[Sticks]

The contention is that children have no respect for their betters (elders)

In a former time it was

Children should be seen and not heard.

They are not to speak unless spoken to

When an adult speaks to them, they must answer the question quickly and shut up.

All children must stand to attention when an adult walks in the room, and may not sit down again until given permission.

When it is a case of a child's word against an adult, the child is the one deemed to have the "lying tounge"

Children must do as they are told by an adult without question.

Children should never ever use an adult's first name and should refer to their father as Sir.

When this was so, we had respect, low crime rate and a glorious empire

Should these ideas be brought back?

[arista]

Originally posted by Sticks
The contention is that children have no respect for their betters (elders)

In a former time it was

Children should be seen and not heard.

They are not to speak unless spoken to

When an adult speaks to them, they must answer the question quickly and shut up.

All children must stand to attention when an adult walks in the room, and may not sit down again until given permission.

When it is a case of a child's word against an adult, the child is the one deemed to have the "lying tounge"

Children must do as they are told by an adult without question.

Children should never ever use an adult's first name and should refer to their father as Sir.

When this was so, we had respect, low crime rate and a glorious empire

Should these ideas be brought back?

Yes
But only while at School.



Life In The City.

[Harry!]

That is a bit harsh dont you think.

[John.]

Originally posted by Sticks
The contention is that children have no respect for their betters (elders)

In a former time it was

Children should be seen and not heard.

They are not to speak unless spoken to

When an adult speaks to them, they must answer the question quickly and shut up.

All children must stand to attention when an adult walks in the room, and may not sit down again until given permission.

When it is a case of a child's word against an adult, the child is the one deemed to have the "lying tounge"

Children must do as they are told by an adult without question.

Children should never ever use an adult's first name and should refer to their father as Sir.

When this was so, we had respect, low crime rate and a glorious empire

Should these ideas be brought back?

IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO


I agree with the "children should be seen and not heard"
thing. However, the points you have listed are very old fashioned, and militant.

ie "Children should never ever use an adult's first name and should refer to their father as Sir."

_______________________

Though i agree it could bring back a lower crime rate, the evolution of children's rights would go back a hundred years,

_______________________

It is also the case now that the public view more and more into peoples life, so,

"When it is a case of a child's word against an adult, the child is the one deemed to have the "lying tounge"",
very dangerous, considering it could be the adult fault.

eg, Father: Not i wasn't abusing my daughter!
Daugher: but he was,
Policeman: Wee girl your lying, your father is telling the truth.

_______________________

"When this was so, we had respect, and a glorious empire, maybe so,"
but nowadays it simply won't work,
and that "glorious empire" you talk about, well i can't see it happening by going back in time!

[pinkmichk]

no it shouldnt although some good old fashioned respect and manners should be installed into kids

[Sam]

Not every young person is contributing to the high crime rate etc.

I think it goes down to bad parenting. My parents were never too strict and never "trained" me with those ideas and rules... but I turned out okay.

I have the upmost respect for them, and most people my age aren't stabbing people and in gangs.. it's only a small minority.

[Firewire]

I read it as 'Chicken should be seen but not heard'.

[Tom]

Did you know that a lot of adults also contribute to the crime rate?

Also you didn't have a low crime rate at all- it was just as bad but you never had the media to report it back then.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by JD.
Though i agree it could bring back a lower crime rate, the evolution of children's rights would go back a hundred years,

It is argued that children because they have no responsibilities have no rights, but adults have a duty of care. I believe there is another thread about that argument in this section

Originally posted by JD.

"When it is a case of a child's word against an adult, the child is the one deemed to have the "lying tounge"",
very dangerous, considering it could be the adult fault.

eg, Father: Not i wasn't abusing my daughter!
Daugher: but he was,
Policeman: Wee girl your lying, your father is telling the truth.

What about those teachers whose careers have been wrecked by false accusations?.

[Twilight]

I think you have to earn respect whatever your age,don't speak unless your spoken to and calling your dad sir, standing to attention what a load of crap.

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Tom
Did you know that a lot of adults also contribute to the crime rate?

Also you didn't have a low crime rate at all- it was just as bad but you never had the media to report it back then.

You claim didn't have a low crime rate at all!!!!!! As someone who was born in 1941 I can assure you your claim is as far off beam as the sun is from the north star......


Didn't have the media to report crime!!!!!!Stuff and nonesense.....


In the last few decades children have become involved in drugs, violent crime and alcohol abuse not to mention sexual activity long before they should be

The nature of crime is infinitly more violent as a result of the drug sodden life styles taken up by youngsters........

Yep children should be seen and not heard and perhaps then could take time to listen and learn about civilised social intercourse instead of premature sexual intercourse.

If youngsters of today could go back 50 years they would see just how unlucky they are with regard to personal safety and behavour........They may be rich in technology but boy oh boy at what a price to social behavour.....

[Tom]

Originally posted by bananarama

You claim didn't have a low crime rate at all!!!!!! As someone who was born in 1941 I can assure you your claim is as far off beam as the sun is from the north star......


Didn't have the media to report crime!!!!!!Stuff and nonesense.....


In the last few decades children have become involved in drugs, violent crime and alcohol abuse not to mention sexual activity long before they should be

The nature of crime is infinitly more violent as a result of the drug sodden life styles taken up by youngsters........

Yep children should be seen and not heard and perhaps then could take time to listen and learn about civilised social intercourse instead of premature sexual intercourse.

If youngsters of today could go back 50 years they would see just how unlucky they are with regard to personal safety and behavour........They may be rich in technology but boy oh boy at what a price to social behavour.....

I meant the size and the impact of the media. It is much much much bigger now with the internet, news channels etc. The world is a much smaller place and with everyone with their own technologies (like phones etc) they can make their own news which can eventually find its way into the media.

The media didn't have as much power now as it did then, and they never used to sensationalise crime as much as they do today.

Crime rates started to rise sharply in the 60s but nothing came of it until much much later. People look back on the 60's as "the good old days" when it couldn't be further from the truth.

[Lewis.]

Hmm.

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Tom

I meant the size and the impact of the media. It is much much much bigger now with the internet, news channels etc. The world is a much smaller place and with everyone with their own technologies (like phones etc) they can make their own news which can eventually find its way into the media.

The media didn't have as much power now as it did then, and they never used to sensationalise crime as much as they do today.

Crime rates started to rise sharply in the 60s but nothing came of it until much much later. People look back on the 60's as "the good old days" when it couldn't be further from the truth.

Sorry you are still way off beam. In the 60's my friend as a young man I could walk the streets safely no matter what time of night.......Now a days you are lucky to be safe in the day time.......Crime rate in the 60's was nothing not even close to what it is now.......The nature of what crime there was was nothin compared to the down right evil nature of modern day crime........

Crime is not just about Govenment backed cooked up doctored statistics but about what the nature of the crimes were and the reason for the crimes........Today there is seldom a reason other than some drug taking or drunk idiot losing control of their senses...

[Tom]

Crime is nowhere near as bad as the media make out anyway. They pick and choose specific stories to focus on and make them seem a lot worse than it is. The fact that knife crime is actually reducing says it all really and is just one example of media hype.

People only can't walk the streets at night because the media have told us we can't. OK bad things happen to some people at night, but no matter how you cover that up with an increase of crime or whatever, it always has happened and it always will happen. But it is nowhere near as bad as we're told, especially as they've only really started to pick up on that in the past few years.

I'm not saying crime rates are the same now, I'm just saying its nowhere near as bad now as they're making it out to be, and back then it was nowhere near as good as people claim it to be.

And of course statistics are going to rise making it look like crime is rising, but thats probably more due to an increase in population than anything else.

Finally you've taken what I said about crime in the 60's out of context. I said it sharply risen, not it was the same as now.

[letmein]

At the time that idea was proposed, children were still being abused behind closed doors, and put to work down in the salt mines.

People also used to say:

"Spare the rod, spoil the child."


They also used to teach that you do not go and cuddle a crying baby because it makes them dependent and weak.


So, bottom line, give me a break.

[arista]

Originally posted by Twilight
I think you have to earn respect whatever your age,don't speak unless your spoken to and calling your dad sir, standing to attention what a load of c**p.

Some in America
do that.

I think Young Rory
could be like that
the way he spoke to Dermot on BBLB.

[letmein]

Originally posted by arista

Some in America
do that.

I think Young Rory
could be like that
the way he spoke to Dermot on BBLB.

No, they don't.

America will lock you up if you strike a child. It's taken very seriously. America has had some of the worst child abuse cases on record. The country learned a lot from them over time.

[Sean_serg]

Nooo All of this is just bollocks!

They should just bring the cane back