Fair play to Peter Hitchens

Robroy36 · 17-12-2013 10:51AM #1

Was anyone else watching Newsnight last night? Peter Hitchens and Matthew Perry had a tête-à-tête over, among other things, the current trend in society to absolve addicts of all responsibility by classing them as "ill" or "disabled". This particular line really struck a cord with me - certainly last week the debate about "addicts" terrorising people on the LUAS is one aspect of the sickening decline that we see on our own shores.

What do you think After Hours - is Hitchens right? Are we too quick to look past the person and classify any poor decisions people make in life as part of some sort of nebulous medical condition?

http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/life/celebrity-life/matthew-perry-in-heated-newsnight-drugs-debate-1.166399

17-12-2013 10:51AM

What's Chandler Bing doing talking about the Luas?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 17-12-2013 10:52AM

hitchens is a conservative, therefore has nothing worthwhile to say about anything and it can be safely assumed the opposite of what he says is the truth

also mother of ****, why is anybody listening to matthew perry about anything. he was only ever worthwhile when he was on coke.

Robroy36 · 17-12-2013 10:54AM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

hitchens is a conservative, therefore has nothing worthwhile to say about anything and it can be safely assumed the opposite of what he says is the truth

Very ignorant statement, to be honest I would treat anything you say in the same regard.

bootybouncer · 17-12-2013 10:57AM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

hitchens is a conservative, therefore has nothing worthwhile to say about anything and it can be safely assumed the opposite of what he says is the truth

also mother of ****, why is anybody listening to matthew perry about anything. he was only ever worthwhile when he was on coke.

Harsh.......................he seems to have come through the worst part of his addictions

Nobody is worthwhile on coke ...............................

Dravokivich · 17-12-2013 10:58AM

Addiction is not an illness or a disability. There may be some sort of stumbling block that someone can't get through and they fall back into it. But their issue is they need support, not excuses for their inabilities.

SEPT 23 1989 · 17-12-2013 11:11AM

I think the drug courts are an excellent idea

sbsquarepants · 17-12-2013 11:15AM

I have absolutely no idea who either of these people are, but for my 2 cents worth addicts of all description are responsible for their own actions, end of argument really.

Hande hoche! · 17-12-2013 11:18AM

Chandler Bing was my favourite of the friends. Their was that horror movie where he tuned into Justin Bieber.

Trevor Cortez Zambrano · 17-12-2013 11:22AM

In my opinion, Peter Hitchens is a most unlikable c*nt.

120_Minutes · 17-12-2013 11:22AM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea who either of these people are, but for my 2 cents worth addicts of all description are responsible for their own actions, end of argument really.

Really? matthew perry? aka Chandler from friends? aka Benny from Fallout: New Vegas? Ryan from Go on?

Could you be any more of a piss taker?

Seaneh · 17-12-2013 11:23AM

Hitchens is a ****ing idiot.

He's arguing that further criminalising non-violent drug takers and throwing them in jail is good idea.

He has all the bollockology and say things to be controversial characteristics of his brother, who was also a ****ing prick and none of his intelligence.

Hande hoche! · 17-12-2013 11:24AM

I'm astonished that they are still making Calafornication.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 17-12-2013 12:14PM

Robroy36 wrote: »

Very ignorant statement, to be honest I would treat anything you say in the same regard.

Making you equally as ignorant?

Robroy36 · 17-12-2013 12:40PM

Bah Feckin Humbug! wrote: »

Making you equally as ignorant?

No, how do you come to that conclusion?

If you find someone to be ignorant / violent / repulsive, does ignoring and avoiding them make you equally ignorant / violent / repulsive?

sbsquarepants · 17-12-2013 12:45PM

120_Minutes wrote: »

Really? matthew perry? aka Chandler from friends? aka Benny from Fallout: New Vegas? Ryan from Go on?

Could you be any more of a piss taker?

Ha ha:D
I actually thought it was just someone with the same name:o:o Yea, I know Chandler alright, never heard of fall out or go on though!

Da Shins Kelly · 17-12-2013 01:03PM

Peter Hitchens is a gob****e. He's advocating the further criminalization of drug users, as if that's working so well as it is. :rolleyes: His arrogance and complete lack of understanding is astounding.

A big issue surrounding drug and alcohol problems is mental health. Throwing more people in jail is short-sighted, costly and ineffective, because it's not getting to the root of the problem. Telling people to simply have more willpower or just "get over it" is ludicrous, and frankly offensive.

Baroness Meacher spoke the most sense out of the lot of them. I think she could have taken Hitchens down single-handedly.

wretcheddomain · 17-12-2013 01:10PM

I advocate lethal injection as a punishment for drug abusers. That'll stop them!

Agricola · 17-12-2013 01:17PM

Listening to that guy, its as if Hitch rose from the dead and came back as an ultra conservative toolbag!

- minus the wit and humour.

Hande hoche! · 17-12-2013 01:21PM

Agricola wrote: »

Listening to that guy, its as if Hitch rose from the dead and came back as an ultra conservative toolbag!

- minus the wit and humour.

I must admit I thought Peter Hitchens was dead.

renegademaster · 17-12-2013 01:26PM

Robroy36 wrote: »

Was anyone else watching Newsnight last night? Peter Hitchens and Matthew Perry had a tête-à-tête over, among other things, the current trend in society to absolve addicts of all responsibility by classing them as "ill" or "disabled". This particular line really struck a cord with me - certainly last week the debate about "addicts" terrorising people on the LUAS is one aspect of the sickening decline that we see on our own shores.

What do you think After Hours - is Hitchens right? Are we too quick to look past the person and classify any poor decisions people make in life as part of some sort of nebulous medical condition?

http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/life/celebrity-life/matthew-perry-in-heated-newsnight-drugs-debate-1.166399

not all drug users are addicts and likewise not all addicts are scummy cnuts like those on the Luas

it's funny when i read the same story as you this morn i though fair play to Matt Perry

Soft Falling Rain · 17-12-2013 01:51PM

Maybe Hitchens should go meet a few people currently in addiction and ask them if they enjoy their life. I'm not talking about celebrities enjoying the excesses of their infamy, I'm talking about addicts who have destroyed their own lives as well as those around them. The kind of people who have no-one and nothing to live for other than to feed their addiction.

Addiction is not a choice, in fact, it's a pretty idiotic idea. Why would anyone in their right mind choose what I've outlined above?

Agricola · 17-12-2013 01:56PM

Hande hoche! wrote: »

I must admit I thought Peter Hitchens was dead.

Greatest proof on non existence of God - Hitch dies of cancer at 60 odd. This eegit is here, hail and hearty.

old hippy · 17-12-2013 02:11PM

renegademaster wrote: »

not all drug users are addicts and likewise not all addicts are scummy cnuts like those on the Luas

it's funny when i read the same story as you this morn i though fair play to Matt Perry

Addiction has no barriers in the social strata.

Manach · 17-12-2013 02:17PM

I find Mr. Hitchens both an excellent writer of books and blogs that chronicle the disintegration of Western society into a fractured and impoverished backwater. He skewers both the radicalised individualisation that has undermined social bonds and well and the growth of the PC Nanny state whose reach now emcompasses more power to interfere with familiy life that is unprecedented and shows no sign of waning.

Daqster · 17-12-2013 02:27PM

Manach wrote: »

I find Mr. Hitchens both an excellent writer of books and blogs that chronicle the disintegration of Western society into a fractured and impoverished backwater. He skewers both the radicalised individualisation that has undermined social bonds and well and the growth of the PC Nanny state whose reach now emcompasses more power to interfere with familiy life that is unprecedented and shows no sign of waning.

But sure he wants to give the PC Nanny State more power with one hand and take it away with the other.

The guy is a shining example of someone with fcuk load of intelligence but not enough common sense to harness it.

RDM_83 again · 17-12-2013 02:28PM

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

A big issue surrounding drug and alcohol problems is mental health. Throwing more people in jail is short-sighted, costly and ineffective, because it's not getting to the root of the problem. Telling people to simply have more willpower or just "get over it" is ludicrous, and frankly offensive.

A question, while I agree completely with what your saying and it could probably be applied to a lot of crime rather than just crime in general. Once these vulnerable people are out of residential care (which remember is f"cking expensive), how do we protect them? We can say its a stupid idea criminalizing drug crime but if they go back to their former environment and they are surrounded by dealers,pushers and current addicts that are more open and visible because of reduced penalties for drug crime aren't we making their path to recovery harder.

Another thing is that if addiction is considered as something that can excuse responsibility for actions due to diminshed capacity, this diminshed capacity should be taken into account in situations where the addict is not facing imminint charges e.g in terms of mandating treatment or social care.
Its hypocritical and non sensical to do otherwise.

PS before the Portugal comparison is used consider how bad Portugal was in terms of its response before it brought in those changes, Ireland even Ireland in 90's was not comparable so the changes in rates may not happen here at all with a Portuguese response.

biko · 17-12-2013 02:37PM

As in most things a Conservative will stress the responsibility of the individual and a Liberal will stress the responsibility of the society.
The right way (imo) is usually somewhere in between.

Individuals have rights yes but also obligations, something often overlooked.

steddyeddy · 17-12-2013 02:52PM

Amazing that conservatives like hitchens preach rights, responsibilities and the hard work of the individual while coming from a privileged background. My problem with a lot of conservatives like Boris Johnson and Hitchens is that they have these ideas about individual responsibility and hard work while coming from a background where they didn't have to.

Robroy36 · 17-12-2013 03:00PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Amazing that conservatives like hitchens preach rights, responsibilities and the hard work of the individual while coming from a privileged background. My problem with a lot of conservatives like Boris Johnson and Hitchens is that they have these ideas about individual responsibility and hard work while coming from a background where they didn't have to.

They did have to work hard, you do not become a successful politician or journalist by hocus pocus or wizzardry. Just because both those men suceeded on different part meritocratic spectrum than the average person does not mean the work they put in should be disregarded.

RDM_83 again · 17-12-2013 03:08PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Amazing that conservatives like hitchens preach rights, responsibilities and the hard work of the individual while coming from a privileged background. My problem with a lot of conservatives like Boris Johnson and Hitchens is that they have these ideas about individual responsibility and hard work while coming from a background where they didn't have to.

Interestingly the very well off are actually probably less responsible towards wider society, this makes a certain logical sense when we consider that a lot of interaction is driven by a give and take.
An ordinary person is highly dependent on wider society while a significant amount of wealth insulates and grants independence.

http://phys.org/news/2012-02-upper-class-people.html

Fair play to Peter Hitchens

Comments