know what David Lammy is twittering on about?

52 Comments:

Blogger Phil said...

He is talking common sense, at last, interesting that it was a Black Labour politician and the most sensible comment I heard from the Anglican senior figures for a very long time came from Sentamu !

As a father of 7 children I know that discipline is difficult enough.

Of course it it not the whole answer but IF listened to would be a big step in the right direction.

My view for what it is worth is that if a child has no discipline by the age of 5 they have a very poor chance of a successful life

29 January 2012 at 11:56  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

There is no formalised "smacking ban" Cranmer just like there is no formal "workplace evangelism ban". However you are smart enough to know that there is a de facto "anti smacking" & "anti evangelism" legislative culture.

29 January 2012 at 12:06  
Blogger Dick the Prick said...

It certainly does seem a conflation to the point of absurdity but whatever the headline is aside, smacking kids is fair game.

My ol' dear raised me and our lad on her own back in the 70's (father had affair, mum issued Catholic ultimatum - weasel ran off) and we got regular smackings because she was really worried that we'd turn into delinquents as anticipated by some of her snooty 'know better peers', and also all drivellous psychological 'research' at the time. The biggest beating I got was whilst seeing what would happen to a knife if ratcheted into a plug socket.

I'm not sure what Lammy is on about either but this zealous, overwheening, interference offered by knobheads as to how to raise lads is offensive and irrelevant. There were times I damn well needed disciplining and how someone can reason with a 6 year old is beyond me.

29 January 2012 at 12:10  
Blogger len said...

As one who was brought up in an age when' caning'(at school) was an accepted practice and smacking (when disobedient) expected from ones parents I have a definite view on this.
I think the keywords are ..'accountability' .. and 'responsibility'. Not very popular words today!.
If one stepped outside the behaviour that was expected of one(by school , parents, or Society) retribution swiftly followed in one form or another!.

Today after decades of 'pushing the envelope'youth(and others) have realised that they can 'get away with almost anything'and have in fact been given the licence to do so by a 'enlightened liberal Society'.If you take the view that man is basically'good' then this would not be a problem but as we can see the reverse of this is true and man needs restraint put on his unruly, rebellious,(against God and God`s Moral and Social order) nature.
I think this is the point being made by Mr Lammy.

29 January 2012 at 12:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ah, happy days, being caned or strapped as the Inspector experienced. It really was good discipline. Once it was over, you didn’t exactly shake hands with the master, but you went away in the knowledge that that was it. There would be no letter to your parents as happens now. Consider the psychological torture these children today endure thanks to the ‘right on lefties’ ...

The Inspector agrees that indiscipline was partly to blame for the riots, as is the existence of a large Afro-Caribbean population in London. But look at the way black children are raised in Jamaica and Trinidad. The parents there are incredibly strict, as is their law and order in general. They need to be, indisciplined blacks are notoriously more vicious than their white counterparts. This is the gist of what Lammy recognises and is trying to redress. Good for him...

29 January 2012 at 13:05  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Any parent is permittted to use 'reasonable' means to discipline their children. Provided no implement is used or bodily injuries inflicted, it is within the law. Reddening of skin is something of a red herring!

For an MP to shoot his mouth off in such an uninformed manner and seek to deflect responsibility towards government and social workers in the way is shameful.

As in all things this is about being reasonable. There is no defacto anti-smacking ban. Yes our culture has moved this away from method of discipline and the nanny state frowns upon it. But then some people did overuse this parental right and vented their anger and frustration on children as opposed to using smacks as a means of reinforcing a message. Surely no one would disagree it is wrong to hit a child to the extent that it results in physical injuries such as bruising or breaking skin?

29 January 2012 at 13:20  
Blogger IanCad said...

I'm with Rebel Saint on this one.
Parents are in fear of the Social Services.

29 January 2012 at 13:28  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

"Section 58 Children Act 2004 removes the availability of the reasonable chastisement defence for parents or adults acting in loco parentis where the accused is charged with wounding, causing grievous bodily harm, assault occasioning actual bodily harm or cruelty to persons less than 16 years of age. However, the reasonable chastisement defence remains available for parents and adults acting in loco parentis charged with common assault under section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988.

The Charging Standard states that for minor assaults committed by an adult upon a child that result in injuries such as grazes, scratches, abrasions, minor bruising, swelling, superficial cuts or a black eye, the appropriate charge will normally be ABH for which the defence of 'reasonable chastisement' is no longer available.

However, if the injury amounts to no more than reddening of the skin, and the injury is transient and trifling, a charge of common assault may be laid against the defendant for whom the reasonable chastisement defence remains available to parents or adults acting in loco parentis.2

(Crown Presecution Service)

29 January 2012 at 13:28  
Blogger Oswin said...

I think we can forgive Mr. Lammy's er misunderstanding, can't we; clearly he's as confused as the rest of us, after decades of increasingly limp-wristed liberalism and pale-faced psyhco-babble.

We need to rejoin again, to where children are 'children' and NOT 'Young Persons' ... hell, in many instances, they're not even human!

I certainly was not; so I thank the Lord for sensible parents and a rigorous schooling!

29 January 2012 at 13:57  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

Charges of "Assault" being brought against a parent for applying a well deserved smack to a posterior are the problem. This legal advice should be struck from the record and the opportunity to use it specifically removed from the statutes. Parents are afraid, and Dodo's helpful quote shows exactly why.

It is an entirely different matter when a child is injured by the administration of a beating, which far too many of the limp-wristed liberal tendency identified by Oswin equate with a smack.

In my opinion, social workers spend far too much time chasing parents who have applied a smack because that's a lot easier than dealing with the really violent drunk or drug fueled parent who will go on to kill a child. Perhaps time to ditate a change of focus to them...

29 January 2012 at 14:10  
Blogger Oswin said...

Inspector @ 13:05 :

In my school, we did just that, we 'shook hands' after a caning; excepting the most serious of offences, whereby the 'hand withdrawn' signified a crime 'beyond the pale' - a subtlety soon learned!

The making of me, was on occasion of being wrongfully caned, for an infringement I had not committed. Whilst 'shaking hands' I respectfully reassured the Master, for whom I had great respect, that I was innocent. Looking me in the eye for a moment or two, he offered his hand again, apologised, and asked for my forgiveness!

I felt much more than vindication; it was as if I'd become a man, and recognised as such, by another.

Of course, I hadn't become a man, far from it; but it was a good feeling, and a fair beginning.

29 January 2012 at 14:35  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Yes, what he's saying is that we need a return to stricter discipling for children both at home and in the classroom especially for boys, and that as most of these rioters are the children of Labour's soft line no smacking policies of the last 13 years has enlightened him to say this. He is recommending that we look at old fashioned child disciplining in a more positive light rather than parents and teachers being sued for smacking little Johnny and Jane when they needed it.

29 January 2012 at 14:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I can't see it going this way here but smacking debates are great on forums. Everyone who comments has always calmly administered a slap, never in anger and always firm but light, to reinforce a point about imminent danger. Yet I'm sure we've all seen parents swinging their young kids by the arm held high and whacking them as they hiss or shout terrible things [1] with a red, violent face. We've lost the notion of 'common sense' on this where smacking in moderation is a good thing and assaulting or beating up your kids is not. We all know from our armchairs what is appropriate and surely the State can differentiate between occasional discipline and assault.

[1] "You're a fecking useless little bastard, can't you ever do anything right you little shit?" to a 6yo boy was a memorable one for me in my local Morrisons. :(

29 January 2012 at 15:17  
Blogger IanCad said...

Dodo @ 13:28

"(Crown Presecution Service)"

Did you mean Crown Persecution Service?

I can tell you how it is the US.
Brat misbehaves. Brat's TV is taken away. Brat says to parents that she will tell the school that they have hit her. Brat's TV is returned.

29 January 2012 at 15:48  
Blogger MarkSG said...

Well, David Lammy is also notable for his remarkably sensible comments in the wake of last year's riots, in which he refused to join the general lefty clamour to excuse the criminals. And he made the point then that family breakdown - and, in particular, absent fathers - was a major cause of disaffected and disenfranchised youth. So he does know what he's talking about here.

In fact, given his willingness to endorse strong families and hard work as the route out of poverty, the only thing that surprises me is how he can remain part of a Labour party which favours neither.

29 January 2012 at 16:00  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 it's not up to the state to tell people how to parent their children. My friend and I had a few occasions where we had to give her twins a good slap in public as they were just so naughty and didn't listen to us when we told them off first. Yes we were angry and red faced no doubt

I think swearing at your badly behaved children in public is not nice, but it's not up to me to tell them not to, it is up to them to realise themselves not to.

29 January 2012 at 16:06  
Blogger Oswin said...

DanJo: I've witnessed similar to your 'Morrison's experience' - and truly vile it is too. Usually administered by some shell-suited parent, whom one instinctively suspects, was not beaten nearly enough as a child!

Balanced, I might add, by too many obviously middle-class parents, who imagine that their precious offspring are entitled to do what the hell they please.

Both sets make me want to punch them in the face! The parents, that is; they ought to be ruled fair-game for all. :o)

29 January 2012 at 16:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Danj0 it's not up to the state to tell people how to parent their children."

It's up to the State to do something about it if parents are assaulting their children.

29 January 2012 at 16:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The Inspector likes to wag his finger at children who pi {AHEM} annoy him. You should all try it; sometimes the child is hypnotised, having never seen the like....

29 January 2012 at 16:53  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 how do you define assault? Slapping a child for doing something naughty even after having been warned not to is not assault.

Disciplining is not assaulting a child. Parents don't normally deliberately assault their children, this word has been take out of context and applied to a situation where it does not fit by the loony left liberals in order to dictate to people how to bring up their kids and it has backfired.

It's right that the state does what it can to prevent child abuse and child battering. Assault is a word for when an opponent can fight back.

29 January 2012 at 17:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Forgot to add, try and mumble like Rab C Nesbitt for additional chilling effect....

29 January 2012 at 17:26  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Inspector

"You're a fecking useless little bastard, can't you ever do anything right you little shit?"

And we wonder why he turned out the way he did!

"tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner"

29 January 2012 at 17:26  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Marie

In law, hitting a child is technically an assault but can be defended, under common law, with a defence of "reasonable chastisement". If it involves actual bodily harm or grievious bodily harm, this defence cannot be offered. Strictly speaking, raising one's voice and causing alarm is an assault too.

29 January 2012 at 17:30  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

29 January 2012 at 17:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, to remind you of what you said on the thread below:

"Go away ... After your outrageous remark on another thread I've decided to ignore you, so please don't address any further comments my way." 28 January 2012 16:43

If we ignore the one that got deleted then you actually managed 24 hours or so this time. Sheesh, what is wrong with you? Is it ADHD or something? You're like a little boy with no impulse control. It's pathetic.

29 January 2012 at 17:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo [INSPECTOR HOWLS THEN CREASES}

29 January 2012 at 17:39  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Since when Dodo? It's only fairly recently that laws changed and it's ridiculous.

29 January 2012 at 17:44  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

"Go away ... After your outrageous remark on another thread I've decided to ignore you, so please don't address any further comments my way." 28 January 2012 16:43

Inspector

Really, some people just cannot understand the Queen's English!

29 January 2012 at 17:46  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Marie

It's always been the law that assault against children (and wives, at one time) could be defended as reasonable chastisement. It just had to be "reasonable". The definition of "reasonableness" is subject to shifts according to the norms of a given time.

In 2004 the "reasonable chastisement" defence was removed in cases that constituted ABH or GBH ie actual physical injury. Common assault, where there are minor injuries, can be defended as "reasonable chastisement". Frequent and persistant shouting and screaming is an assault. It's reasonableness can also be tested in a court if the CPS so desired.

29 January 2012 at 17:53  
Blogger len said...

I think it insulting(to myself and most parents) that we are considered by the State to be some sort of monsters that need to be restrained by the law from battering our children.

Instead because parents are no longer able to administer a mild smack to teach discipline and respect for others the reverse is happening, the children are growing up knowing no or very little restraint.
So we have a Society where self restraint is practically unknown and if one feels 'disrespected'then violence is seen as' necessary' to remedy the situation.
I have no doubt that the epidemic levels of knife crimes and crimes against those in authority, and the recent rioting and looting, are directly related to lack of discipline through fear of prosecution (by parents and teachers) and this is a situation easily manipulated by the' street wise' youth.
As 'self' becomes more and more exalted in our Society and as we turn away from God lawlessness is increasing exactly as it states in the Bible.

29 January 2012 at 19:20  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

len said ...
"I think it insulting(to myself and most parents) that we are considered by the State to be some sort of monsters that need to be restrained by the law from battering our children."

Oh please, spare us the moral outrage. The State doesn't consider you or any other parent a monster neeeding to be restarined! It does however recognise that some parents harm their children through neglect or abuse.

Next time a child is murdered after being subjected to persistent abuse by those charged with caring for him or her, reconsider this statement.

Next time the public set out to lynch social workers for not doing enought to prevent child abuse, reconsider this statement.

This change was all triggered by the Victoria Climbie inquiry and Lord Laming's report. Remember that child?

Regretably, children continue to be abused and killed every year and the State has a duty to protect them.

The causes of disorder in our society run deeper far than the State intervening to prevent serious assaults against children. Maybe it is a symptom of our decline, but hardly the cause. Family breakdown and homes where both parents are working surely contribute to this? A general breakdown in moral standards is also a cause. Have you watched MTV recently or Channel 4?

In my experience, fear of prosecution is not a factor in homes where there is a lack of discipline. Those families actually don't care. Often its quite the opposite with inconsistent control switching between clouting the child and ignoring the child.

29 January 2012 at 19:53  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Dodo: “Oh please, spare us the moral outrage. The State doesn't consider you or any other parent a monster needing to be restrained! It does however recognise that some parents harm their children through neglect or abuse.”

Yes and they are in the minority. How many parents really do batter and abuse their children? Only a small amount, but why should all the rest who don't have to comply with ill thought out blanket regulations and laws?

AS you rightly point out child battering and abuse carries on regardless of the draconian restraining laws by a minority that have other more deeply seated issues and illnesses. If you scratch the surface of the situations of those minorities who do it there you will find a multitude of reasons why. We have social workers and police to investigate the abnormalities if they are doing their job properly.

29 January 2012 at 21:14  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Marie

Actually I don't fundamentally disagree with you. However, I would say that the State only intervenes where there is a clear suspicion or an specific allegation expressed by someone about a child's welfare. The idea that there are hoardes of social policing families is just not accurate. And most of the families are not middle-class they are, in the main, dysfunctional families facing a lot of problems. Neither is there a particular focus on black communities.

Most parents know how to discipline their children and do so. I agree the liberal and feminist ideologies are undermining parents who are told repeatedly not to smack children. Some loonies in Scotland attempted to make any smacking illegal a few years ago. Look to health visitors for the cause of all this. They are far more intrusive and influential with parents, particularly first time parents.

As for schools and restoring corporal punishment, this is a more complex debate now we have grown accustomed to it not being used.

29 January 2012 at 21:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Lady walks into a vets with a pet duck. Says to the vet it’s not moving. Vet takes out his stethoscope, places it against the duck’s chest and says “It’s dead”. Is that it, says the lady, no other tests or anything. The vet whistles, and up bounds a Labrador, sniffs the duck, looks all sad, and shakes his head. The vet whistles again, and a cat appears, waves it’s front paws over the duck, shakes it’s head and cries. That will be £50 Madam, say’s the Vet. “£50 to tell me my duck is dead!”, wails the lady. “Well, it would have been a tenner, but you insisted on a LAB report and a CAT scan”.

30 January 2012 at 18:05  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Dodo:”Look to health visitors for the cause of all this. They are far more intrusive and influential with parents, particularly first time parents. “

I agree with you here they should concentrate on the health, development and conditions the child is growing up in rather than telling clients not to smack their children which will be wasted words on those who are doing or will do it regardless. I think they can do more to recognise abnormal situations and report them to social services.


“As for schools and restoring corporal punishment, this is a more complex debate now we have grown accustomed to it not being used.””

I don't think it is complex at all,it can and should be reinstated. I'm not advocating allowing regular beatings, just up to 6 of the best of the cane for those who misbehave, especially boys. And No we have not got used to it not being used as teachers have a very hard time trying to keep kids in line in some schools these days so they need every aid possible.

30 January 2012 at 19:13  
Blogger Roy said...

How is it that social workers etc. are so overworked that they cannot notice that a baby has numerous injuries including a broken back (in the case of Baby Peter) but they do have the time to try and stop smacking thereby doing their bit to ensure that in the years to come society will be plagued by even more yobs and child abusers than it is now?

30 January 2012 at 20:16  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Roy

Actually it was a Dctor who failed to notice the broken back. The rest of your comment is as well formed as this too.

30 January 2012 at 22:30  
Blogger Oswin said...

Inspector @ 18:05

Well, I enjoyed it. :o)

30 January 2012 at 23:17  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Oswin

I thought it was rather fowl!

31 January 2012 at 00:13  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

31 January 2012 at 00:33  
Blogger Flossie said...

I have just read this horror story on Michael Coren's blog. It happened in the US, but I feel we are not a million miles from this scenario over here.

Gavin was having a bad day. A very bad day indeed. And when 5-year-old boys have bad days everybody gets to know about it. He began to kick the cat. His father told him to stop it. Gavin refused, and gave the creature another few kicks. At which point Joe Cleary did what many parents might do. He gave his son a spanking. End of story.

But no. The spanking on the bum left a very slight mark and this was noticed by a teacher at Gavin’s swimming lesson. The teacher reported it to her supervisor, who in turn reported it to the Durham Children’s Aid Society.

The first thing that happened was a telephone call from a young social worker to Joe’s wife, Perry, the mother of their six children. The social worker wanted clarification of the incident and requested an interview with little Gavin. “I’ll have to speak to my husband first”, said the heavily pregnant Perry. The social worker was incredulous, even annoyed. Why on earth did she have to speak to her husband?

“Because” replied Perry, “he is my husband, because he is Gavin’s father and because he is the head of the house.”

There is an expression concerning a bull and a red rag that comes to mind. The social worker seemed extremely angry now, almost beyond reason.

It was a month later when the police came to arrest Joe Cleary. They came to where he worked, handcuffed him in front of his workmates and employers and took him away like some rapist or murderer. He was charged with assault and was told by the police that he really should make a statement before his lawyer arrived because if he didn’t it would look bad in court. Joe had nothing at all to hide and so he made a statement. (more0

31 January 2012 at 03:16  
Blogger Flossie said...

(contd) This good, honest, hard-working man was now incarcerated for two days in a holding cell and then in Whitby Jail, where prisoners are kept for up to two years. He had to fend off sexual advances from other men, had to watch out for the men around him charged with unspeakable crimes of violence and sadism.

After a brief court appearance the Crown asked for $1000 bail. His wife managed to get the money and offered it to the court. She was turned down, because of a statement she had made to the 22-year-old social worker on the phone. She had referred to her husband as being “the head of the house” and this was to be used in court by the prosecution, the accusation being that the couple had a “slave-master” relationship.
So the money had to be found elsewhere, and this wasn’t easy for a large family who put their children first and have limited personal savings. But they managed. The bail conditions initially prevented Joe from having any contact with minors, effectively stopping him from seeing his family. Perry, now with a 10-day-old baby in her arms, protested so loudly that eventually her husband was allowed to return home.

The couple had to go to court a further seven times, with the crown demanding continuances and further investigations. “It was almost as if they were trying to punish us,” say the Clearys. The couple’s legal bills eventually totaled $10,000 but their lawyers were so outraged by what was going on that they halved the cost.
Finally the judge dismissed the charges under Section 43 of the Criminal Code, which allows parents to, well, to be parents and to spank their children with reasonable force if they see fit to do so.

The whole family was and is still in shock and Joe is hardly confident of promotion at work after he was seen being arrested and his bosses read about his court appearances. If it hadn’t been for the strength of his union Joe Cleary may well have been fired.

As for young Gavin, none of the people behind this persecution seemed to care very much about him one way or the other. It seemed to be his parents they were after. He is, by the way, an extraordinarily happy and content little boy. The only thing that worries him these days is the idea of social workers and policemen coming to take his daddy away.

His parents are more concerned about those people who want to remove the right of mothers and fathers to chastise their children and expunge Section 43 from the Criminal Code. Such zealots quote the United Nations Charter forbidding spanking, a document that also says that if little Johnny or Jenny run to their room and slams their door shut no parent has the right to enter. It would be an “infringement” on the child’s personal space and could even be “emotional abuse”.

Do look behind the gentle façade of the so-called children’s rights activists and do question their agenda. If you have any doubts, just have a talk with Joe and Perry Cleary. If you can still find them, because they are so upset and disillusioned that they are considering leaving the country.

31 January 2012 at 03:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

That story reads like something that gets passed around facebook and ends up on snopes. It may even be a deliberately hypothetical case to make the point in the column. Besides, isn't it Canada and not the USA?

31 January 2012 at 04:43  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Coz he was stuffed up Anthony Worral-Thompson's Jacket.

31 January 2012 at 16:06  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,(29 January 19:53)

Following your 'tradition' you seem more interested in attacks on those you perceive as 'enemies' rather than an intelligent contribution to the discussion.
The point being made by myself and others is that the 'anti smacking law does nothing to protect vulnerable children(Baby P for example)

1 February 2012 at 07:16  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Chief Priest len

You show your ignorance on this topic, just like others. You also reveal your inability to comprehand what is written. Where have I ever supported the "anti-smacking law"? Do you understand what this is?

As for Baby P, God rest his poor soul, the systemic failures behind this tragedy attest to the weaknesses and powerlessness of humans to construct systems sufficiently robust and responsive to tackle evil - and evil it surely was. An avoidable murder due to human failings in those charged with protecting him.

Please read what I write before your knee-jerk criticism. You really are becoming tiresome!

1 February 2012 at 13:14  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,The true does become tiresome for those more interested in parading their own ego`s than ascertaining the truth.

2 February 2012 at 08:08  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Indeed ... so why not address the points actually raised? An intelligent contribution to an important topic,instead of personal insults about my 'tradition', would be a start.

2 February 2012 at 14:55  
Blogger len said...

Perhaps it is one of MY traditions?.

If your church can make them up whenever it suits them how can you criticise anyone else?.

5 February 2012 at 11:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Chief Priest len

Actually, it is one of your habits to make silly comments.

A 'tradition' is something quite different!

5 February 2012 at 16:21  
Blogger len said...

I suppose you would know all about 'habits' Dodo?.

Not bad ones I hope?.

6 February 2012 at 00:48  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

As usual nothing of any meaning to say when the discussion reaches a point demanding clarity.

Hopeless!

6 February 2012 at 15:13  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older