Documentaries
-
Managed to get a copy of George Martin's Rhythm of Life - which I last saw in '98.
He takes the viewer thru Rhythm, Melody and Harmony to explain how music affects and influences the human brain. Does it with people like Stevie Wonder, Stewart Copeland, Billy Joel, Brian Wilson, Hans Zimmer, Oasis, Bee Gees, Macca, Sir George Solti etc - and hillbilly bands, gospel choirs & street buskers.
Brilliant documentary series which explains music in layman's terms. Clip below:
-
@MajorRage said in Documentaries:
@booboo said in Documentaries:
Just started watching a programme on the murder of James Bulger.
For those not familiar ... victim was a 2yo lured away from his mother and beaten to death by a pair of 10 yo boys.
Not sure I'm articulating this properly, but ...
...My question is why do we feel so much more horror at this crime, and disgust for the perpetrators? Especially over and above adults carrying out the same crime?
There have been multitudinous deaths of 2yos at the hands of adult sickos that we all struggle to put names to. But, in my experience, the feeling of revulsion we all get towards these babies (at 10yo yes they're babies) that perpetrated this is much greater.
Not excusing, absolutely no way. They knew what they were doing was wrong.
My question is why do we feel this is worse than so many other acts of violence committed by adults?
Answers on the back of a postcard...
Summary of this situation is that this is the sort of crime which truly a shocks a nation. Even if it was done by a 35 year old sicko, it would be a truly shocking crime which would ring long in the ears of of inhabitants here about where we currently stand. The fact it was done by two 10 year old boys causes it be doubled down upon.
I have an 11 year old boy, which means that both Venables & Thompson were younger than he is now when they committed this atrocity. I'll acknowledge that my son is rather young for an 11 year old, but its simply not possible to fathom that somebody of his age could be capable of such a thing. It is incomprehensible.
For all the shit that this country takes, it is on the whole, a pretty safe place to be. People don't just get murdered or disappear. You only need to look at the coverage that Nicola Bulley has got over the last few weeks to realise that. For those that don't know, a mid forties woman disappeared walking her dog and the police said she probably fell in the river. They found her body about two weeks later but she was splashed everywhere, front cover of all the rags etc whilst the police tried to piece together what happened (she did as the police suspected, fall in the river).
Thus, a disappearance of a kid & when the subsequent crime coming out truly shocked a nation.
I did a quick google search on this to check a couple of facts before writing and I must say, the mere sight of those two little fluffybunnies actually made me pretty angry. It's completely wrong that 1c of my taxpayers money is spent on them. They don't deserve one single bit of respect from anybody, and it's pretty clear that both are complete psychopaths.
I'm not pro capital punishment, but if a nasty accident was to happen to either of them, I doubt a single person in this country would give a flying fuck.
I’m Old Testament
But everything above that judgement I’m with you 100%
Hard labour and shit food
You’ll soon work out who are the real bad bastards
Then you eliminate those not worthy of rehabilitation
I’m 3 bottles in but tomorrow I’ll feel the same but maybe would have expressed it a tad better
Maybe not
-
Facscinating posts. I don't want to get too serious or heavy but I think it's a really complex area.
For the vast, vast majority of cases - even murders - locking people up for long periods in harsh conditions as some sort of deterrent just doesn't work or make things safer. If it did, then the US would be the safest country in the world. Years since I studied this at Uni but I recall that the only country in the OECD area which didn't increase custodial sentences in response to the big increase in property crime in the 90's-2000's (France I think) was the only country to see a fall in these crimes. They focussed on restoration and rehabilitation.
In the Bulger case, from what's been released, one of the two killers, Thompson, seems to have been rehabilitated and done OK while Venables has had plenty of problems. And child killers seem to go on to live pretty normal or productive lives - eg Mary Bell. Juliet Hulme of the Parker-Hulme case went on to be a best selling author and her partner in murder became IIRC, a respected teacher I guess the trick is to balance the public need for retribution (often media-led) against the hard logic of rehabilitation, preventing re-offending, reducing further harms and making society as whole safer.
That said, it's pretty clear some people should just never be let out. I wouldn't just limit this to what we'd call psychopaths but also to those who abuse their position in the criminal justice system and cause real harm - evidence-fiddling police officers & those who destroy evidence in child sex abuse cases for example. Way too many don't even get charged let alone made to account for their crimes - and cause huge harm to society.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Documentaries:
Facscinating posts. I don't want to get too serious or heavy but I think it's a really complex area.
For the vast, vast majority of cases - even murders - locking people up for long periods in harsh conditions as some sort of deterrent just doesn't work or make things safer. If it did, then the US would be the safest country in the world. Years since I studied this at Uni but I recall that the only country in the OECD area which didn't increase custodial sentences in response to the big increase in property crime in the 90's-2000's (France I think) was the only country to see a fall in these crimes. They focussed on restoration and rehabilitation.
In the Bulger case, from what's been released, one of the two killers, Thompson, seems to have been rehabilitated and done OK while Venables has had plenty of problems. And child killers seem to go on to live pretty normal or productive lives - eg Mary Bell. Juliet Hulme of the Parker-Hulme case went on to be a best selling author and her partner in murder became IIRC, a respected teacher I guess the trick is to balance the public need for retribution (often media-led) against the hard logic of rehabilitation, preventing re-offending, reducing further harms and making society as whole safer.
That said, it's pretty clear some people should just never be let out. I wouldn't just limit this to what we'd call psychopaths but also to those who abuse their position in the criminal justice system and cause real harm - evidence-fiddling police officers & those who destroy evidence in child sex abuse cases for example. Way too many don't even get charged let alone made to account for their crimes - and cause huge harm to society.
You had me until France
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Documentaries:
Facscinating posts. I don't want to get too serious or heavy but I think it's a really complex area.
For the vast, vast majority of cases - even murders - locking people up for long periods in harsh conditions as some sort of deterrent just doesn't work or make things safer. If it did, then the US would be the safest country in the world. Years since I studied this at Uni but I recall that the only country in the OECD area which didn't increase custodial sentences in response to the big increase in property crime in the 90's-2000's (France I think) was the only country to see a fall in these crimes. They focussed on restoration and rehabilitation.
In the Bulger case, from what's been released, one of the two killers, Thompson, seems to have been rehabilitated and done OK while Venables has had plenty of problems. And child killers seem to go on to live pretty normal or productive lives - eg Mary Bell. Juliet Hulme of the Parker-Hulme case went on to be a best selling author and her partner in murder became IIRC, a respected teacher I guess the trick is to balance the public need for retribution (often media-led) against the hard logic of rehabilitation, preventing re-offending, reducing further harms and making society as whole safer.
That said, it's pretty clear some people should just never be let out. I wouldn't just limit this to what we'd call psychopaths but also to those who abuse their position in the criminal justice system and cause real harm - evidence-fiddling police officers & those who destroy evidence in child sex abuse cases for example. Way too many don't even get charged let alone made to account for their crimes - and cause huge harm to society.
Good post.
I heard some stories about some plans around breaking the family cycle of offending being put to a certain Minister that was known for “crushing”. Her response was all hardline “Law and Order” and one “reformer” there simply said “how’s that worked out for you so far?”
Same people are also happy to incarcerate those that they know can never be rehabbed or shouldn’t be given the opportunity. -
@MiketheSnow said in Documentaries:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Documentaries:
Facscinating posts. I don't want to get too serious or heavy but I think it's a really complex area.
For the vast, vast majority of cases - even murders - locking people up for long periods in harsh conditions as some sort of deterrent just doesn't work or make things safer. If it did, then the US would be the safest country in the world. Years since I studied this at Uni but I recall that the only country in the OECD area which didn't increase custodial sentences in response to the big increase in property crime in the 90's-2000's (France I think) was the only country to see a fall in these crimes. They focussed on restoration and rehabilitation.
In the Bulger case, from what's been released, one of the two killers, Thompson, seems to have been rehabilitated and done OK while Venables has had plenty of problems. And child killers seem to go on to live pretty normal or productive lives - eg Mary Bell. Juliet Hulme of the Parker-Hulme case went on to be a best selling author and her partner in murder became IIRC, a respected teacher I guess the trick is to balance the public need for retribution (often media-led) against the hard logic of rehabilitation, preventing re-offending, reducing further harms and making society as whole safer.
That said, it's pretty clear some people should just never be let out. I wouldn't just limit this to what we'd call psychopaths but also to those who abuse their position in the criminal justice system and cause real harm - evidence-fiddling police officers & those who destroy evidence in child sex abuse cases for example. Way too many don't even get charged let alone made to account for their crimes - and cause huge harm to society.
You had me until France
Too long to remember the exact details, but it was around burglary & car theft. Most Western countries took a hard line on sentencing and/or toughened the law in response to big increases in rates. France took a completely different approach and focussed on likely offenders (prevention) and avoided jailing offenders where possible (which meant they didn't swap ideas in prison) but used probation making then pay for any damage caused.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Documentaries:
@MiketheSnow said in Documentaries:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Documentaries:
Facscinating posts. I don't want to get too serious or heavy but I think it's a really complex area.
For the vast, vast majority of cases - even murders - locking people up for long periods in harsh conditions as some sort of deterrent just doesn't work or make things safer. If it did, then the US would be the safest country in the world. Years since I studied this at Uni but I recall that the only country in the OECD area which didn't increase custodial sentences in response to the big increase in property crime in the 90's-2000's (France I think) was the only country to see a fall in these crimes. They focussed on restoration and rehabilitation.
In the Bulger case, from what's been released, one of the two killers, Thompson, seems to have been rehabilitated and done OK while Venables has had plenty of problems. And child killers seem to go on to live pretty normal or productive lives - eg Mary Bell. Juliet Hulme of the Parker-Hulme case went on to be a best selling author and her partner in murder became IIRC, a respected teacher I guess the trick is to balance the public need for retribution (often media-led) against the hard logic of rehabilitation, preventing re-offending, reducing further harms and making society as whole safer.
That said, it's pretty clear some people should just never be let out. I wouldn't just limit this to what we'd call psychopaths but also to those who abuse their position in the criminal justice system and cause real harm - evidence-fiddling police officers & those who destroy evidence in child sex abuse cases for example. Way too many don't even get charged let alone made to account for their crimes - and cause huge harm to society.
You had me until France
Too long to remember the exact details, but it was around burglary & car theft. Most Western countries took a hard line on sentencing and/or toughened the law in response to big increases in rates. France took a completely different approach and focussed on likely offenders (prevention) and avoided jailing offenders where possible (which meant they didn't swap ideas in prison) but used probation making then pay for any damage caused.
I wonder if that worked for France? What did they do if the offenders didn't pay for the damage caused? I bet lots didn't. And also, if they aren't swapping ideas in prison then they are likely to be on the street swapping ideas and putting those ideas into practice.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Documentaries:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Documentaries:
@MiketheSnow said in Documentaries:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Documentaries:
Facscinating posts. I don't want to get too serious or heavy but I think it's a really complex area.
For the vast, vast majority of cases - even murders - locking people up for long periods in harsh conditions as some sort of deterrent just doesn't work or make things safer. If it did, then the US would be the safest country in the world. Years since I studied this at Uni but I recall that the only country in the OECD area which didn't increase custodial sentences in response to the big increase in property crime in the 90's-2000's (France I think) was the only country to see a fall in these crimes. They focussed on restoration and rehabilitation.
In the Bulger case, from what's been released, one of the two killers, Thompson, seems to have been rehabilitated and done OK while Venables has had plenty of problems. And child killers seem to go on to live pretty normal or productive lives - eg Mary Bell. Juliet Hulme of the Parker-Hulme case went on to be a best selling author and her partner in murder became IIRC, a respected teacher I guess the trick is to balance the public need for retribution (often media-led) against the hard logic of rehabilitation, preventing re-offending, reducing further harms and making society as whole safer.
That said, it's pretty clear some people should just never be let out. I wouldn't just limit this to what we'd call psychopaths but also to those who abuse their position in the criminal justice system and cause real harm - evidence-fiddling police officers & those who destroy evidence in child sex abuse cases for example. Way too many don't even get charged let alone made to account for their crimes - and cause huge harm to society.
You had me until France
Too long to remember the exact details, but it was around burglary & car theft. Most Western countries took a hard line on sentencing and/or toughened the law in response to big increases in rates. France took a completely different approach and focussed on likely offenders (prevention) and avoided jailing offenders where possible (which meant they didn't swap ideas in prison) but used probation making then pay for any damage caused.
I wonder if that worked for France? What did they do if the offenders didn't pay for the damage caused? I bet lots didn't. And also, if they aren't swapping ideas in prison then they are likely to be on the street swapping ideas and putting those ideas into practice.
As I mentioned, ages since I did this stuff, but here goes.
The trick is to prevent crime and repeat crime (re-offending). Banging someone up doesn't help to reduce re-offending rates - quite the opposite as it helps create career criminals which costs society a bunch of money. And it's much easier to swap ideas about not getting caught with a concentrated group of people who have been caught multiple times
Like everything, it isn't black and white and clearly you need to lock up dangerous criminals, but for low-level stuff and minor offenders, prison is most effective when used as a rehabilitation centre - not as a deterrent (if it did crime in the USA would be incredibly low). And rehabilitation can be cheaper and more effective if it's doesn't outside of a prison environment. There's a lot of smart companies who pro-actively seek out first or second offenders, invest in training them and give them job as they often are better employees. Link here
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Documentaries:
@Crazy-Horse said in Documentaries:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Documentaries:
@MiketheSnow said in Documentaries:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Documentaries:
Facscinating posts. I don't want to get too serious or heavy but I think it's a really complex area.
For the vast, vast majority of cases - even murders - locking people up for long periods in harsh conditions as some sort of deterrent just doesn't work or make things safer. If it did, then the US would be the safest country in the world. Years since I studied this at Uni but I recall that the only country in the OECD area which didn't increase custodial sentences in response to the big increase in property crime in the 90's-2000's (France I think) was the only country to see a fall in these crimes. They focussed on restoration and rehabilitation.
In the Bulger case, from what's been released, one of the two killers, Thompson, seems to have been rehabilitated and done OK while Venables has had plenty of problems. And child killers seem to go on to live pretty normal or productive lives - eg Mary Bell. Juliet Hulme of the Parker-Hulme case went on to be a best selling author and her partner in murder became IIRC, a respected teacher I guess the trick is to balance the public need for retribution (often media-led) against the hard logic of rehabilitation, preventing re-offending, reducing further harms and making society as whole safer.
That said, it's pretty clear some people should just never be let out. I wouldn't just limit this to what we'd call psychopaths but also to those who abuse their position in the criminal justice system and cause real harm - evidence-fiddling police officers & those who destroy evidence in child sex abuse cases for example. Way too many don't even get charged let alone made to account for their crimes - and cause huge harm to society.
You had me until France
Too long to remember the exact details, but it was around burglary & car theft. Most Western countries took a hard line on sentencing and/or toughened the law in response to big increases in rates. France took a completely different approach and focussed on likely offenders (prevention) and avoided jailing offenders where possible (which meant they didn't swap ideas in prison) but used probation making then pay for any damage caused.
I wonder if that worked for France? What did they do if the offenders didn't pay for the damage caused? I bet lots didn't. And also, if they aren't swapping ideas in prison then they are likely to be on the street swapping ideas and putting those ideas into practice.
As I mentioned, ages since I did this stuff, but here goes.
The trick is to prevent crime and repeat crime (re-offending). Banging someone up doesn't help to reduce re-offending rates - quite the opposite as it helps create career criminals which costs society a bunch of money. And it's much easier to swap ideas about not getting caught with a concentrated group of people who have been caught multiple times
Like everything, it isn't black and white and clearly you need to lock up dangerous criminals, but for low-level stuff and minor offenders, prison is most effective when used as a rehabilitation centre - not as a deterrent (if it did crime in the USA would be incredibly low). And rehabilitation can be cheaper and more effective if it's doesn't outside of a prison environment. There's a lot of smart companies who pro-actively seek out first or second offenders, invest in training them and give them job as they often are better employees. Link here
I guess I am just a bit cynical about the touchy-feely stuff when it comes to this sort of stuff. Queensland tried it with juveniles and look where it has gotten the state. Juveniles running rampant with very little consequences. And I can assure you, the public don't know half the stuff that is really going on out there.
I doubt there is an answer to be honest. Some kids/people may be swayed no matter what system is used, but bad eggs are going to be bad eggs.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Documentaries:
I guess I am just a bit cynical about the touchy-feely stuff when it comes to this sort of stuff.
Less touchy-feely than about intervention, prevention and rehabilitation to reduce crime and harms to society overall. That's a harder thing to do - and sell - than simply jail people or give first offenders a free pass. Family breakdown and a lack of fathers has a huge, huge impact on crime rates.
Def. people who should be kept off the street though. And not just in the criminal classes as we're finding out here with multiple rapists and sex abusers in the Met Police.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Documentaries:
@Crazy-Horse said in Documentaries:
I guess I am just a bit cynical about the touchy-feely stuff when it comes to this sort of stuff.
Less touchy-feely than about intervention, prevention and rehabilitation to reduce crime and harms to society overall. That's a harder thing to do - and sell - than simply jail people or give first offenders a free pass. Family breakdown and a lack of fathers has a huge, huge impact on crime rates.
Def. people who should be kept off the street though. And not just in the criminal classes as we're finding out here with multiple rapists and sex abusers in the Met Police.
I get the theory, I have studied it and I live it every working day. It's all well and good if people want to change and I am all for helping them. Unfortunately there are many who do not want to change. They use the system to their advantage. Somehow we need to find the balance.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Documentaries:
They use the system to their advantage. Somehow we need to find the balance.
Yep. And rehab & prevention isn't easy to do and sell.
-
When I grow up I want to be Levison Wood.
Right into his crossing of the Caucasus. Walking from Russia to Iran. Apparently back in 2017.
Thing that sticks out for me is that if I was JRR Tolkien and was looking for a location to base TLOTR and everything associated therewith it would be here.
-
@booboo have you watched them all? I really enjoyed them, fascinating stuff.
Currently watching An Idiot Abroad.
-
@taniwharugby not comprehensively. Caught most of Walking the Americas, which was good, and bits of Arabia, which I haven't enjoyed so much.
Will be on the lookout for his other stuff though.
-
@booboo was probably the causacus, russia, georgian, nile ones I liked most, but rest are all good to watch...think it was the Russia to Iran one he went to a country where it only recently became illegal to kidnap a woman to make your wife
-
@MiketheSnow said in Documentaries:
Pepsi Where’s My Jet
ExcellentI'm three episodes in and have decided I don't like anyone on either side of this.
Pretty interesting doco though.
-
Anyone else watched the Ch5 Wayne Couzens doco yet?
The shocking truth about the serving police officer who killed Sarah Everard.
Ahh man. Fuck me. Troubling and frustrating in equal measure, some jaw dropping stuff in there.
Example, a stat shown related to the number of police officers with multiple allegations of sexual offence in the last six years (259).
Two have more than 15. Do they not sit back at say 3, and go...hang on? How the fuck does it get to 15!
-
The Met is rotten from the top down. Has been for years.
-
@Victor-Meldrew yeah had my eyes properly opened to that when I started listening to the Daniel Morgan podcast in 2016.
