Youtube.
Dec 5th 2011, 6:19 am
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,008
Youtube.
Having read a comment by another poster, which had the phrase, TRIAL BY YOU TUBE, it has given me food for thought,
I must admit I watch all my favourite music vids on the tube, but the incendent on the tram shows youtube in a different light.
Should any site on be allowed to expose people who are caught in embarassing situations without their permission.
The case of the ranting woman with the toddler who let rip about foreigners has gone viral. everyone is dicsussing it, one BE there are number of threads going.
Not so long ago a small business man found out that an employee was stealing from him, he marched him to the police station with a notice tied around his neck saying "i am a theif".
The employer was procecuted for doing this, as the opinion of the police was that although he comminted a crime, the boss did not have the right to expose him and humiliate him in public.
So the question is, should youtube be a vehicle for doing the same thing, excposing and humiliating on an even grander scale than marching the perp throught the streets to the cop shop.
I must admit I watch all my favourite music vids on the tube, but the incendent on the tram shows youtube in a different light.
Should any site on be allowed to expose people who are caught in embarassing situations without their permission.
The case of the ranting woman with the toddler who let rip about foreigners has gone viral. everyone is dicsussing it, one BE there are number of threads going.
Not so long ago a small business man found out that an employee was stealing from him, he marched him to the police station with a notice tied around his neck saying "i am a theif".
The employer was procecuted for doing this, as the opinion of the police was that although he comminted a crime, the boss did not have the right to expose him and humiliate him in public.
So the question is, should youtube be a vehicle for doing the same thing, excposing and humiliating on an even grander scale than marching the perp throught the streets to the cop shop.
Dec 5th 2011, 9:54 am
#2
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,590
Re: Youtube.
Having read a comment by another poster, which had the phrase, TRIAL BY YOU TUBE, it has given me food for thought,
I must admit I watch all my favourite music vids on the tube, but the incendent on the tram shows youtube in a different light.
Should any site on be allowed to expose people who are caught in embarassing situations without their permission.
The case of the ranting woman with the toddler who let rip about foreigners has gone viral. everyone is dicsussing it, one BE there are number of threads going.
Not so long ago a small business man found out that an employee was stealing from him, he marched him to the police station with a notice tied around his neck saying "i am a theif".
The employer was procecuted for doing this, as the opinion of the police was that although he comminted a crime, the boss did not have the right to expose him and humiliate him in public.
So the question is, should youtube be a vehicle for doing the same thing, excposing and humiliating on an even grander scale than marching the perp throught the streets to the cop shop.
I must admit I watch all my favourite music vids on the tube, but the incendent on the tram shows youtube in a different light.
Should any site on be allowed to expose people who are caught in embarassing situations without their permission.
The case of the ranting woman with the toddler who let rip about foreigners has gone viral. everyone is dicsussing it, one BE there are number of threads going.
Not so long ago a small business man found out that an employee was stealing from him, he marched him to the police station with a notice tied around his neck saying "i am a theif".
The employer was procecuted for doing this, as the opinion of the police was that although he comminted a crime, the boss did not have the right to expose him and humiliate him in public.
So the question is, should youtube be a vehicle for doing the same thing, excposing and humiliating on an even grander scale than marching the perp throught the streets to the cop shop.
Dec 5th 2011, 10:31 am
#3
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: near Colmenar, Prov de Malaga
Posts: 5,174
Re: Youtube.
Interesting point, however:
I would hope the police, when considering action, took into account that the clip on YouTube only goes from and to a certain point. Were more seconds/minutes available but cut from that submitted to YouTube because some incident could have been shown to provoke the rant? (or not, of course)
Why is this any worse than if, for example, someone on that tram had phoned the BBC or ITV or Sky or the Mail, Mirror, etc etc and given their side of the story? The only real difference is that the woman was identified. It is quite commonplace these days when a newspaper story, or for that matter on TV too, is deemed 'only partly done' they'll print a request for more info from anyone else present. Like as not contact the tram company to see if they could get access to CCTV footage, and so on.
In the days before such huge media coverage of everything under the sun, newspapers still carried stories - there was just that bit more care about checking (some would say!). And people have always chatted/gossiped. It's human nature. So even without the YouTube footage the story would have got out there, it just wouldn't have been such wide coverage - which is maybe what JLFS is trying to highlight?
I don't see it as trial by YouTube at all. Just let's say (pretty stupid, but bear with me) we'd all,every man woman and child, been there on the tram. We'd have seen what went on, all from different angles, from different moments, from different prejudices and applying different thought processes. Would our individual or collective opinions amount to trial?
I would hope the police, when considering action, took into account that the clip on YouTube only goes from and to a certain point. Were more seconds/minutes available but cut from that submitted to YouTube because some incident could have been shown to provoke the rant? (or not, of course)
Why is this any worse than if, for example, someone on that tram had phoned the BBC or ITV or Sky or the Mail, Mirror, etc etc and given their side of the story? The only real difference is that the woman was identified. It is quite commonplace these days when a newspaper story, or for that matter on TV too, is deemed 'only partly done' they'll print a request for more info from anyone else present. Like as not contact the tram company to see if they could get access to CCTV footage, and so on.
In the days before such huge media coverage of everything under the sun, newspapers still carried stories - there was just that bit more care about checking (some would say!). And people have always chatted/gossiped. It's human nature. So even without the YouTube footage the story would have got out there, it just wouldn't have been such wide coverage - which is maybe what JLFS is trying to highlight?
I don't see it as trial by YouTube at all. Just let's say (pretty stupid, but bear with me) we'd all,every man woman and child, been there on the tram. We'd have seen what went on, all from different angles, from different moments, from different prejudices and applying different thought processes. Would our individual or collective opinions amount to trial?
Dec 5th 2011, 4:51 pm
#4
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,008
Re: Youtube.
Interesting point, however:
I would hope the police, when considering action, took into account that the clip on YouTube only goes from and to a certain point. Were more seconds/minutes available but cut from that submitted to YouTube because some incident could have been shown to provoke the rant? (or not, of course)
Why is this any worse than if, for example, someone on that tram had phoned the BBC or ITV or Sky or the Mail, Mirror, etc etc and given their side of the story? The only real difference is that the woman was identified. It is quite commonplace these days when a newspaper story, or for that matter on TV too, is deemed 'only partly done' they'll print a request for more info from anyone else present. Like as not contact the tram company to see if they could get access to CCTV footage, and so on.
In the days before such huge media coverage of everything under the sun, newspapers still carried stories - there was just that bit more care about checking (some would say!). And people have always chatted/gossiped. It's human nature. So even without the YouTube footage the story would have got out there, it just wouldn't have been such wide coverage - which is maybe what JLFS is trying to highlight?
I don't see it as trial by YouTube at all. Just let's say (pretty stupid, but bear with me) we'd all,every man woman and child, been there on the tram. We'd have seen what went on, all from different angles, from different moments, from different prejudices and applying different thought processes. Would our individual or collective opinions amount to trial?
I would hope the police, when considering action, took into account that the clip on YouTube only goes from and to a certain point. Were more seconds/minutes available but cut from that submitted to YouTube because some incident could have been shown to provoke the rant? (or not, of course)
Why is this any worse than if, for example, someone on that tram had phoned the BBC or ITV or Sky or the Mail, Mirror, etc etc and given their side of the story? The only real difference is that the woman was identified. It is quite commonplace these days when a newspaper story, or for that matter on TV too, is deemed 'only partly done' they'll print a request for more info from anyone else present. Like as not contact the tram company to see if they could get access to CCTV footage, and so on.
In the days before such huge media coverage of everything under the sun, newspapers still carried stories - there was just that bit more care about checking (some would say!). And people have always chatted/gossiped. It's human nature. So even without the YouTube footage the story would have got out there, it just wouldn't have been such wide coverage - which is maybe what JLFS is trying to highlight?
I don't see it as trial by YouTube at all. Just let's say (pretty stupid, but bear with me) we'd all,every man woman and child, been there on the tram. We'd have seen what went on, all from different angles, from different moments, from different prejudices and applying different thought processes. Would our individual or collective opinions amount to trial?
And other posters were enraged that people did not comden the mother most strongly.
How can this not be trial by you tube, I see a lot lf folks enraged about this .
story as though what she did was worse than the couple who nearly killed a month old baby boy.
There is so much flying around the web about this "tram case" that other more brutal expamples of bad motherhood slip by.
The judge who remanded her in custody,knowing that she is no danger did so because of all the pressure he felt to be "seen to be doing the right thing", so as not to upset the "disgusted of Tumbridge Wells" type of person.
If I had to choose between leaving ababy of mine with the ranting woman or the likes of the other two sadistic Bs. I know who I would choose.
It is about time people in power started to act they way they should and not the way they think they should and not be terriefied of offending peoples sensibilities, or simply to cover their own arse.
Dec 5th 2011, 5:03 pm
#5
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Valencia
Posts: 1,164
Re: Youtube.
I agree with what you say except the above.......
reason....... wrong demographics
Dec 5th 2011, 5:19 pm
#6
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,008
Re: Youtube.
Disgusted of Croyen
Norwich
Derby
Chelsea
Cardiff
Manchester
Ripon
ETC ETC, just does not have the same ring as Tumbridge Wells, you must see that, it is so obvious.
Dec 5th 2011, 5:59 pm
#7
MODERATOR
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Costa Valencia
Posts: 14,795
Re: Youtube.
I rather like Tunbridge Wells but visiting one does get sick of hearing the locals saying "I´m disgusted," especially when followed by spitting on the pavement afterwards.
Graham
Graham
Dec 5th 2011, 10:59 pm
#8
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: near Colmenar, Prov de Malaga
Posts: 5,174
Re: Youtube.
Some posters on BE have said that the womans son should be taken from her, another said that was the first thought, but then he changed opinion as the likelyhood of becoming a criminal is greater when children are brought up in care, so if the statistics would have been the same as for "non children in care" I suppose they would have wanted him to be taken off the mother too.
And other posters were enraged that people did not comden the mother most strongly.
How can this not be trial by you tube, I see a lot lf folks enraged about this .
story as though what she did was worse than the couple who nearly killed a month old baby boy.
There is so much flying around the web about this "tram case" that other more brutal expamples of bad motherhood slip by.
The judge who remanded her in custody,knowing that she is no danger did so because of all the pressure he felt to be "seen to be doing the right thing", so as not to upset the "disgusted of Tumbridge Wells" type of person.
If I had to choose between leaving ababy of mine with the ranting woman or the likes of the other two sadistic Bs. I know who I would choose.
It is about time people in power started to act they way they should and not the way they think they should and not be terriefied of offending peoples sensibilities, or simply to cover their own arse.
And other posters were enraged that people did not comden the mother most strongly.
How can this not be trial by you tube, I see a lot lf folks enraged about this .
story as though what she did was worse than the couple who nearly killed a month old baby boy.
There is so much flying around the web about this "tram case" that other more brutal expamples of bad motherhood slip by.
The judge who remanded her in custody,knowing that she is no danger did so because of all the pressure he felt to be "seen to be doing the right thing", so as not to upset the "disgusted of Tumbridge Wells" type of person.
If I had to choose between leaving ababy of mine with the ranting woman or the likes of the other two sadistic Bs. I know who I would choose.
It is about time people in power started to act they way they should and not the way they think they should and not be terriefied of offending peoples sensibilities, or simply to cover their own arse.
Dec 6th 2011, 6:33 am
#9
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,008
Re: Youtube.
I can't, couldn't, shouldn't but agree with you about the other case. (the baby. euccchhhh... god knows what they were thinking, if anything. ) If the judge was quoted as, or known to have said, anything along the lines that he/she felt they SHOULD take the action they did, equally that's not right. Other than that I remain of the view that the general principle is it wasn't trial by youtube.
With so many people discussing it, it will be very hard for any magistrate/judge or whatever to have an open mind,because I am sure they will be getting a feel of public opinion from the internet before they try the case.
Dec 6th 2011, 6:46 am
#10
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: near Colmenar, Prov de Malaga
Posts: 5,174
Re: Youtube.
Just do a google search with "my tram experience". I did and there were 75000000 results.
With so many people discussing it, it will be very hard for any magistrate/judge or whatever to have an open mind,because I am sure they will be getting a feel of public opinion from the internet before they try the case.
With so many people discussing it, it will be very hard for any magistrate/judge or whatever to have an open mind,because I am sure they will be getting a feel of public opinion from the internet before they try the case.
Back to the tram woman specifically, though - I'd agree it is a total overreaction to take away her seemingly well kempt/well cared for toddler. How is that going to benefit him or anyone else in wider society? (apart from taking him out of the foulmouth lifestyle, and I can't begin to justify separating him from his mum to achieve that)
Dec 6th 2011, 7:05 am
#11
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,008
Re: Youtube.
Yorkshire Ripper. James Bulger case. Even the contentious Vincent Tabak/Christopher Jefferies scenario recently. There is copious history of wide public discussion/gossip without mistrial.
Back to the tram woman specifically, though - I'd agree it is a total overreaction to take away her seemingly well kempt/well cared for toddler. How is that going to benefit him or anyone else in wider society? (apart from taking him out of the foulmouth lifestyle, and I can't begin to justify separating him from his mum to achieve that)
Back to the tram woman specifically, though - I'd agree it is a total overreaction to take away her seemingly well kempt/well cared for toddler. How is that going to benefit him or anyone else in wider society? (apart from taking him out of the foulmouth lifestyle, and I can't begin to justify separating him from his mum to achieve that)
Which by the way only got 17100000 hits on google as opposed to the 75million for Emma West case.
Dec 6th 2011, 9:40 am
#12
Spanish, 40
Joined: Oct 2011
Location: Surrey. Back to Spain in 2012
Posts: 287
Re: Youtube.
(...)
Not so long ago a small business man found out that an employee was stealing from him, he marched him to the police station with a notice tied around his neck saying "i am a theif".
The employer was procecuted for doing this, as the opinion of the police was that although he comminted a crime, the boss did not have the right to expose him and humiliate him in public.
So the question is, should youtube be a vehicle for doing the same thing, excposing and humiliating on an even grander scale than marching the perp throught the streets to the cop shop.
Not so long ago a small business man found out that an employee was stealing from him, he marched him to the police station with a notice tied around his neck saying "i am a theif".
The employer was procecuted for doing this, as the opinion of the police was that although he comminted a crime, the boss did not have the right to expose him and humiliate him in public.
So the question is, should youtube be a vehicle for doing the same thing, excposing and humiliating on an even grander scale than marching the perp throught the streets to the cop shop.
Let's not forget that the real base of justice is revenge, but in a civilised way. All this stupid PC soft hand, failed reintegration systems and ill interpreted human rights are obviously not working. I'm not one for death sentence, but shaming and naming should be part of justice as well as a proper, proportionate punishment. There is no point in giving criminals a free holiday at jail or letting them go without consequences when their crimes are not considered serious by justice... ask their victims.
In public put them in orange overalls, with a big black P at their backs, chains, and make them do a visible work for society so they can see that actions do have consequences. At least this I like from the USA. Make education compulsory so that at least they will be able to learn skills to get a job outside. Do not let them go earlier for good behavior, simply extend the punishment if they create problems or fail to do their best at learning. Rapists and sexual criminals are simply ineligible for reintegration, they are a constant danger for society and this should have priority against their human right to go back to the streets.
To help with all these antisocial ever growing families sucking off the system and the social issues they bring: limit the benefits in order to avoid people making a living out of having kids. If this means that the families cannot get a free life, they might start thinking about using contraceptive methods. For the ones already here, why is adoption so long and complicated, thus meaning that many children grow up in care??? Why is more important for stupid social workers to leave the kid with their biological parents rather than thinking exclusively on what's best for the kid? Why is it so hard for prospective parents to adopt kids from other races and backgrounds? We considered adoption for a while... after taking it seriously in consideration cannot see it happening now.
Unfortunately there are bad people, not crazy, purely evil people. There will always be sadists, rapist, violent abusive parents and carers... and the kids should be protected by both previous and later unannounced social and personality tests of the people who are supposed to take care of them. But with time there will also be fewer numbers of children in risk as their parents won't be able to make a living out of having them, so the business is over. No more single parent's housing for their own... let's them have a single room with their kid in a shared house with regular inspections and force work/studies so that they will be able to care for themselves by the time the kid starts school. A single mother of 7 in benefits? Clearly irresponsible, take away all her kids. It's not the same case somebody who never contributed to a family who suddenly lose their jobs and end up needing temporarily help.
Basically, let people take responsibility for their actions.
Dec 6th 2011, 9:50 am
#13
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,749
Re: Youtube.
I think it should be simply another vehicle to show that there are consequences for one's actions. The police itself should upload videos of small crimes that go unpunished or deserve social work hours. With serious crimes that end up with the criminal declared guilty and in jail, at the end of the process they should upload the charges and ID of the criminal as well as the sentence. There should be more publicity of criminals.
Let's not forget that the real base of justice is revenge, but in a civilised way. All this stupid PC soft hand, failed reintegration systems and ill interpreted human rights are obviously not working. I'm not one for death sentence, but shaming and naming should be part of justice as well as a proper, proportionate punishment. There is no point in giving criminals a free holiday at jail or letting them go without consequences when their crimes are not considered serious by justice... ask their victims.
In public put them in orange overalls, with a big black P at their backs, chains, and make them do a visible work for society so they can see that actions do have consequences. At least this I like from the USA. Make education compulsory so that at least they will be able to learn skills to get a job outside. Do not let them go earlier for good behavior, simply extend the punishment if they create problems or fail to do their best at learning. Rapists and sexual criminals are simply ineligible for reintegration, they are a constant danger for society and this should have priority against their human right to go back to the streets.
To help with all these antisocial ever growing families sucking off the system and the social issues they bring: limit the benefits in order to avoid people making a living out of having kids. If this means that the families cannot get a free life, they might start thinking about using contraceptive methods. For the ones already here, why is adoption so long and complicated, thus meaning that many children grow up in care??? Why is more important for stupid social workers to leave the kid with their biological parents rather than thinking exclusively on what's best for the kid? Why is it so hard for prospective parents to adopt kids from other races and backgrounds? We considered adoption for a while... after taking it seriously in consideration cannot see it happening now.
Unfortunately there are bad people, not crazy, purely evil people. There will always be sadists, rapist, violent abusive parents and carers... and the kids should be protected by both previous and later unannounced social and personality tests of the people who are supposed to take care of them. But with time there will also be fewer numbers of children in risk as their parents won't be able to make a living out of having them, so the business is over. No more single parent's housing for their own... let's them have a single room with their kid in a shared house with regular inspections and force work/studies so that they will be able to care for themselves by the time the kid starts school. A single mother of 7 in benefits? Clearly irresponsible, take away all her kids. It's not the same case somebody who never contributed to a family who suddenly lose their jobs and end up needing temporarily help.
Basically, let people take responsibility for their actions.
Let's not forget that the real base of justice is revenge, but in a civilised way. All this stupid PC soft hand, failed reintegration systems and ill interpreted human rights are obviously not working. I'm not one for death sentence, but shaming and naming should be part of justice as well as a proper, proportionate punishment. There is no point in giving criminals a free holiday at jail or letting them go without consequences when their crimes are not considered serious by justice... ask their victims.
In public put them in orange overalls, with a big black P at their backs, chains, and make them do a visible work for society so they can see that actions do have consequences. At least this I like from the USA. Make education compulsory so that at least they will be able to learn skills to get a job outside. Do not let them go earlier for good behavior, simply extend the punishment if they create problems or fail to do their best at learning. Rapists and sexual criminals are simply ineligible for reintegration, they are a constant danger for society and this should have priority against their human right to go back to the streets.
To help with all these antisocial ever growing families sucking off the system and the social issues they bring: limit the benefits in order to avoid people making a living out of having kids. If this means that the families cannot get a free life, they might start thinking about using contraceptive methods. For the ones already here, why is adoption so long and complicated, thus meaning that many children grow up in care??? Why is more important for stupid social workers to leave the kid with their biological parents rather than thinking exclusively on what's best for the kid? Why is it so hard for prospective parents to adopt kids from other races and backgrounds? We considered adoption for a while... after taking it seriously in consideration cannot see it happening now.
Unfortunately there are bad people, not crazy, purely evil people. There will always be sadists, rapist, violent abusive parents and carers... and the kids should be protected by both previous and later unannounced social and personality tests of the people who are supposed to take care of them. But with time there will also be fewer numbers of children in risk as their parents won't be able to make a living out of having them, so the business is over. No more single parent's housing for their own... let's them have a single room with their kid in a shared house with regular inspections and force work/studies so that they will be able to care for themselves by the time the kid starts school. A single mother of 7 in benefits? Clearly irresponsible, take away all her kids. It's not the same case somebody who never contributed to a family who suddenly lose their jobs and end up needing temporarily help.
Basically, let people take responsibility for their actions.
Being poor is not a crime
Being a single mum is not a crime
I kind of agree that the British welfare system doesnt work, but forceably sterilising people and taking away their children. Really???
As for copying what the US do with their criminals.. they have the highest rate of people in prison in the world...and one of the highest reoffending rates. Someone is 10 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in Spain. Which tells you, it doesnt work.
Dec 6th 2011, 10:34 am
#14
Spanish, 40
Joined: Oct 2011
Location: Surrey. Back to Spain in 2012
Posts: 287
Re: Youtube.
Urggh, you sound horrible Evamar. I suppose you supported the evil Spanish nuns who stole babies off the poor and left wing families to give to the more prosperous fascists?
Being poor is not a crime
Being a single mum is not a crime
I kind of agree that the British welfare system doesnt work, but forceably sterilising people and taking away their children. Really???
As for copying what the US do with their criminals.. they have the highest rate of people in prison in the world...and one of the highest reoffending rates. Someone is 10 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in Spain. Which tells you, it doesnt work.
Being poor is not a crime
Being a single mum is not a crime
I kind of agree that the British welfare system doesnt work, but forceably sterilising people and taking away their children. Really???
As for copying what the US do with their criminals.. they have the highest rate of people in prison in the world...and one of the highest reoffending rates. Someone is 10 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in Spain. Which tells you, it doesnt work.
There is no crime in being poor, there is no crime in being a single mum... but if people see that they cannot support a kid with their own means I think that it is not responsible to have it and expect the rest to support all of them. Their own families should take care of the kid until they are in a position to do it themselves. If they are too young to take care of the kids, their families are still responsible for these parents. No social stigma for a teenager or older person to have sex, but there should be one for a teenager or older person having sex without being responsible.
Why do people tend to think more about whether or not they will be abe to support a pet than a kid? I didn't even think about having kids till I was in my 30's and in a position to be able to support them without putting my hand to get money. I put means to avoid getting pregnant when I was too young to support them or in a weak working position. Parenthood is a serious issue, and should be more planned, for the sake of the kids, the parents and the whole of the society.
And this about people who are poor but actually working or wanting to... when they don't even contemplate working and earning their own lives and simply expect to make their living out of exploiting the system, yes... I think it is criminal to have kids. And in these cases I do think that the system should change and many kids should be taken from their parents. When you have contemplated adoption and saw how the system works... you would know what I am talking about, don't attack people for pointing out problems that simply come from personal choices from antisocial people who are supported by a stupid system.
I actually never said forced sterilization , which I think I would have got done myself if I were a male and too lazy/selfish to use condoms, didn't want to settle down with a woman and my kids and instead were jumping from one girl to the next one. No, I wouldn't end up being an irresponsible guy with 16 kids from 16 equally irresponsible girls and create 16 leaks of money needed for other issues.
As per copying how the USA deal with their criminals... I only took the part about naming and shaming, I never defended their failed system. People need to have consequences for their freely chosen actions, that is part of justice, and law abiding people need to see that there are consequences for those who decide to commit crimes. Otherwise, what is the point of being law abiding themselves???
As I said before... let people take responsibility for their own actions and choices.
Last edited by evamar; Dec 6th 2011 at 10:40 am.
Dec 6th 2011, 10:52 am
#15
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,749
Re: Youtube.
However, I can only imagine how some people are living nowadays. The other day someone told me of a man in his 80s down the road from me who is supporting his son and daughter in law and their 3 children in his 1 bed flat. They survive on his 450 euro pension every month. What should they do? Unemployment is 35% around here.
Do you think you should take away their 3 children and give them to someone more deserving? Maybe you could give them to one of the corrupt mayors or howabout a London banker?