So, are you saying that not only should the criminal be punished by the courts, but their families should be left destitute as well?
I thought you said you had empathy...
Their families would not be destitute - we have a welfare state, the criminals & their families were probably on benefits prior to incarceration (someone in a well paid job is a lot less likely to take the risk), in fact most men in prison who are fathers were probably absent fathers anyway, even if they were involved in their kids' lives, the mums were probably coping mostly alone anyway; we don't live in Ronnie Barker's Porridge times any more you know....
Try putting yourself in the position of somebody who's just been a victim of a crime, say your house has been burgled, you're round at a friend/relative's house watching TV (because the burglars stole you TV) & you see this programme & this woman giving money to this charity - how would you feel?
Why don't you go read the link (earlier in the thread) to Out There, the org Catherine supported and try and educate yourself about the work it does?
They're there to try and minimise the trauma and offer advice and practical & emotional support to families who find themselves through no fault of their own caught up in the criminal justice system. For anyone unfamiliar with the reality of prison, it's got to be a minefield for those experiencing it for the first time, and that's on top of having to come to terms with eg. having a murderer in the family, sent down for life. It's the family who has to deal with the mop-up, the shock, the hostility, the loss of normal family life, the loss of income, the loss of future, and it's orgs like Out There who help with that reality.
How anyone in a civilised world can have a problem with that is just baffling.
Their families would not be destitute - we have a welfare state, the criminals & their families were probably on benefits prior to incarceration (someone in a well paid job is a lot less likely to take the risk), in fact most men in prison who are fathers were probably absent fathers anyway, even if they were involved in their kids' lives, the mums were probably coping mostly alone anyway; we don't live in Ronnie Barker's Porridge times any more you know....
Lots of assumptions and generalisations there from someone who's already admitted to not even knowing anyone who's been burgled, never mind the families of convicted criminals and their circumstances.
It speaks volumes that you get the hump about an assumption of how old your TV is, but have nothing to say about "the families of the perpetrators - especially children and babies."
Does it not fit your apparently blinkered view of the world to have to think about them?
Lots of assumptions and generalisations there from someone who's already admitted to not even knowing anyone who's been burgled, never mind the families of convicted criminals and their circumstances.
:rolleyes:
Actually I said that I myself personally have not been burgled.
Actually I said that I myself personally have not been burgled.
Indeed you did - apologies for that.
Now perhaps you could explain how having empathy for the families that get caught up in the turmoil when someone goes to prison equates to a lack of empathy for someone who gets burgled.
It speaks volumes that you get the hump about an assumption of how old your TV is, but have nothing to say about "the families of the perpetrators - especially children and babies."
Does it not fit your apparently blinkered view of the world to have to think about them?
My 'hump' is the assumption made by obviously fairly well-off people saying that insurance doesn't cost much; well to them it might not be much, but I can assure you that I would struggle to find spare money to pay insurance, & why the hell should I be out of pocket just to protect myself from selfish greedy people who may want to break in to my home & violate me? I don't smoke or use chip pans so run a low risk of fire, & I'm in a first floor flat - so a flood would have to be a bloody bad one to affect me.
My 'hump' is the assumption made by obviously fairly well-off people saying that insurance doesn't cost much; well to them it might not be much, but I can assure you that I would struggle to find spare money to pay insurance, & why the hell should I be out of pocket just to protect myself from selfish greedy people who may want to break in to my home & violate me? I don't smoke or use chip pans so run a low risk of fire, & I'm in a first floor flat - so a flood would have to be a bloody bad one to affect me.
Ah right - so it's ok for you to make generalisations about families of convicted criminals, but as soon as someone makes an assumption about the value of your TV set, all bets are off.
Now perhaps you could explain how having empathy for the families that get caught up in the turmoil when someone goes to prison equates to a lack of empathy for someone who gets burgled.
Actually I do feel sorry for decent people who's son or daughter murders someone, I should imagine they have an unbearable sense of guilt; I don't think that they need any charity donation though, & it doesn't alter the fact that it was a naive decision by the actress.
Actually I do feel sorry for decent people who's son or daughter murders someone, I should imagine they have an unbearable sense of guilt; I don't think that they need any charity donation though, & it doesn't alter the fact that it was a naive decision by the actress.
There you go again with your generalisations.
I think you're the naive one here, if you think the world fits nicely into your black and white preconceptions.
Ah right - so it's ok for you to make generalisations about families of convicted criminals, but as soon as someone makes an assumption about the value of your TV set, all bets are off.
:rolleyes:
So you disagree that criminals are more likely to be unemployed or have a low-paid job than a well paid job?
I am more able than most to comment on the kinds of people who are in prison, having spent 6 weeks in Holloway prison in 2001; I am not a mother & would almost certainly have been spared a custodial sentence had I been.
Actually I do feel sorry for decent people who's son or daughter murders someone, I should imagine they have an unbearable sense of guilt; I don't think that they need any charity donation though, & it doesn't alter the fact that it was a naive decision by the actress.
Are you just being deliberately dense? Or do you genuinely not understand how charities work?
For clarity, donations are what enable the service to continue, not to provide for the families of prisoners.
I never ever use the word all, I use most a lot, but never all.
We're getting somewhere now. So you're happy to acknowledge that there may be some people, somewhere, with a family member in prison who may be deserving of your empathy, yes?
I am more able than most to comment on the kinds of people who are in prison, having spent 6 weeks in Holloway prison in 2001; I am not a mother & would almost certainly have been spared a custodial sentence had I been.
You're fast becoming the queen of the non sequitur.
This whole discussion is about the families who get left behind, not the convicted criminals.
We're getting somewhere now. So you're happy to acknowledge that there may be some people, somewhere, with a family member in prison who may be deserving of your empathy, yes?
I already said that I feel empathy/sympathy with parents who's offspring have committed a heinous crime, as it was them that brought that person in to the world, & guilt would be a big factor there I would think.
Actually I do feel sorry for decent people who's son or daughter murders someone, I should imagine they have an unbearable sense of guilt; I don't think that they need any charity donation though, & it doesn't alter the fact that it was a naive decision by the actress.
Are you just being deliberately rude, or are you not able to convey your point without using insults?
I'm not being rude, just astonished that you think donations go to the prisoners' families rather than towards the work of the charity and the ongoing provision of its services.
Comments
Upsetting - but not as devastating as a death.
So essentially you have no empathy for the other innocent victims of crime - the families of the perpetrators - especially children and babies.
As for insurance - it's not expensive. If you can afford a TV you can afford to insure it.
Their families would not be destitute - we have a welfare state, the criminals & their families were probably on benefits prior to incarceration (someone in a well paid job is a lot less likely to take the risk), in fact most men in prison who are fathers were probably absent fathers anyway, even if they were involved in their kids' lives, the mums were probably coping mostly alone anyway; we don't live in Ronnie Barker's Porridge times any more you know....
Rubbish, my TV is 10 years old.
Why don't you go read the link (earlier in the thread) to Out There, the org Catherine supported and try and educate yourself about the work it does?
They're there to try and minimise the trauma and offer advice and practical & emotional support to families who find themselves through no fault of their own caught up in the criminal justice system. For anyone unfamiliar with the reality of prison, it's got to be a minefield for those experiencing it for the first time, and that's on top of having to come to terms with eg. having a murderer in the family, sent down for life. It's the family who has to deal with the mop-up, the shock, the hostility, the loss of normal family life, the loss of income, the loss of future, and it's orgs like Out There who help with that reality.
How anyone in a civilised world can have a problem with that is just baffling.
Lots of assumptions and generalisations there from someone who's already admitted to not even knowing anyone who's been burgled, never mind the families of convicted criminals and their circumstances.
:rolleyes:
It speaks volumes that you get the hump about an assumption of how old your TV is, but have nothing to say about "the families of the perpetrators - especially children and babies."
Does it not fit your apparently blinkered view of the world to have to think about them?
Actually I said that I myself personally have not been burgled.
Indeed you did - apologies for that.
Now perhaps you could explain how having empathy for the families that get caught up in the turmoil when someone goes to prison equates to a lack of empathy for someone who gets burgled.
My 'hump' is the assumption made by obviously fairly well-off people saying that insurance doesn't cost much; well to them it might not be much, but I can assure you that I would struggle to find spare money to pay insurance, & why the hell should I be out of pocket just to protect myself from selfish greedy people who may want to break in to my home & violate me? I don't smoke or use chip pans so run a low risk of fire, & I'm in a first floor flat - so a flood would have to be a bloody bad one to affect me.
Ah right - so it's ok for you to make generalisations about families of convicted criminals, but as soon as someone makes an assumption about the value of your TV set, all bets are off.
:rolleyes:
Actually I do feel sorry for decent people who's son or daughter murders someone, I should imagine they have an unbearable sense of guilt; I don't think that they need any charity donation though, & it doesn't alter the fact that it was a naive decision by the actress.
There you go again with your generalisations.
I think you're the naive one here, if you think the world fits nicely into your black and white preconceptions.
So you disagree that criminals are more likely to be unemployed or have a low-paid job than a well paid job?
So you don't think they experience guilt?
I disagree with the attempt to generalise about *all* families of convicted criminals.
All sorts of people do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons and that there can be fallout that affects people through no fault of their own.
This appears to be a concept that's beyond your comprehension.
Are you just being deliberately dense? Or do you genuinely not understand how charities work?
For clarity, donations are what enable the service to continue, not to provide for the families of prisoners.
.
I never ever use the word all, I use most a lot, but never all.
What does that have to do with offering support to people who need it?
We're getting somewhere now. So you're happy to acknowledge that there may be some people, somewhere, with a family member in prison who may be deserving of your empathy, yes?
Are you just being deliberately rude, or are you not able to convey your point without using insults?
You're fast becoming the queen of the non sequitur.
This whole discussion is about the families who get left behind, not the convicted criminals.
I already said that I feel empathy/sympathy with parents who's offspring have committed a heinous crime, as it was them that brought that person in to the world, & guilt would be a big factor there I would think.
I was able to become familiar with their family circumstances during that period.
I'm not being rude, just astonished that you think donations go to the prisoners' families rather than towards the work of the charity and the ongoing provision of its services.