I guess you missed my post about me trying to come off among other painkillers, Fentanyl and Morphine?

It isn't that I don't believe that there aren't circumstances where people are in these downward spiral situations as obviouosly this isn't the case but we all have at least some control over our own destiny. We are never going to fully agree and where would be the fun in that anyway but lets agree to disagree on this one.

[size=200I BLAME BB FOR STARTING IT!!!

[/size

Whilst we might have 'some' control over our own destiny, if you're a heroin addict that control is severely limited - particularly when you factor in the lack of suitable treatment programmes available. And I didn't miss your post about coming off painkillers, I just didn't find it remotely relevant.

I notice you haven't responded to my point about upbringing, either.

So do you still assert that the only two 'genuine reasons' for commiting a crime are those you originally stated, or do you now see that that was simplistic nonsense?

You mentioned drug addicts first, I didn't and don't think they deserve a prision sentence for just being on drugs but if they mug an old lady in the street for her pension money and that lady subsequently dies from her injuries, then yes they deserve a custodial sentance and all the help they can get to come off (if they so want to)

Like I stated previously you can be brought up by millionaire parents, go to public school, have a good job and still commit crime, on the other hand you can be given up by your parents to go into care, be passed from pillar to post, get a "dead end job" but still lead a decent life with not a hint of ever wanting to commit a crime. I don't disagree that the latter way of life could put you in a more precarious position but its not as black and white as if you come from a disadvantaged background you will commit a crime.

You've added arguments to other peoples contributions but nothing of your own (certainly not when i've asked you). Just because you didn't understand my point doesn't mean i have to drop to your level of conversation!!

Yes, I know! It was as an example of a 'genuine reason' why someone might commit a crime other than the only two that you would accept as 'genuine'. Do try and keep up.



I never said you did. But if their addiction is an underlying reason for them committing a crime, then it is undoubtedly a mitigating factor. A large proportion of acquisitive crime occurs as a result of people trying to feed a drug habit. Address the addiction issues, and you'll solve the crime problem.



Of course they do. Only an idiot would suggest otherwise.



This is the problem. They often don't get the help they need to beat their addiction and instead they return to the streets to commit more crime. But hey, let's just build more prisons, right?



If you are brought up by criminals, you will (usually) become one. It's highly unlikely that a person who has only known crime from an early age will avoid becoming involved at some stage themselves.

Of course it's not the case that everyone from a deprived background is bad and everyone from a rich background is good, but, as a general rule, the more deprived your background is, the [imore likely[/i you are to end up engaging in criminal activity.

Which is, in itself a contribution. I have used reasoned argument to show how utterly ridiculous your suggestions were.



I haven't made any suggestions about how the benefits system should be reformed because I don't know the answers to that. You see, it's part of being a grown up to admit when you don't know something rather than just make an absurd suggestion, then get all y when it's pointed out how stupid you're being.



Your point, as usual, is nonsense.

Now you're putting words in my mouth, not once I have ever said that the two I mentioned are the only ones I would accept, you're assuming, but I am open to other peoples opinions, it was just two I thought of at the time of posting.

.

Prison, in my opinion although I admit I have never set foot in one as a prisioner so not sure how the system works, would help them address their addiction issues, more than just keep being arrested and tagged for their crimes.



We need more prisons for persons comitting all crimes, not just drug addicts, but murderers, rapists, and dare I say corrupt MPs





So with that theory, if you're brought up with smokers you will smoke, if you're brought up by people who overeat you will too, thats where the "in charge of our own destiny to a degree" comes in.

This is an exact quote, and I've even underlined the relevant part:



So you did say that after all. Who'd have known, eh?





Murderers, rapists and corrupt MPs form a relatively small proportion of the prison population. We certainly don't need to build more prisons to accommodate them. The majority of the prison population are those who are in for less serious crimes. As I have pointed out, prison does not reduce the rate of reoffending. So, until we address the reasons behind the offending behaviour (alongside handing out suitable punishments, of course), we will not reduce the rate of offending and reoffending - however many prisons we build.



Now you're getting it. Yes: children brought up with smokers are much [imore likely[/i to smoke than children brought up with non-smokers. Look at the vast majority of fat children and they usually have at least one fat parent.

All in your own opinion, I however think you're the uneducated child!!

Particularly when calling yourself 'Rock God' (how ridiculous is that? How many rick bands you been in??) and stick a fluffy teddy in your avatar!

You said it was the only two I would accept, I said it was the only two I could think of while posting. Posting two situations that I thought of off the top of my head and taking other points into consideration made to me by others are two different things. Not once in my post will you see that I have accepted that those are the only two things.

And just to point out both my parents came from heavy smoking families, my stepfathers parents both dying from emphasema and neither of my parents have smoked a cigarette in their lives because they have seen what damage it caused to loved ones. In my opinion the same can be applied to parents who commit crime, granted that doesn't always happen and it can swing the other way, but the child can see how the family can be damaged by a parent in prison and doesn't want to go down that road.

I haven't been in any rick bands. I have, however, been in a few rock bands. If the best you can find to attack is my username and avatar, then you might as well give up now.

If people are going to take everything on here so seriously, we may aswell just give up.

Also, if people are going to resort to the most far fetched examples to prove a point, it gets tedious.

So, you know GML then?

You said 'the only two I can see', not the only two I can think of at this moment. You even argued against my suggestions with the following post:



So don't try and make out that I'm putting words into your mouth. The evidence very clearly shows otherwise.



Yes, yes, there are always exceptions. Hence the reason I used terms like 'more likely' and 'usually'. It is [imore likely [/ithat a child who is brought up by criminals will become a criminal than a person brought up by the law-abiding. It is [imore likely[/i that a child brought up by smokers will become a smoker than those brought up by non-smokers. That there are exceptions to this doesn't alter the general rule.

You live in cuckoo land and are an extremely naive lady.

You are trying to tell me I will not accept any others and I'm telling you that just isn't the case, I am open to other peoples opinions, you have obviously mis-intepreted the meaning of my post (flame wars?) it was the only two I could see until others were pointed out, which I don't deny so please don't tell me I will not accept other opinions.

Look this is just getting us no-where, we have both put our arguments across and in my honest opinion we both have valid points, you may disagree and thats your right but I won't spit my dummy out because someone doesn't share my view.

Can we just agree to disagree

I did say I had led a rather shelted life

Whatever. I think it's pretty clear what you meant. I'll leave other people to make their own minds up.

Let people make their minds up by showing a post where I actually use the words "I don't accept", you won't find one because I have never used that turn of phrase. When you find that post then it will be pretty clear what I meant, until then you have mis-interpreted it.

Did you see Prescot on TV tonight

Yes..........unfortunately!

I think anyone on benefits should be sent to afghanistan to fight the war on terror. Those who are drug addicts would have the added benefit of extremely cheap heroin.

Obviously those on incapacity benefits would have to go through a medical first. Those that are able to wield a weapon could join the infantry. Others could drive tanks and things. they could shoot people who commit crim and any local councillors they happen to see wandering around camp bastion

Problem solved

What an advert for the city.

Fat waste of space - John Prescott - Go Compare.

You mean like these guys who are in receipt of benefits





You never know whats around the corner..............................................