Mid-term Betjeman Blues

[Stillhomewardbound]

Time for some sub-Betjeman doggerel, inspired by the schools break that seems to be upon us:

Youths smoking pot by a church door, pre-teeners on trains being a bore
Feral fiends mainly a menace, chanting how 'they're all again' us'
This is the state, our child of late, Not home, but out, the mid-term lout."

[Simon]

Neat. Irrelevant to anywhere but cities, perhaps. But neat nonetheless!

[amateur51]

Neat. Irrelevant to anywhere but cities, perhaps. But neat nonetheless!

Finger on the pulse, as usual

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/newsrele.nsf/WebPressReleases/56B46FA8337F44E580257A2200456ECD

[Simon]

Sorry. Mea culpa. As your example so clearly and incontrovertibly demonstrates, rural areas and the countryside in general are far more prone to vandalism, crime and violence than are cities. So my point was, obviously, completely wrong.

[amateur51]

Sorry. Mea culpa. As your example so clearly and incontrovertibly demonstrates, rural areas and the countryside in general are far more prone to vandalism, crime and violence than are cities. So my point was, obviously, completely wrong.

Ah you missed it again - I was making the point that you appear to live in a parallel universe set in the 1950s

[Julien Sorel]

And then there are all the "pre-teeners" and teenagers on half-term in cities who are doing non-antisocial things.

Still, stuff them eh? They're all young so let's hate them.

[amateur51]

And then there are all the "pre-teeners" and teenagers on half-term in cities who are doing non-antisocial things.

Still, stuff them eh? They're all young so let's hate them.

... or if you'd prefer

[Simon]

Ah you missed it again - I was making the point that you appear to live in a parallel universe set in the 1950s

You weren't making any point at all. You seem, generally, to be incapable of making any point. You follow me around on the boards and try to cause trouble, but I expect that most people will have realised that by now. That's why you were banned from "The Choir" section.

What you were trying to do earlier in this thread - unsuccessfully, of course - was to refute the fact that the social environment and lifestyle that is generated by large groups of people living closely together in places like cities is more likely to generate anti-social behaviour, vandalism and violence.

JS - I hope your future interjections are going to be more helpful than this last. The situation I mentioned is not, in my view, the fault of the young people as such, although some of them are certainly not always blameless. It is no reason to "hate" them, for sure. My own view is that it is a fault of the way that society has allowed cities to develop. "Planning" is largely a joke, which IMO exceeds in LA incompetence even our renowned highways "administration" There is far too little thought for social and community welfare and far too much freedom for the powerful building lobby and for private landlords (of which my family is one, so I know what I'm talking about).

[Julien Sorel]

JS - I hope your future interjections are going to be more helpful than this last.

Doubt it. I'm constitutionally unhelpful.

The situation I mentioned is not, in my view, the fault of the young people as such, although some of them are certainly not always blameless. It is no reason to "hate" them, for sure. My own view is that it is a fault of the way that society has allowed cities to develop. "Planning" is largely a joke, which IMO exceeds in LA incompetence even our renowned highways "administration" There is far too little thought for social and community welfare and far too much freedom for the powerful building lobby and for private landlords (of which my family is one, so I know what I'm talking about).

Most city "preteens" and teenagers don't smoke pot outside churches, cause trouble on railway trains, drink cider in the park, etc. etc. What's unhelpful (or untrue) about pointing that out?

[amateur51]

You weren't making any point at all. You seem, generally, to be incapable of making any point. You follow me around on the boards and try to cause trouble, but I expect that most people will have realised that by now. That's why you were banned from "The Choir" section.

What you were trying to do earlier in this thread - unsuccessfully, of course - was to refute the fact that the social environment and lifestyle that is generated by large groups of people living closely together in places like cities is more likely to generate anti-social behaviour, vandalism and violence.

Thank you for your belligerent message.

Please don't flatter yourself that I follow you - like many people on here I just have to read your latest post for your freshest pompous inanity and misconception. They really are quite a treat.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who has had any sort of contact with people in rural areas will know that crime, minor and antisocial and major, is just as common in rural areas as it is in cities. But because there are few people, the number of incidents is lower.

Contact your local drugs project sometime and they'll tell you hair-raising stories about what's going on at the moment. At one time in the rural South-West drugs project outreach workers discovered that injecting directly into the eyeball was the last modus of delivery, believe it or not, something uncommon in inner-city areas at the time.

How do I know this? Years ago I used to train youth and community workers in Derbyshire, including those working in rural areas.

Please do keep them coming - but I can't guarantee to repond to all of them