Jump to content

Vandals destroy Charity Boat


Hobbler

Featured Posts

I can endorse those sentiments and experiences from working all over Asia and the Middle East. Except for Nigeria I have never worked in a country as lawless as the UK.

South Africa, Swaziland, USA, France (if you want to get pickpocketed), Italy (if you count large scale corruption)etc. etc.

 

I found the oppression and threatening atmosphere of the Middle East (and, to a lesser extent, Asia) authorities far more uncomfortable than Nigeria (though that was, admittedly, due to the ease with which African police can be paid off).

 

The hysteria about muslims wanting Sharia law introduced, over here, surprises me, with the hang 'em and flog 'em attitudes displayed here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can endorse those sentiments and experiences from working all over Asia and the Middle East. Except for Nigeria I have never worked in a country as lawless as the UK.

 

I have also worked all over Asia and the Middle East...and parts of the US and Europe...and have seen plenty of lawless places. The trouble with using personal experience is that it rarely equates with the wider reality.

 

I recently left my sat-nav in a public street in the UK all afternoon - it was there when I came back. I've had stuff nicked in different countries.....it doesn't provide empirical evidence of anything at all.

 

Draconian punishment regimes have been shown not to work in crime reduction at all. Look at the USA, especially states like Texas and Florida which have among the most severe penalties while consistently havong high offence rates.

 

But on the other hand, if you are happy living in authoritarian countries, be my guest. It tends to work that the draconian attitude towards citizens extends right across the board......complain about a canal being shut or about spending levels being cut...and - whoosh - bye-bye....that's you off the streets for a few years or decades. And do remember that when you live in a society with draconian punitive regimes, it's the shadowy people in the government who gets to choose what's right and wrong, not the person on the Clapham bendy-bus.

Edited by stort_mark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm deadly serious. Namby pamby, fluffy buffy, happy clappy stuff doesn't work.

Chris

 

...and of course, conveniently ignoring the statistical evidence (British Crime Survey historical records) that neither did National Service.

 

Where is your evidence that what you call "namby pamby, fluffy buffy, happy clappy stuff" doesn't work? Perhaps you might want to check out crime rates in countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Countless reports have shown that your "namby pamby stuff" actually does work and costs a lot less as well, Inspector Grimm.

 

Maybe read one of Nacro's reports (errr....probably any one of them) before automatically jumping to the "tabloid conclusion" that locking 'em up and throwing away the key has any impact on frequency or intensity of crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm deadly serious. Namby pamby, fluffy buffy, happy clappy stuff doesn't work. You're no doubt one of those that would try to understand why they transgress. Life's too short for that. Lock 'em up and throw away the key. Seriously severe punishment would make a hell of a difference to the crime figures. I have worked extensively in the Middle East and you may be aware of the severity of some of the punishments for even petty theft for example.

 

I once left an SLR camera and a couple of lenses on the kerb while I was loading my car in Dubai. I drove off and forgot them. They were still there when I realised, about 20 minutes later, still sitting on the kerb in a busy area. In the UK they would have disappeared, never to be returned, in a couple of minutes tops.

 

Chris

 

That's one example Chris. You were probably just lucky. To present a single example such as this as cast iron evidence of a crime free society is useless information. I once dropped all my credit cards on a New York Street whilst unloading my stuff out of a taxi. Without a credit card in the States you are stuffed. I couldn't even check into the hotel. I went down to my company offices some 3 miles away. Within an hour a phone call came through from woman who had found my wallet, looked at my business card with its UK phone number, found my company's New York office and rung through to say she had them. She then sent them over by courier. I sent her a bottle of champagne by return. Now would this therefore mean I could state that New York was a wonderful crime free place. Of course not.

 

 

I can endorse those sentiments and experiences from working all over Asia and the Middle East. Except for Nigeria I have never worked in a country as lawless as the UK.

 

Try Bolivia or Columbia. Or how about Zimbabwe? Or even the USA, which has the highest per capita murder rate of any Western country.

 

In the 18th century punishment for crime in the UK was extremely severe - hanging or transportation for simple theft. Did that work? No. Quite apart from anything else, juries were disinclined to convict a person for stealing, say, a sheep, in the knowledge that they could be sending the miscreant to his or her early grave.

 

Certain posters on this topic seem to be the UK equivalent of the Taliban. Perhaps shariah law would satisfy them. A few stonings and some limb removal. I don't think their views are about fit punishment for a crime or solutions for crime prevention, simply a lust for revenge and a sadistic enjoyment of human suffering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certain posters on this topic seem to be the UK equivalent of the Taliban. Perhaps shariah law would satisfy them. A few stonings and some limb removal. I don't think their views are about fit punishment for a crime or solutions for crime prevention, simply a lust for revenge and a sadistic enjoyment of human suffering.

 

I think the majority of us have a genuine concern for the lack of respect and unsociable behaviour that appears to be prevalent in today's society. The past had its own problems and its own way of dealing with them - there were good things as well as bad things. This is also true of the present.

 

In an earlier post, Chris W. mentioned leadership and it seems to me that good leadership is what many of these youngsters need. Sadly they a following the disgraceful examples set by some of our wealthy pop stars, sports personalities and politicians - perhaps we could move toward a better society if these 'opinion leaders' were severely dealt with when they behave badly, dishonestly and without respect for others - especially when they do so in public.

 

Nevertheless, there is another side of the coin, when we went shopping in Daventry on Friday there were a group of young air cadets in uniform helping shoppers to pack their bags and carry shopping to their cars.

 

The group included young men and women and they were all extremely smart, polite and well behaved. What a refreshing contrast to what we have learned to expect from people of this age group! Their presence was much appreciated by the vast majority of the shoppers and they were being heavily tipped for their 'service' - I did enquire and learned that these tips were being used to buy equipment for, and mainain, their unit rather than going into the pockets of the individuals concerned.

 

I take my hat of to the men and women that have freely given up their time to lead and encourage these youngsters - we need more people like them . . .

Edited by NB Alnwick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an earlier post, Chris W. mentioned leadership and it seems to me that good leadership is what many of these youngsters need. Sadly they a following the disgraceful examples set by some of our wealthy pop stars, sports personalities and politicians - perhaps we could move toward a better society if these 'opinion leaders' were severely dealt with when they behave badly, dishonestly and without respect for others - especially when they do so in public.

 

When was it different, though?

 

Rock stars - The 60's had far more drugs deaths than today and, going back further, heroin was rife in the jazz scene.

 

Sports personalities - George Best enjoyed a tipple, "Chopper" Harris, Billy Bremner, Alex Higgins, Ian Botham; all as renowned for their misbehaviour on and off their field as play, as well as their skills.

 

Politicians - Well where do we begin? Profumo, Thorpe, Hamilton all shining examples of a byegone age?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the majority of us have a genuine concern for the lack of respect and unsociable behaviour that appears to be prevalent in today's society. The past had its own problems and its own way of dealing with them - there were good things as well as bad things. This is also true of the present.
I think the majority of us do share those concerns. It is just that there are a small number of respondents on this topic (and you hear the same bile spewed forth in pubs and elsewhere from time to time) who simply display the mentality of the vigilante lynch mob.
When was it different, though? Rock stars - The 60's had far more drugs deaths than today and, going back further, heroin was rife in the jazz scene.Sports personalities - George Best enjoyed a tipple, "Chopper" Harris, Billy Bremner, Alex Higgins, Ian Botham; all as renowned for their misbehaviour on and off their field as play, as well as their skills.Politicians - Well where do we begin? Profumo, Thorpe, Hamilton all shining examples of a byegone age?
You forgot Aitken and Archer ;). And that Lloyd George sold a few peerages, Asquith was known as "Squiffy" for good reason, Robert Cecil aka Lord Salisbury gave lots of jobs to his relatives (hence, "Bob's your uncle") and William Pitt was renowned for knocking back port by the case. As for that William the Conqueror bloke.......... Edited by Dominic M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When was it different, though?

 

Rock stars - The 60's had far more drugs deaths than today and, going back further, heroin was rife in the jazz scene.

 

Sports personalities - George Best enjoyed a tipple, "Chopper" Harris, Billy Bremner, Alex Higgins, Ian Botham; all as renowned for their misbehaviour on and off their field as play, as well as their skills.

 

Politicians - Well where do we begin? Profumo, Thorpe, Hamilton all shining examples of a byegone age?

 

Carl you are talking about what (to me at any rate) is a very recent past. Earlier decades produced good examples like Stanley Mathews, Cliff Richard, Bernard Montgomery, Anthony Eden and Clement Atlee.

 

All I am saying is that if the 'opinion leaders' behaved better and were seen to suffer when they didn't, the youngsters (who follow their example) might improve their behaviour.

 

It is interesting that the three politicians that you mentioned were all severely punished by society for their crimes - they lost their jobs and lost the respect that they had earned hitherto . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it should be made easier to make examples of the criminal, easier and more comfortable and civilised to go to court, immediate responses to complaints about govt. bodies with no win no fee instant sponsorship, and if theres a hidden scam where you actually inadvertantly get paid to do this(say travel expenses), all the better. If found guilty after punnishments are over, no continuing stigma, so you can actualy become a judge, etc. if you want. People found innocent prosecuted by police should get expences charged to the police, to make them a little less zealous.

 

The social security £50 a week thingy should be automaticly given to all regardless of income, to contribute towards any efforts involved with bothering to conform. More school trips to the revamped courts to involve people in the idea that it's not about punishment, but about helping us to all get on, and exercise our diffrences and diversity, rather than conforming to the norm.

 

The courts should give the impression of being there to support Anarchy, chaos and missfits, as we live in such an ordered and civilised society, that the "criminal" needs help with their case, and a social boost from the criminal justice system!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Draconian punishment regimes have been shown not to work in crime reduction at all. Look at the USA, especially states like Texas and Florida which have among the most severe penalties while consistently havong high offence rates.

 

That's not true. Boston reduced gun crime dramatically by introducing draconian punishments. One young guy was caught carrying, not a gun, but a single round of ammunition in his pocket. He received 19 years jail. see clicky

 

It's daft to say it wouldn't work. If the crime for speeding were a year in prison (I'm NOT advocating that BTW ;) ) I think none but the insane would risk speeding.

 

It's a sad reflection on society here, that I feel safer in the Middle East despite their draconian rules than in the UK. I have also worked in Israel as well as the Arab countries. In Israel, there was a mugging one day in one of the major towns. It made headline TV news!!

 

We're doing something wrong here.

 

Chris

Edited by chris w
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true. Boston reduced gun crime dramatically by introducing draconian punishments. One young guy was caught carrying, not a gun, but a single round of ammunition in his pocket. He received 19 years jail. see clicky

 

It's daft to say it wouldn't work. If the crime for speeding were a year in prison (I'm NOT advocating that BTW ;) ) I think none but the insane would risk speeding.

 

It's a sad reflection on society here, that I feel safer in the Middle East despite their draconian rules than in the UK. I have also worked in Israel as well as the Arab countries. In Israel, there was a mugging one day in one of the major towns. It made headline TV news!!

 

We're doing something wrong here.

 

Chris

To live in fear of the police state is worse than to fear of the slim chance that you will be a victim of crime.

 

I'd rather live with our system than the middle east's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true. Boston reduced gun crime dramatically by introducing draconian punishments. One young guy was caught carrying, not a gun, but a single round of ammunition in his pocket. He received 19 years jail. see clicky

 

It's daft to say it wouldn't work. If the crime for speeding were a year in prison (I'm NOT advocating that BTW ;) ) I think none but the insane would risk speeding.

 

It's a sad reflection on society here, that I feel safer in the Middle East despite their draconian rules than in the UK. I have also worked in Israel as well as the Arab countries. In Israel, there was a mugging one day in one of the major towns. It made headline TV news!!

 

We're doing something wrong here.

 

Chris

It is true that the USA has a comparatively high crime rate despite your above example. That report you link to also notes, "However, criminologists say the gang problem in the UK is nowhere near levels experienced in the US."

 

Terry Waite lived in the Middle East for five years (against his own free will). I don't recall him celebrating the relative lack of crime in that part of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true that the USA has a comparatively high crime rate despite your above example. That report you link to also notes, "However, criminologists say the gang problem in the UK is nowhere near levels experienced in the US."

 

Terry Waite lived in the Middle East for five years (against his own free will). I don't recall him celebrating the relative lack of crime in that part of the world.

 

Dominic

 

You have your soft "hug-a-hoody" view and I have my harder (thrash 'em) view. We're never going to convince one another so it's pointless arguing. But, come the revolution, it'll be a flogging for you for disagreeing with me. I've got your name in my little book ;)

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, come the revolution, it'll be a flogging for you for disagreeing with me. I've got your name in my little book ;)

 

Chris

Somehow, Chris, I think the side you're on will be the one the masses will be turning against, come the revolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true. Boston reduced gun crime dramatically by introducing draconian punishments. One young guy was caught carrying, not a gun, but a single round of ammunition in his pocket. He received 19 years jail. see clicky

 

It's daft to say it wouldn't work. If the crime for speeding were a year in prison (I'm NOT advocating that BTW :rolleyes: ) I think none but the insane would risk speeding.

 

Errrrrr.....why don't you actually read the references to which you refer us? Boston didn't introduce draconian punishments: they introduced a range of things- most of which are in the namby-pamby range that you deride so much.

Funnily enough, when the programme ended (in 2005) and relied simply on old-fashioned punishment.....the crime rate escalated again. (Check any of a number of media)

 

And Freddie Cordoza was not simply jailed for possession of a single bullet: he had a rather long history which you conveniently omit to state.

 

So.....you choose good old-fashioned "lock 'em up and throw away the key", which costs taxpayers a fortune and which statistics show doesn't work. Ah, but it makes you feel good, eh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errrrrr.....why don't you actually read the references to which you refer us? Boston didn't introduce draconian punishments: they introduced a range of things- most of which are in the namby-pamby range that you deride so much.

Funnily enough, when the programme ended (in 2005) and relied simply on old-fashioned punishment.....the crime rate escalated again. (Check any of a number of media)

 

And Freddie Cordoza was not simply jailed for possession of a single bullet: he had a rather long history which you conveniently omit to state.

 

So.....you choose good old-fashioned "lock 'em up and throw away the key", which costs taxpayers a fortune and which statistics show doesn't work. Ah, but it makes you feel good, eh!

 

It's you who are not doing the correct research my friend. The police were no namby pambies. They basically said to the thugs..... quit the crime and we'll help you find jobs etc. Don't quit... and really bad things are going to happen to you. And Freddie was jailed on one count of possession of a single round of ammo. 19 years with no possibility of parole. Now that's what I call throwing away the key. As I'm sure you are aware, but are just being scurrilous, "previous" is not allowed as evidence under Massachusetts Law.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find the hardest to understand is why some of you guys want to pander to these thugs in anyway at all. Why should we waste time trying to rehabilitate them when a really long sentence (or a firing squad) solves the issue and gets them off our streets, effectively forever?

 

If you bleeding-heart liberals want to help someone, then why not choose some underprivileged people who have not resorted to crime. There are many more such deserving cases.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's you who are not doing the correct research my friend. The police were no namby pambies. They basically said to the thugs..... quit the crime and we'll help you find jobs etc. Don't quit... and really bad things are going to happen to you. And Freddie was jailed on one count of possession of a single round of ammo. 19 years with no possibility of parole. Now that's what I call throwing away the key. As I'm sure you are aware, but are just being scurrilous, "previous" is not allowed as evidence under Massachusetts Law.

 

Chris

 

Federal statute USA

"It shall be unlawfull for any person 1. who has been convicted in any court of a crime puishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year...[to possess] any firearm or amunition...three time violent fellons who violate[this] face enhanced sentances of at least fifteen years imprisonment"violent felony"is defined to include burglary and other crimes creating a serioous risk of phisical injury"

This seems to indicate previous convictions would have been taken into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's you who are not doing the correct research my friend. The police were no namby pambies. They basically said to the thugs..... quit the crime and we'll help you find jobs etc. Don't quit... and really bad things are going to happen to you. And Freddie was jailed on one count of possession of a single round of ammo. 19 years with no possibility of parole. Now that's what I call throwing away the key. As I'm sure you are aware, but are just being scurrilous, "previous" is not allowed as evidence under Massachusetts Law.

 

Chris

 

Hmmmmm. I am really not sure if you are serious about all this, or just...errr....somewhat challenged. Consideration of "previous" is always taken into consideration at sentencing. Google "Freddie Cardoza"for more information)

 

Your lack of knowledge of the Boston Miracle or Operation Ceasefire is quite astounding, given that you broguht the whole thing up. Try reading a bit more about it - and what it involved - before gushing (incorrect) generalisations.

 

However, your lack of knowledge of Operation Ceasefire pales into insignificance when you compare it with your inability to actually read what others have written:

 

"What I find the hardest to understand is why some of you guys want to pander to these thugs in anyway at all."

No-one wants to pander to criminals or thugs. What I and several others are saying is that statistically, 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' tends to work and work less and less with decreasing seriousness of the crime (as explained why by someone else earlier), and in fact is usually counter-productive.

Furthermore, locking people up is prohibitively expensive both in terms of the direct cost (around 25,000 per inmate per year) and the opportunity cost to society (of a person being economically active).

 

As said before: it's expensive and it doesn't work.

 

"Why should we waste time trying to rehabilitate them when a really long sentence (or a firing squad) solves the issue and gets them off our streets, effectively forever?"

Because that's what makes us a civilized country and not an authoritarian regime. The trouble with the death penalty (presumably, by inferral, for minor crimes) is that you will rapidly breed a culture of revenge and retribution; things will escalate fast. It also means that you are likely to execute a lot of innocent people; presumably this wouldn't bother you unil it was your child, brother or mother who was shot.

 

"If you bleeding-heart liberals want to help someone, then why not choose some underprivileged people who have not resorted to crime. There are many more such deserving cases."

 

The trouble wth your red-tab logic is that you have a very serious difficulty with rationale. You seem to assume that people who disagree with your 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' are weak on crime. That is not the case, and it is arrogant of you to suggest so; I (we) do not believe that that strategy is successful, and believe that statistics and cost analysis shows it to be unsuccessful and probably counter-productive.

 

When you rant about me (or other bleeding-heart liberals) helping underprivileged people, why on earth do you assume that I/we do not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Federal statute USA

"It shall be unlawfull for any person 1. who has been convicted in any court of a crime puishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year...[to possess] any firearm or amunition...three time violent fellons who violate[this] face enhanced sentances of at least fifteen years imprisonment"violent felony"is defined to include burglary and other crimes creating a serioous risk of phisical injury"

This seems to indicate previous convictions would have been taken into account.

 

 

Thats very similar to our laws concerning gun crime where if your convicted of say armed robbery with a firearm you are automatically banned from possessing a firearm. for life...ie if you already had a shotgun licence then its all revoked. Previous cons can be taken into account if they go to show a modus operendi. In the armed robbers case for him/her to be convicted of possessing a firearm then obviously proof that he was banned in the first place would have to be put before the court.

 

 

I knwo full well that crime has always been there and always will, and in the 50's 60's scrotes were running around Southend on Sea cutting each other up with razors......it just seems to me that our scrotes with razors have got a lot younger.....there really is no fear of retribution anymore......the courts dont seem to give sentences reflecting the crime and it appears there are more villans out and about than put away.

 

justice costs money and the Gov cant afford it.

 

The only thing that stops the majority of people from committing crime is not because they know its wrong, but because they dont want to face the consequences of being caught.

 

How many of us can honestly say, if i can get away with parking on a yellow line and not get a ticket then i would? But you wouldnt if you saw a warden in the next street coz you would be concerned about getting that ticket.

 

There has to be a deterant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmmm. I am really not sure if you are serious about all this, or just...errr....somewhat challenged. Consideration of "previous" is always taken into consideration at sentencing. Google "Freddie Cardoza"for more information)

 

Your lack of knowledge of the Boston Miracle or Operation Ceasefire is quite astounding, given that you broguht the whole thing up. Try reading a bit more about it - and what it involved - before gushing (incorrect) generalisations.

 

However, your lack of knowledge of Operation Ceasefire pales into insignificance when you compare it with your inability to actually read what others have written:

 

"What I find the hardest to understand is why some of you guys want to pander to these thugs in anyway at all."

No-one wants to pander to criminals or thugs. What I and several others are saying is that statistically, 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' tends to work and work less and less with decreasing seriousness of the crime (as explained why by someone else earlier), and in fact is usually counter-productive.

Furthermore, locking people up is prohibitively expensive both in terms of the direct cost (around 25,000 per inmate per year) and the opportunity cost to society (of a person being economically active).

 

As said before: it's expensive and it doesn't work.

 

"Why should we waste time trying to rehabilitate them when a really long sentence (or a firing squad) solves the issue and gets them off our streets, effectively forever?"

Because that's what makes us a civilized country and not an authoritarian regime. The trouble with the death penalty (presumably, by inferral, for minor crimes) is that you will rapidly breed a culture of revenge and retribution; things will escalate fast. It also means that you are likely to execute a lot of innocent people; presumably this wouldn't bother you unil it was your child, brother or mother who was shot.

 

"If you bleeding-heart liberals want to help someone, then why not choose some underprivileged people who have not resorted to crime. There are many more such deserving cases."

 

The trouble wth your red-tab logic is that you have a very serious difficulty with rationale. You seem to assume that people who disagree with your 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' are weak on crime. That is not the case, and it is arrogant of you to suggest so; I (we) do not believe that that strategy is successful, and believe that statistics and cost analysis shows it to be unsuccessful and probably counter-productive.

 

When you rant about me (or other bleeding-heart liberals) helping underprivileged people, why on earth do you assume that I/we do not?

 

What a wonderfully expressed and reasoned reply to one, not-very-socially-skilled person’s mouth drooling rant.

 

It is good to know that people feel empathy towards others and a civilised approach to social living.

 

And I hope that the person in question appreciates the time you have taken to gently point out the error of his thinking. It would be nice to think that there was the hope of rehabilitation for even the most hardened cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.