So, this chick from work...

[Rids]

...is going to an 'action group' to support children who have been excluded from schools, and thus are unable to sit their GCSE's. She mentioned this today, and funnily enough, its only taking place at my old school.

Now, I thought about this for a second, and I raised my point to her. I know what schools in East London are like, I know just how much of a bad egg you have to be to get kicked out of them. I also know that 95% of the kids who stay in the school turn up to be scum, so what hope is there that the ones that have been excluded will ever turn into a positive contribution to society.

My point to her was that we should cut our losses, and let those who will not put the effort in to help themselves miss their GCSE's and head off to their life of crime. Now, I realise this isnt exactly a politically correct standpoint, but where do you all stand on this, should kids who have been repeatedly excluded from schools really be given yet another chance?

[StaticX]

Those who get expelled usually have some type of psychological problems and before giving up on them these issues need to be adressed. Of course, some will be easier than others so if she helps at least 1 person from being a scum sucking smackhead mugging old ladies for 25p then I say go for it. Personally, I think the whole approach to those who are incompatible to the modern scholl learnign environment should be treated in a more understanding way. Its like sending drug addicts to jail rather than rehabilitaion, pointless.

[jerome]

Studying currently, in a south-east London Grammar school, and actually seeing how far kids have to go before being permanently excluded, they are indeed lost cases. It's more due to the environment we grow up which affects our behaviour. than psychological problems, to be honest though.

[StaticX]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

It's more due to the environment we grow up which affects our behaviour. than psychological problems, to be honest though.

That's pretty much what I meant, just didn't state it very well.

[Stew]

I say just shoot them.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Rids

Now, I realise this isnt exactly a politically correct standpoint, but where do you all stand on this, should kids who have been repeatedly excluded from schools really be given yet another chance?

What's the alternative? This is not a moral argument. It's not about being "poltically correct". It's about being sensible.

Aside from literally shooting them, what else are you going to do? As Michael Caine said once (paraphrasing), "The poor may not make violent revolution but they will nick your VCR every single night, so we might want to spend some money on solving problems".

It's not "fair" on some levels that people who have continuously wasted chances get more resources directed at them. But the alternative would be a more atomised society, more fear and more crime. Go look at South Africa where there are entire districts completley atomised by system politics (historically).

[Stew]

Exactly, so shoot them. Save money by doing it in advance - have an 11+ exam but instead of going to a grammar school, you get to live. We're getting a bit crowded anyway. No flaws as I see it.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Stew

Exactly, so shoot them. Save money by doing it in advance - have an 11+ exam but instead of going to a grammar school, you get to live. We're getting a bit crowded anyway. No flaws as I see it.

Unfortunately (?) I'm not sure many people would support the mass murder of children whose only crime was to fail a test.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Unfortunately (?) I'm not sure many people would support the mass murder of children whose only crime was to fail a test.

They will when we explain the benefits - less crime, lower tax, better health as care isnt wasted on **** ups injuring themselves/others, better education as resources are directed at those who want to be there. I'm sure there's many other as well.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Stew

They will when we explain the benefits - less crime, lower tax, better health as care isnt wasted on **** ups injuring themselves/others, better education as resources are directed at those who want to be there. I'm sure there's many other as well.

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who would fail the test who wouldn't necessarily commit crimes, etc. You need people to do menial jobs like cleaning and such. I'm pretty sure I would have done quite badly in any 11+ test but I suppose you can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs.

[StaticX]

Originally Posted by Stew

They will when we explain the benefits - less crime, lower tax, better health as care isnt wasted on **** ups injuring themselves/others, better education as resources are directed at those who want to be there. I'm sure there's many other as well.

Then we can send them after criminals, the unemployed, the homeless, orphans as it will save money. Then we can send them to africa to kill everyone who has aids so we don't need to send aid. Problem solved.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by StaticX

Then we can send them after criminals, the unemployed, the homeless, orphans as it will save money. Then we can send them to africa to kill everyone who has aids so we don't need to send aid. Problem solved.

Now you're just being silly.

Edit: I'm serious, I mean the unemployed and homeless and orphans typically dont mean to be in their 'state', it's not their 'fault'. It is criminals and wasters so shoot them.

Edit2: Dante - it wouldnt be mass murder for many years, jsut a couple then they'd get the message.

[StaticX]

Originally Posted by Stew

Now you're just being silly.

Actually, I'm being very practical if not moral. We have an epidemic for which we have no cure and and uneducated population who continue to spread this diease. Rather than spending more money on teaching them about safer sex we can just shoot them.

EDIT: Those who grow up in troubled homes with mentally abusive parentes don't have a choice in the matter either so why should they die and not orphans?

[pablissimo]

Since I hate all children regardless of how mentally capable they are I'd claim that only killing the stupid ones is discrimination and that we should kill them all and allow man-kind to gracefully decend into a 60 year long renaissance of sorts.

Not your ordinary kind of renaissance, more like a 'quiet pint down the pub, Sunday football, Terry Wogan' kind.

After which we'd all be dead anyway.

[StaticX]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

Since I hate all children regardless of how mentally capable they are I'd claim that only killing the stupid ones is discrimination and that we should kill them all and allow man-kind to gracefully decend into a 60 year long renaissance of sorts.

Not your ordinary kind of renaissance, more like a 'quiet pint down the pub, Sunday football, Terry Wogan' kind.

After which we'd all be dead anyway.

I know some really annoying ''adults', how about selective culling of them as well?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Stew

Edit2: Dante - it wouldnt be mass murder for many years, jsut a couple then they'd get the message.

What message, that they should do better in a test? You were talking about killing everyone who failed a test. Not all trouble makers are stupid, and not all stupid people are trouble makers so you need to be careful with what you're talking about. It's OK to advocate fascist policies calling for the murder of innocents, you just need to be precise in your terms. Which children do you wish to be massacred? On what grounds? What criteria are you going to use to measure this? And so on.

[pablissimo]

I hate certain adults on an adult-by-adult basis; I hate all children unconditionally. Kill everything, **** it.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Which children do you wish to be massacred?

Townies.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

On what grounds?

They're ****ing annoying and do nothing positive to society.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

What criteria are you going to use to measure this?

Hmm - you're right a test isnt really optimal, especially intelligence. I need to think about this.

[Demon Dave]

we should just cut our loses and send all those who are permently expelled to prison, sort of cut out the middle man (i.e. they'll probably end up there anyway after a life crime). also, we need to bring back the death sentance for murders, rapists etc to make more room in the prisons for these expelled low-life townies (i'm fairly sure that 95% of expelled students are townies)

[Dante Hicks]

My housemate got expelled from school. He now earns £10k+ more than me.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

My housemate got expelled from school. He now earns £10k+ more than me.

Under my plan, you could have had that job and thus money although I thought money didnt mean anything to you...

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Stew

Under my plan, you could have had that job and thus money although I thought money didnt mean anything to you...

I don't really want his job (not that I could do it). If I wanted to earn more money I'd have made various different choices throughout my life.

I'm just indicating the "if you get expelled you're automatically a failure" thing is kind of crap.

[Dace]

"Kill them."

"Kill them all."

[/Hudson]

[Evergreen]

I think outlying communities on the north west scottish isle's should be evacuated and turned into prison islands.

Send em all there, then at least if they want to come steal and mug from us they'll have to learn summit pratical and hence can be rehabilitated.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

I hate certain adults on an adult-by-adult basis; I hate all children unconditionally. Kill everything, **** it.

[JonnyBGood]

This thread assumes too much. Nobody even deserves one chance.

Providing education/qualifications to those who have excluded from their schools is a perfectly valid idea though. Life would be more exciting with intelligent criminals.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Life would be more exciting with intelligent criminals.

in the same way as Russian Roulette would be more exciting with no empty chambers!

[Marilyn Manson]

This thread is astonishingly bad, even by the standards of GD.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

This thread is astonishingly bad, even by the standards of GD.

not so much 'astonishingly bad' as 'not really that overwhelmingly good'.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

This thread is astonishingly bad, even by the standards of GD.

Your avatar should approve of the simple right-wing blinkered idiocy of it though. There are people advocating the violent murder of the poor after all.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

There are people advocating the violent murder of the poor after all.

You say it like there is a better option.
Boot camps!?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Your avatar should approve of the simple right-wing blinkered idiocy of it though. There are people advocating the violent murder of the poor after all.

Capmag also approves. Between margaret thatcher and capmag I think we've found a sufficiently diverse, rational and unbiased viewpoint to declare poor people a menace to society which requires elimination.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Your avatar should approve of the simple right-wing blinkered idiocy of it though. There are people advocating the violent murder of the poor after all.

Jane Fonda on the screen today
Convinced the liberals it's okay
So let's get dressed and dance away the night

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Your avatar should approve of the simple right-wing blinkered idiocy of it though.

Margaret abides.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

There are people advocating the violent murder of the poor after all.

Tbh, this is all about emotion and tribalism. I don't consider any of this nonsense about shooting people constructive, or even particularly rational. It's all waffle.

The only thing it's useful for is highlighting how fragmented and pitiful society has become. Two nations, indeed.

[Quazi Starbucks]

Stew, are you saying that a person who is expelled from school should be shot?

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Quazi Starbucks

Stew, are you saying that a person who is expelled from school should be shot?

Not in a serious way, no.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Stew

You say it like there is a better option.
Boot camps!?

I'd prefer the violent murder of the rich.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'd prefer the violent murder of the rich.

Lets just think about this for a minute.
Where would the world be without the rich?
No, not there, take off your hammer and sickle tinted goggles?
Now look.
Not great is it?

[Blastoderm]

Originally Posted by Rids

...is going to an 'action group' to support children who have been excluded from schools, and thus are unable to sit their GCSE's. She mentioned this today, and funnily enough, its only taking place at my old school.

Now, I thought about this for a second, and I raised my point to her. I know what schools in East London are like, I know just how much of a bad egg you have to be to get kicked out of them. I also know that 95% of the kids who stay in the school turn up to be scum, so what hope is there that the ones that have been excluded will ever turn into a positive contribution to society.

My point to her was that we should cut our losses, and let those who will not put the effort in to help themselves miss their GCSE's and head off to their life of crime. Now, I realise this isnt exactly a politically correct standpoint, but where do you all stand on this, should kids who have been repeatedly excluded from schools really be given yet another chance?

Sounds like my old school in Hackney.

[Stew]

Also, after viewing the title of this thread and without looking at the creator, did anyone else expect it to be Dace?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Stew

Not great is it?

A damn sight better than without the poor, if that's the absurd comparison you're making.

The majority (as far as I can see) of the truly wealthy aren't contributing anything in any real sense. They may have done previously, but their current contribution is hardly anything noteworthy (on average, there are exceptions). To adapt Proudhon's hypothesis, if we were to kill the hundred richest people in the world (say) then the world would not be significantly worse off. Even the top 1000 (although this probably includes some cultural producers I suppose).

Fortunately we don't decide who to kill based on their contribution - well, outside fascist or similarly totalitarian socetieis.

[Weeks]

Well they should be helped.
Alot of ADHD kids get excluded from school.
But its not actually their fault.
The education system should try and deal with problem kids, at least look into why they are behaving badly.

[JonnyBGood]

Most people confuse rich with upper middle class (the people who sit in their office for 60 hours a week doing work involving similar effort to the working classes but largely with a greater, poor word selection, end product).

[Deffeh]

you can still stick your chariots up your arse though.

[Dace]

Originally Posted by Stew

Also, after viewing the title of this thread and without looking at the creator, did anyone else expect it to be Dace?

I know i did.

[Demon Dave]

they should make school voluntary, not compulsory. that way, the ones who actually want to learn, don't get disturbed by the f*ck-ups who don't want to be there

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Demon Dave

they should make school voluntary, not compulsory. that way, the ones who actually want to learn, don't get disturbed by the f*ck-ups who don't want to be there

w-hat

[Tomkat]

I'm probably being hideously naive here, but I think they deserve the chance to get those qualifications. At the age of 16 they're still growing up, so still have time to mature. You can't declare them social outcasts at that age. It simply isn't fair, as their lives could be potentially ruined for the future by a few unfortunate incidents when they were a teenager.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Demon Dave

they should make school voluntary, not compulsory. that way, the ones who actually want to learn, don't get disturbed by the f*ck-ups who don't want to be there

Agreed.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Demon Dave

they should make school voluntary, not compulsory. that way, the ones who actually want to learn, don't get disturbed by the f*ck-ups who don't want to be there

Yeah, because at age 11 I enjoyed going to school so much I even turned up early on sunday mornings.