Is it always someone else's fault?

gramar

In an article about teenagers running across the railway tracks in Donabate:

"Mark Gleeson, a spokesperson for Rail Users Ireland, believes incidents such as this are due to Irish Rail’s lack of people present in smaller stations.

He said: “This kind of antisocial behaviour is happening because there is no one there. It is a symptom of Irish Rail’s failure to put people on the ground"

I don't agree. This type of antisocial behaviour is happening because people are arseholes. To sum up, what he is saying is that people do stupid things but it's not their fault as someone should have stopped them.

The fella obviously has an agenda against Irish Rail which is not my point. The message is that someone else is always to blame.

failinis

It's true that having a station master or staff at the station would discourage actions such as this, but its down to the people risking there lives whose fault it is if its running out on tracks.

Thoie

A person alone in the train station can do little against these hordes of monsters other than call the gardaí. A centralised camera system that can play a recording (such as "get off the f***ing line you morons") would be just as much use.

failinis

Thoie wrote: »

A person alone in the train station can do little against these hoards of monsters other than call the gardaí. A centralised camera system that can play a recording (such as "get off the f***ing line you morons") would be just as much use.

Fines as well - if they can identify people on camera and actually chase it up.

The Bishop Basher

Years ago they'd have got a clout around the ear and a kick in the arse.

Now they get to trip on a sleeper and claim a 6 figure sum.

We should get back to kicking them up the arse.

DEFTLEFTHAND

It's obviously the parents responsibility to know what their kids are up to.

YFlyer

If you pick up on it quick
You can say you were there
Again and again and again
You're jumping someone else's train

Thoie

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

It's obviously the parents responsibility to know what their kids are up to.

I used think that a lot, and then I remember my own childhood, where we'd disappear for a few hours. Our parents would have an idea of where we were, but not exactly what we were doing.

The difference is that we knew if _anyone_ over the age of 18 saw us doing something stupid/wrong/silly we'd get a severe talking to at a minimum, our parents would be told, and there would be some kind of follow up punishment. Even being given out to was enough to make us very shamefaced and possibly cry - partially because we knew that some form of punishment would be coming down the line.

I asked a few 10 year olds recently to stop breaking something, and all I got was a barrage of back-talk and insults. I know exactly where they live and who their parents are - and also know that telling the parents what they were up to is absolutely pointless.

I think the problem is not whether or not the parents know what the kids are up to, but it's whether the parents recognise and punish anti-social behaviour in the first place.

Shint0

YFlyer wrote: »

If you pick up on it quick
You can say you were there
Again and again and again
You're jumping someone else's train

Haven't heard that song in years. Brings back memories.

looksee

'Social' behaviour has disappeared to some extent because of the rise of importance of the individual. There is a balance that most people (I think) get right which acknowledges the rights of the individual, and in turn their obligation to society. As can be seen any time, on the internet, a lot of the time it has to be one extreme or the other - my rights totally outweigh those of other people and society in general.

Looking back even 50 years the rights of the individual were pretty much not considered, even by the individuals concerned; which was how people could be instructed to join an army and march off to get killed.

All you can really do is make sure your own kids understand both individual rights and social obligations.

Duggy747

Electrify everything around the station; The rails, the grass, the stones, the bins, the whole lot!

That'll soon teach 'em!

biko

So what if some kids run across some tracks?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MENjFkEAj9g

Your Face

I dreamt of Paris again last night.

Ted111

Swanner wrote: »

We should get back to kicking them up the arse.

Too late.

That train has left the station.

lertsnim

biko wrote: »

So what if some kids run across some tracks?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MENjFkEAj9g

Talk about making use of every square inch of land.

AlekSmart

looksee wrote: »

'Social' behaviour has disappeared to some extent because of the rise of importance of the individual. There is a balance that most people (I think) get right which acknowledges the rights of the individual, and in turn their obligation to society. As can be seen any time, on the internet, a lot of the time it has to be one extreme or the other - my rights totally outweigh those of other people and society in general.

Looking back even 50 years the rights of the individual were pretty much not considered, even by the individuals concerned; which was how people could be instructed to join an army and march off to get killed.

All you can really do is make sure your own kids understand both individual rights and social obligations.

An interesting perspective,and one which was to the forefront of my mind reading this....

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/car-thief-who-mounted-pedestrian-island-on-oconnell-bridge-before-crashing-in-temple-bar-loses-appeal-34920483.html

A car thief who mounted the median on O'Connell Bridge before crashing in Temple Bar has lost a sentence appeal.

Dublin native Leonard Dumbrell (28), with an address at Clonattin Village, Gorey, Co Wexford, had pleaded guilty to car theft and two counts of dangerous driving in Dublin City Centre on January 2, 2013.

He was sentenced at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to three years imprisonment and disqualified from driving for five years by Judge Mary Ellen Ring on July 30, 2015.

Dismissing Dumbrell's appeal against sentence today, Mr Justice Alan Mahon said Dumbrell had gotten into a car and drove away after the owner had left his vehicle with the engine running. There had been no confrontation.

Shortly afterwards, the stolen car was seen in Ringsend by a garda who switched on his lights and gave chase.

Dumbrell sped off, broke a red light, made illegal turns, weaved dangerously through traffic, mounted a pedestrian median on O'Connell Bridge and crashed in Temple Bar.

Mr Justice Mahon said Dumbrell, who had :eek:108 previous convictions, :eek: ran but was arrested a short distance away.

His barrister, John Berry BL, submitted that the sentencing judge failed to adequately structure the sentence to provide for rehabilitation.

In the Court of Appeal's view, three years was “lenient” having regard to Dumbrell's lengthy list of relevant previous convictions.

It was clear from the moment the case initially came before the Circuit Court judge that rehabilitation was foremost in her mind, Mr Justice Mahon said.

When he pleaded guilty, sentencing was adjourned for a month and later adjourned again. Unfortunately, Mr Justice Mahon said Dumbrell's efforts to remain drug free during the second period were “unsuccessful”.

In June 2014, he was remanded in custody having breached bail conditions.

Mr Justice Mahon, who sat with Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan and Mr Justice John Edwards, said the Court of Appeal was satisfied that the “suggested error did not occur”.

Three years was within the sentencing judge's discretion and the “leniency” of the sentence more than adequately reflected the mitigating factors present in the case.

“It represented a relatively short custodial term having regard to the gravity of the offence”.

The appeal was therefore dismissed.

I'm left wondering if persons of Legal substance,acting for appelants in positions such as Mr Dumbrell found himself in,actually believe the words which they craft to place before a Court.

Do you consider it extreme to enquire,as to what particular "Individual Rights and Social Obligations" any parent with 109 Convictions will strive to instill into any childern they may have ?

As for Conscription into the Military,it still remains as an option for virtually any Governing entity,it's only the lack of a suitably intense conflict which has not seen it used in the West for a few decades....a situation which could well change very rapidly,given the current stste of play ?

Estrellita

Education starts in the home. I used to play in a playground area with trees around it, beside that again there were railway tracks. Sure we would have been curious, and watched the trains pass on the opposite side of the fence. I was warned never to climb the fence or mess on the tracks. I wasn't afraid of my parents when I was warned like that, I just wouldn't have disobeyed them. You would be made to feel like you had disappointed them if you'd crossed their rules. I respected them, which I think is not so common these days.

We were also asked where we would be, my parents would be happy once they knew we were safe. We weren't smothered as children, but guided well I think.

gramar

Kids who are let off the leash and do as they please will most likely carry that behaviour through to adulthood. Always looking for others to blame and take responsibility for their actions and their problems. They are all too aware of how everything affects them but blind to the fact of how their own actions impinge on others. If it does come to a court case like the example above then there are always 'mitigating factors'. The facts are this scumbag stole a car and drove it like a hotrod around the middle of Dublin but of course it wasn't all his fault.

Ronald Wilson Reagan

There should be a third rail installed to fry the bastards.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Robsweezie

Thoie wrote: »

The difference is that we knew if _anyone_ over the age of 18 saw us doing something stupid/wrong/silly we'd get a severe talking to at a minimum, our parents would be told, and there would be some kind of follow up punishment. Even being given out to was enough to make us very shamefaced and possibly cry - partially because we knew that some form of punishment would be coming down the line.

QUOTE]


like a train?

Thoie

Robsweezie wrote: »

Thoie wrote: »

The difference is that we knew if _anyone_ over the age of 18 saw us doing something stupid/wrong/silly we'd get a severe talking to at a minimum, our parents would be told, and there would be some kind of follow up punishment. Even being given out to was enough to make us very shamefaced and possibly cry - partially because we knew that some form of punishment would be coming down the line.

like a train?

Choo choo!

(Though I'd originally been thinking of a severe telling off, a smack on the bum, or being sent to your room).