Hello HenryM.
You raise an interesting dilemma, that has been a cause for cognitive dissonance for me for a number of years.
When such issues are a clear and undeniable danger to other people, then there are several alternative potential approaches.
The usual and sometimes 'acceptable' approach is for the political 'system' to deem any such activity as a 'crime' and impose appropriate 'punishments' for those who choose to break the law;
Ordinary citizens may then choose to inform on lawbreakers or even make 'citizen's arrests' if they feel strongly about the laws being broken.
I have, on many occasions, pointed out to 'offenders' (when and if I believe they are breaking the law) that this is what they are doing and, they might have to face the consequences of lawbreaking.
What happens as a result of such interactions has been most interesting and somewhat educational at times.
Quite often, the immediate response is aggressive and, it is wise to be well prepared for this; Sometimes people apologise and immediately stop whatever it is they are doing. Sometimes they simply tell me to mind my own business. There have been one or two occasions when they have misinterpreted what I have said and retort with "you have no right to tell me what to do!"
With the latter response, I immediately explain, that I would not dream of 'telling' people what they should or should not do, but I am simply informing them (in case they did not know), that they are breaking the law. Sometimes I will follow-up with a clarification of precisely which laws they are breaking. In all of these cases, the lawbreakers have paused to consider their position, as there are not many people, outside of the police force, who would be able to quote the precise laws involved.
On one occasion, when a group of rowdy teenagers were causing criminal damage to a recreation centre. I calmly pointed out that they were breaking the law. The leader of the ‘gang’ became verbally aggressive and threatening me with violence. I was younger then, and quite capable of holding my own in any physical confrontation with a group of teenagers. However, an unknown, penetrating voice echoed from behind the centre, giving the ‘leader’ some good advice. It advised the young man not to get involved in a fight with ‘him’ (meaning me) because ‘he’ was the voice’s probation officer!. (Not quite true -but near enough to get the message across) We spent a few more moments discussing what other offences would be committed if the young man attacked me physically, and (for the sake of further clarity) I also guessed at what sentences might be metered out if the case was to be brought before the courts.
After further banter, the group decided that there was no further need to cause anymore damage and we parted on amicable terms.
The point being made above, is that the principles of interaction remained much the same as my original view, that there is no need to ‘tell’ people how to behave. This responsibility remains within the remit of politicians who make the laws.
As an aside, I think that many of them are attracted to that profession because basically they are ‘bullies’ and desire to ‘tell’ people what to do. Also, too many of them are from the privileged classes and make laws to benefit themselves. They also ignore or circumvent laws that they do not like, as well as have the means by which they can avoid punishments for their own lawbreaking activities – but that’s another discussion.
As yet another aside, I do have some ideas on how our laws should be changed to reflect the effects of people’s behaviour on other’s. For example: If someone knowingly acts in such a way that it shortens someone else’s life, then this should be classed as a degree of ‘murder’.
Anyone involved/supporting/conspiring/assisting with, or benefitting from such behaviour, should also be culpable for the end result.
I have written literally hundreds of rhymes about politicians and their institutionalised roles in ‘bullying’, but there are so many ways in which bullying manifests, that I feel it is down to each of us to be on our guard against committing the acts ourselves.
Best wishes
Bill
BULLIES AND HYPOCRICY.
If bullies were to go on trial,
no doubt they would be in denial
of their bullying antics,
nasty techniques and cruel tactics.
But often they’ll express their will
and show that they’re prepared to kill
people and things that cross their path
which leave an unwanted aftermath.
Some of them will kill for fun
and view it as a ‘prize’ that’s won,
yet they don’t see that what they do
seems wrong to folks like me and you.
They believe that it is ‘normal’
for them to kill an animal,
and they can’t see that it is wrong
because they’ve done these things so long.
These are the bullies that we saw
believe in killing and in war,
so, they don’t view it as a sin
when killing starts and wars begin.
Today I saw a bully write
that he believed the law should smite
drug dealers down until they died
as his beliefs he could not hide.
His reasoning was, that those who deal,
killed their victims and don’t heal,
and this became his reason why
he thought to preach- ‘an eye for an eye’.
But I know bullies inside out,
so, also know what they’re about,
and I can say without a doubt
that death comes from their own fallout.
(continued --)
BULLIES AND HYPOCRICY. (continued)
Bullies destroy their victim’s will,
they wear them down and make them ill,
and some victims can’t stand the strain,
the cruelty and all that pain.
Some are so desperate to escape
the mental torture and the rape,
that they are pushed to then decide
that a way out is suicide.
A bully’s often quick to speak
about their victims being weak
and mentally unstable too
because this is ‘their’ point of view.
Their bullying, they won’t agree
as causing that which now they see,
for bullying’s a way of life
for those who give others the strife.
They will protest their innocence,
and claim that it does not make sense
for victims to take their own lives
when other victims have survived.
Other victims may find it pays
to escape them in other ways,
and thus, their children turn to drugs,
to get away from parent thugs.
These bullies then deny their role
in ruining their children’s soul.
They blame the dealers for their part,
not themselves and their cruel art.
When once these bullies set the scene,
by being cruel and being mean,
they will then try to lay the blame
on anyone but them by name.
(continued --)
BULLIES AND HYPOCRICY. (continued)
Sometimes another way to go
to escape the bully’s blow,
is, victims may retaliate
with pent-up venom and with hate.
The bully does not realise,
and it may come as a surprise,
they might be teaching their victim
to be a bully- just like him.
Then, when the child becomes a man
he may-well devise a plan,
whereby he then can get revenge
and so, past bullying avenge.
Some bullies realise this plight
and try to stage a counter-fight
by pleading to the police that they
should protect him day to day.
The police don’t know what went before,
so, might uphold the rule of law,
and victimise victims some more
which will exacerbate for sure.
Sometimes these bullies go too far
and push victims beyond the par.
This can lead to who knows what
if victims start to lose the plot.
Sometimes the bully is the one
who eventually gets ‘done’,
but, unfortunately for them
it is the victims police condemn.
The police will look at the ‘last’ act
and treat that as the only fact,
then bullying antecedents’ fade
into history where fate was made.
Be Withers 2020