Forum menu
There's a big debate going on in government circles at the moment about the role of the state in affcting individual behaviour choices. Some of it is prompted by the 'cost cutting agenda', but it's asking whether government approaches to individual behaviours are appropriate or effective. Generally it's been taken that behaviour that harms others, either directly (as in violence) or indirectly (as in obesity which harms society through increased cost to the nhs) are accepted as areas where the state can intervene.
But there's also a debate as to which behaviours are being targeted, and how that might reflect the values of the dominant social demographic in government (mainly white, male, upper middle class, heterosexual). Is there are tendency for the behaviours that are considered appropriate by this social group being pushed onto an increasing diverse society?
It reminded me of a case in the early nineties, called Operation Spanner, where 16 gay men were imprisoned for practicing consensual sado-masochistic group sex in private. They were prosecuted using a little know old law, which said that an individual cannot consent to allow someone else to harm them, even if they are adults fully capable of making that decision, and it would not have any wider 'costs' to society. People campaigning against the operation spanner prosecutions argued that the state should not interfer in consenting adult behaviour where there are no wider costs or negative implications for society, and that it was a reflection on the social values of the state.
So, what behaviours should the state affect? And does it make a difference how that behaviour is influenced? For example we have laws for violent actions, but try to inflence obesity behaviours through public campaigns. Over to the considered opinion of the STW collective hive 🙂
I've just asked my local MP. When he gets back to me I'll let you know what I think.
It's good question, but at this time of the morning I still have trouble doing my shoe laces up properly, so I'll leave righting the world to the poster below.
I work in local government and I've just been asked by TSY's MP to put together a report advising him what answer to give.
I concur.
Well apparently my habit of injecting heroin into my eyeballs, then sprinkling cocaine on my cornflakes, of a morning, is very frowned upon by my local MP.
But then I'm a northerner, and therefore have a poncey, namby-pamby, nanny-state-ish labour MP. I suspect if my MP was a free-thinking, social libertarian in the mould of say... oh I don't know... David Davis, then he'd likely be pouring me a pint, as requested, to wash down my breakfast
*hic*
There's a big debate going on in government circles at the moment.....
Well they've kept very quiet about their big debate. Personally whatever moral decisions this government takes is fine by me - they're all proper gentlemen what went to posh schools, and I'm sure that anyone [i]"practising consensual sado-masochistic group sex in private"[/i] has nothing to fear from the Bullingdon Boys.
Onzadog - great! That'll be several pages of waffle expressed in an assertive manner without actually coming to any conclusion then 🙂 I'll wait for it to filter through via TSY ...
I'd have thought that at least someone would have drunk a sufficiently strong coffee, read the daily mail and be ready for a rant by now 🙂
Oh... I've just asked DD and he says its all fine as long as I don't then drive or operate any heavy machinery, as this could then subsequently impact quite negatively on the rest of society
My local MP is Dave Cameron... he says it's got nowt to do with him and I should ask you lot what I think instead.
surely its up to thin people to bully fat people into costing the nhs less not the politicians... big society, us all working together and all that 😉
i dunno... maybe if the people telling us what we can and can't do set some good examples.. responsible spending, healthy diet, sensible transport choices, lots of charity and voluntary work in their free time.. that kinda thing.
The state should quite simply keep its nose out.
The state should quite simply keep its nose out.
Let people deal with anti-social behaviour themselves ? Sounds like a plan.
i predict that this govt.'s role will precipitate some very angry behaviour over the next 4 years
surely its up to thin people to bully fat people
*inflates cheeks*
They were prosecuted using a little know old law, which said that an individual cannot consent to allow someone else to harm them, even if they are adults fully capable of making that decision, and it would not have any wider 'costs' to society.
To be fair, it wasn't a little-known old law that Brown and the others were charged with, it was wounding and ABH. And although some of the HoL decision was loopy and very obviously coloured by the fact that the defendants were homosexual, I was surprised to find that I did in fact think it was the right outcome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Brown
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/UKlaw/rvbrown1993/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner
My local MP 'was' David Chaytor.......
.....*rings prison*
Sorry apparently he's showering with Big Bob he'll get back to me later
Let people deal with anti-social behaviour themselves ? Sounds like a plan.
Lets see... drugs are an anti-social behaviour problem I believe.
But they're only a problem because the state bans drugs. Legalise them and the problem goes away.
The country would be better with less state interference rather than more.
my.spacebar.is.still.broken.so.much.as.i'd.like.to.type.a.comprehensive.answer......I.can't.
The country would be better with less state interference rather than more
Yeah, stop fixing the roads! Oh, they have.
Yeah, stop fixing the roads! Oh, they have.
They spend money modifying peoples behaviour with speed bumps. Not fixing roads is cheaper and does much the same thing - encourages people to buy 4x4s.
Lets see... [s]drugs are[/s]murder is an anti-social behaviour problem I believe.But they're only a problem because the state bans [s]drugs[/s]murder. Legalise them and the problem goes away.
The country would be better with less state interference rather than more.
Lets see... [s]drugs are[/s] speeding is an anti-social behaviour problem I believe.But they're only a problem because the state bans [s]drugs[/s] speeding. Legalise them and the problem goes away.
The country would be better with less state interference rather than more.
Lets see... [s]drugs are[/s] smoking in public is an anti-social behaviour problem I believe.But they're only a problem because the state bans [s]drugs[/s] smoking in public. Legalise them and the problem goes away.
The country would be better with less state interference rather than more.
I see where you're going here. Sounds like plan.
Exactly. Remove pointless laws and the country would work just fine.
Remove pointless laws and the country would work just fine.
NO! Just the laws I don't like. We need some laws so that I can protect myself from you idiots who can't behave yourselves! 😉
Gun laws. Don't need them either. So you'll be able to protect yourself...
Does this new social libertarian bent mean I'll be able to smoke in the pub again soon? I hope so
Now that there are only 7 pubs left open in the country. As its become fairly obvious that all the people who moaned about smokey pubs were all the people who never ever ever went to pub anyway. And never would. Probably on account of having no friends as they spent all their time writing letters to their MP. And being scared to leave their houses as its a nasty howwible scary world out there. The Daily Mail said so, so it must be true
This could catch on, I like.
disagreed with the charges brought what grown ups do in the privacy of their own home that has no impact on me is none of my business...suppose there would be a line around killing and then being eaten [ was there not a crazy german on the internet who did this?]but it seems reasonable that you can be tortured for sexual gratification in private if you all consent.
Re the state it is a complicated one we could perhaps all agree about seatbelts but then when we get to speeding or drugs we all have different views, I assume the states role is to try and draw a rule that most folk will agree with whilst allwong individual freedoma nd responsibility to other to be in some sort of balance
I assume the states role is to try and draw a rule that most folk will agree with whilst allowing individual freedom and responsibility to other to be in some sort of balance
Isn't that exactly the point of government intervention in that the individual has proven time and time again that when given the responsibilty they can't use it. The law isn't always about what is best, speeding, it's about having a measurable limit.
we could perhaps all agree about seatbelts
No we couldn't or motorcycle helmets.
The only argument for compulsion I can see if that the NHS picks up the bill. The simple solution is for the state to not get involved. Smash yourself up by not wearing a helmet, or not wearing a seatbelt or if you have a smoking related disease and it's your problem.
Giving people back the responsibility for their own actions will make people behave normally. State interference makes people behave abnormally and obeys the law of unintended consequences.
what like being allowed to ride bridleways bit still using paths that sort of thing
Ride where you like. But be polite as everyone will have guns.
Why can't I shoot people who displease me? If they're riding their bloody bicycles on my land, its only reasonable
Its no wonder the country is going to the dogs, We're going to hell in a handcart etc etc
Scrap the health service and education too.
The later has clearly failed some forum users so let's just get rid of it.
Why can't I shoot people who displease me?
Because you want to smoke in pubs, and I shoot you first. This is going to work... Yay!
Sadly 8 laws may be required, but the Castle Doctrine would apply. That works well.
Giving people back the responsibility for their own actions will make people behave normally. State interference makes people behave abnormally and obeys the law of unintended consequences
are you a politician WTF does this means ?
If you pass laws people obey them and alter their behaviour - perhpas if peole did not do this
What on earth do you mean by normal and abnormal here ? a value judgement clearly. Take playing music loud at night whose normal do we use the person who normally does it or the person whos does not normally do it?
tht is why we need laws what wone person thinks is normal another doe snot hence we need some rules as guidance - or guns , lawlessness and the wild west as you seem to prefer 😉
binners - Member
Does this new social libertarian bent mean I'll be able to smoke in the pub again soon? I hope soNow that there are only 7 pubs left open in the country. As its become fairly obvious that all the people who moaned about smokey pubs were all the people who never ever ever went to pub anyway. And never would. Probably on account of having no friends as they spent all their time writing letters to their MP. And being scared to leave their houses as its a nasty howwible scary world out there. The Daily Mail said so, so it must be true
This is more to do with the right of someone going to work without having to breath carcinogenic fumes than any Daily Mail hysteria.
We need to clear this up once and for all. If only there were an authority figure on the forum. Someone who could decree from his lofty ivory tower what was best for all of us. Guiding us like lost sheep with his faultless philosophy. Almost Mau-ist in its purity and reason. Someone who knows, deep in his heart, that he is always right about everything. Like Ghadaffi without the missiles. Like Pol Pot without the machette's
That... if, instead of behaving like petulant children, we would only take in and obey, unquestioningly, his wise words... the world would be such an idyllic place.
A sort of forum father figure. Almost omnipotent. But who could fulfil such a role? Hmmmmmmmmmmm..........
The only role of government is to reflect the wishes of the people. They have no business telling us how, why or what.
I certainly think that a more localised approach to regional issues is the way forward. More power to councils, residents and local businesses. They say it takes 3 strong men to keep order in one street.
Our current problem is that we expect others to deal with our issues. Why is that? In the 40 or so years I've been around I've seen the withdrawal from our streets into our homes. Neighbourhoods exist outside of the net curtains. This is what we need to reclaim. A good starting point would be the motor car and its usage. No one will though.
Bloody hell - it's almost as if there was some sort of "plan" in existence, some document that proposed a new settlement in the balance of power between the state and the people, that had some form of following in the echelons of government...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Plan-Twelve-Months-Renew-Britain/dp/0955979900
yeah coz we need some guy -bought and paid for buy US medical insurance companies to slag off his own country - to fix the nation
could be worse on France they tell you what clothes u can and can't wear
it seems reasonable that you can be tortured for sexual gratification in private if you all consent
I disagree. The degree of physical harm inflicted was rather serious in the Brown case. I think there has to be a limit to the extent to which one can consent to harm to one's own body.
Templeman's judgment is the least scholarly and legalistic (and obviously the most influenced by the fact it was GAY men having GAY sex in a GAY house!!!) but in these bits I think he was correct imho:
In my opinion sado-masochism is not only concerned with sex. Sado-masochism is also concerned with violence. The evidence discloses that the practices of the appellants were unpredictably dangerous and degrading to body and mind and were developed with increasing barbarity and taught to persons whose consents were dubious or worthless...Indecency charges are connected with sex. Charges under the 1861 Act are concerned with violence. The violence of sadists and the degradation of their victims have sexual motivations but sex is no excuse for violence...Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilised. I would answer the certified question in the negative and dismiss the appeals of the appellants against conviction.
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/UKlaw/rvbrown1993/ <
konabunny that piece of bigoted ill informed ranting is no better than the hipocritical nonsense you see in the tabloids
that old giffer has no right to decide what grown men do between themselves bdsm is about respect and affection as much as it is about sex or violence
his obvious dislike prevents him from seeing that