Off Topic OK, that's enough ...

[polyphemus]

The simple answer is build more prisons that way they will learn or eventually they will all be in there anyway, so it’s win win either way.[/QUOTE]


Going back to The USofA as an example.

Without looking up the figures, I believe that they imprison a higher percentage of thier population than any other 'civilised' country.
They dish out longer sentences.
But despite all of this, they continue to have the highest crime rate.

And, yes, I fully accept that while some scum is in the nick, the rest of us are protected but this doesn't seem to effect the underlying reasons for and criminals.
Or indeed the amount of 'crime on the streets'.

IF we assume that drugs is high on the list of reasons why crimes are committed, then how to control this should be the qustion.
But since this is such a lucrative racket, the answer, if there is one, may make things worse.
Try this for Vulcan Logic.
Drug dealers make Loadsamoney out of dealing.
SO.
Make the drugs easily available through legitimate outlets. (A bit like tobacconists were. They could even carry a tax to help pay for the extra NHS work that would result).

Snags.
Lots would kill themselves.

So, whats best?

Let the Gang Member go at each other with knives,

OR

Let users kill themselves rather more quickly that smokers migh be doing.

----

I'm not advocating this as a solution, I'm thinking 'out of the box', just to underline the difficulties.

 

[Bank of England 2]

IF, we imaging that any particular group is responsible for a particular type of crime, what are OUR Police supposed to do about it?

IF they concentrate their scarce resourses on these groups, in an effort to reduce the crime, this is Social or Racial Profiling.
The PC Brigade are leading protests.
The population in general asks 'what are the Police doing about it'?

And as ever I have no idea what the answer might be.
Throwing people into Prison doesn't seem to work. Just look at The USofA!!
AND our Prisons are already overcrowded.

The simple answer is build more prisons that way they will learn or eventually they will all be in there anyway, so it’s win win either way.[/QUOTE]

I agree with what you say, but staffing levels are already dangerously low. They are on about re-nationalising the railways, they should do the same with the Prison Service. Group 4 et al hasn't worked. Profit should never come before security and staff safety.

Build more prisons and adequately staff them

 

[Oldsandy]

Stating that you are fed up with something being rammed down your neck is the right of a citizen to voice their opinion, the same as it would be to moan about the amount of reality T.V. shows or the North-South Divide.

Just because what your missus is complaining about is regarding a certain 'movement', it doesn't make her a racist, although the do-gooders and wooly hat brigade might argue otherwise.

I was a member of the Anti-Nazi League when I was younger, so I despise racism, but I too am sick of programmes ramming BLM and LGBT down your neck in the name of Political Correctness.

The best way to deal with racism is not to focus on the campaigners, but shame the perpetrators, whilst actively encouraging all sides of the community to come together. The best people to do this, as you previously mentioned, are community elders and religious leaders from all faiths.[/

The simple answer is build more prisons that way they will learn or eventually they will all be in there anyway, so it’s win win either way.

Going back to The USofA as an example.

Without looking up the figures, I believe that they imprison a higher percentage of thier population than any other 'civilised' country.
They dish out longer sentences.
But despite all of this, they continue to have the highest crime rate.

And, yes, I fully accept that while some scum is in the nick, the rest of us are protected but this doesn't seem to effect the underlying reasons for and criminals.
Or indeed the amount of 'crime on the streets'.

IF we assume that drugs is high on the list of reasons why crimes are committed, then how to control this should be the qustion.
But since this is such a lucrative racket, the answer, if there is one, may make things worse.
Try this for Vulcan Logic.
Drug dealers make Loadsamoney out of dealing.
SO.
Make the drugs easily available through legitimate outlets. (A bit like tobacconists were. They could even carry a tax to help pay for the extra NHS work that would result).

Snags.
Lots would kill themselves.

So, whats best?

Let the Gang Member go at each other with knives,

OR

Let users kill themselves rather more quickly that smokers migh be doing.

----

I'm not advocating this as a solution, I'm thinking 'out of the box', just to underline the difficulties.[/QUOTE]

 

[Oldsandy]

Going back to The USofA as an example.

Without looking up the figures, I believe that they imprison a higher percentage of thier population than any other 'civilised' country.
They dish out longer sentences.
But despite all of this, they continue to have the highest crime rate.

And, yes, I fully accept that while some scum is in the nick, the rest of us are protected but this doesn't seem to effect the underlying reasons for and criminals.
Or indeed the amount of 'crime on the streets'.

IF we assume that drugs is high on the list of reasons why crimes are committed, then how to control this should be the qustion.
But since this is such a lucrative racket, the answer, if there is one, may make things worse.
Try this for Vulcan Logic.
Drug dealers make Loadsamoney out of dealing.
SO.
Make the drugs easily available through legitimate outlets. (A bit like tobacconists were. They could even carry a tax to help pay for the extra NHS work that would result).

Snags.
Lots would kill themselves.

So, whats best?

Let the Gang Member go at each other with knives,

OR

Let users kill themselves rather more quickly that smokers migh be doing.

----

I'm not advocating this as a solution, I'm thinking 'out of the box', just to underline the difficulties.

[/QUOTE]
Selling highly addictive drugs across the counter may lead to more addicts, increasing the numbers desperately seeking the cash to fund their need, leading to more crime. At present it is not a criminal offence to use addictive substances. Maybe this should change? It is debateable whether punishment such as imprisonment would have any effect. It is a thorny subject and the only solution seems to be to change would-be users attitude to drugs. But how to do this? Perhaps to catch them when they are young and therefore more impressionable. We used to have youth clubs, scouts, boys brigade etc. Maybe something on the lines of - NOW DONT SHOOT ME, IM NOT ADVOCATING NAZIISM - the hitler youth. Not politically motivated, but giving standards and meaning to life. Perhaps based around football clubs, rugby, out-door pursuits, organised locally but part of a national movement with national sports events. I realise this is pie-in-the sky; the only feasible way to drag modern young people away from their computers etc might be for local football clubs to form their own sports based youth clubs, with financial assistance from the government. I’m ranting again. Sorry! Just ignore me.

 

[Oldsandy]

Going back to The USofA as an example.

Without looking up the figures, I believe that they imprison a higher percentage of thier population than any other 'civilised' country.
They dish out longer sentences.
But despite all of this, they continue to have the highest crime rate.

And, yes, I fully accept that while some scum is in the nick, the rest of us are protected but this doesn't seem to effect the underlying reasons for and criminals.
Or indeed the amount of 'crime on the streets'.

IF we assume that drugs is high on the list of reasons why crimes are committed, then how to control this should be the qustion.
But since this is such a lucrative racket, the answer, if there is one, may make things worse.
Try this for Vulcan Logic.
Drug dealers make Loadsamoney out of dealing.
SO.
Make the drugs easily available through legitimate outlets. (A bit like tobacconists were. They could even carry a tax to help pay for the extra NHS work that would result).

Snags.
Lots would kill themselves.

So, whats best?

Let the Gang Member go at each other with knives,

OR

Let users kill themselves rather more quickly that smokers migh be doing.

----

I'm not advocating this as a solution, I'm thinking 'out of the box', just to underline the difficulties.

[/QUOTE]
How did my avatar get attached to someone else’s post?

 

[samwise_new]

having been dragged up through the 70's (fighting with the next village) and the 80's (hooliganism, mainly at football) seen racism of many types i honestly thought a natural progression was taking place...people were becoming far more tolerant of others (granted, there was still some hatred in there) but then, all these minority groups seemed to suddenly appear, rights were handed out like sweets to try to gain more votes which lead to more minority groups, everything was given an acronym which somehow seemed to increase it's importance and people from all walks of life began to complain and be offended just because they did not like something...sorry but we do not all like the same things (marmite is a simple but classic example) but it was never an excuse to make other people lives a misery, we simply avoided what we did not like and let those who did like it, enjoy it, this seemed to work well.

when you have kids standing in the dock laughing about a prison sentence and joking that it will be a 'nice holiday' then you know that system is not working, i heard that drugs are freely available in prisons now as it 'makes them easier to control', one person told me he left his job as prison warder due to the fact they had to wear slippers on a night so as not to disturb the inmates, the old 'short sharp shock' was probably never the best idea but i dare say there were fewer re-offenders back then, we constantly hear about play stations, television, drugs, bets being placed and many other things by those inside so maybe it is time to make that time inside a little harder for them, make it a place they do not look forward to going back to?

'neighbours from hell'...seems we have an ever increasing problem in this area, pretty sure i heard or read once that somewhere in europe has an area for such people to live together...my idea would be that instead of just evicting them from one place to another and ending with loads in the same, private rented street, build an area of steel containers to move them into, the entire area will be fenced in and secure, they get an allowance to spend on food etc and in this area there will be shops, a doctors maybe small hospital for their use only, there will be no pubs, clubs, cinemas, resteraunts, take aways etc, they can get passes out for a family emergency, hospital visits etc i think you get the picture, they can and will be let back out into society once they sign a declaration to say they will behave and they will make sure their children will behave in society, should they break this then back they go, after a certain number they simply do not get the chance to leave ever again.

while this may seem harsh and a little like returning to the dark ages for most of you, why should law abiding, hard working and tolerant citizens have to put up with this sh1te by dickheads with no respect whatsoever for anyone or anything, the current system is obviously not just not working but broken, something needs to be done as too many are looking to take this kind of lifestyle and i firmly believe that to save a lot of people having to suffer day in, day out then so be it!

 

[Norway]

Longer and harsher sentences, forget the bleeding heart do gooders, hit them hard, I know a post further up said it hasn't worked in the US,. If we don't we will become the US again. Stop it now!

 

[Oldsandy]

Longer and harsher sentences, forget the bleeding heart do gooders, hit them hard, I know a post further up said it hasn't worked in the US,. If we don't we will become the US again. Stop it now!

Rehabilitation seems to be the purpose of jail time these days, from day one of the sentence. I’d like to see a two tier sentence implemented. The first part (perhaps a quarter) of the sentence would be punishment, in a basic one-man cell, with hard labour and a diet of bread, porridge, cheese, water. Remainder of the sentence rehabilitation. Forget halving the sentence for good behaviour; the incentive to behave would be a return to the punishment regime for misbehaviour.

 

[Bank of England 2]

Rehabilitation seems to be the purpose of jail time these days, from day one of the sentence. I’d like to see a two tier sentence implemented. The first part (perhaps a quarter) of the sentence would be punishment, in a basic one-man cell, with hard labour and a diet of bread, porridge, cheese, water. Remainder of the sentence rehabilitation. Forget halving the sentence for good behaviour; the incentive to behave would be a return to the punishment regime for misbehaviour.

The current system of rehabilitation doesn't work, and hasn't worked since it's introduction years ago. The current prison system doesn't work due to under-staffing and prisoners who do want to be rehabilitated having to mix with those who don't.

Your proposal is an interesting one and could apply to convicted offenders, as long as ones who have been through this system and re-offended go to the punishment side for their new sentence, because clearly they won't have earned the right to be rehabilitated again. Some of them never learn.

Those on remand have different rights, which is why you see some offenders 'sacking their legal team' to delay a court appearance and a subsequent conviction. Implying your rules on unconvicted prisoners might be difficult to enforce, the way you propose to do it (ECHR and all that ****), but it could be introduced as a punishment for Remand prisoners who misbehave inside.

If there are marked differences between remand prisoners, convicts on punishment and convicts on rehabilitation then 3 different types of prison would need to be created.

A return of remand centres would deal with that part of it. Having huge punishment wings alongside re-hab wings would cause problems, so the two would be better being in separate locations. All punishment centres should revert back to closed visits, as they used to be years ago. The drug problem has become a lot worse since 'open visits' were introduced, and the powers that be were warned that this would happen at the time.

First-time offenders could receive an 2-week Induction, which is based on the punishment side, and would serve as a warning to what they have to look forward to if they **** about. If they pass their Induction, they go to the rehab side, because imo you have to give these people the chance to be rehabilitated. If the focus in these particular prisons is rehabilitation and they are not mixing with those who don't want to be rehabilitated, then it has more chance of success.

 

[samwise_new]

on the subject of 'rights'...i firmly believe they should be taken away once you cross that line between right and wrong, be a 'good citizen' and your rights are upheld, step onto the wrong side of the law and those rights can and will be removed, far too many times we see habitual law breakers hide behind their 'rights'.

as there should be punishment for wrong doers, there should be rewards for keeping on the right side of the law...for an example, something daft like 5 years of safe driving (no speeding, parking fines etc) and you can 'forget' your next speeding fine (pathetic example i know but you get the idea).

 

[gelders pie]

On a documentary about rising crime about 3/4?years ago , I don’t recall wether it was a politician or ex policeman said harsher punishment for serious crime yes, but as important , harsher for minor offences . Idea being that if you don’t deter from minor stuff in the beginning , it will invariably lead to bigger things. With this in mind I believe we should be cracking down on the bad youths and school kids before verbal abuse of passers by becomes physical attack , underage drink becomes drugs and involvement therein , ignoring this alcohol rule becomes ignoring drink driving , and as that person said , petty theft is the apprenticeship to a career as they get to know a network of fences etc . Youth clubs would be a help - but who would want to try to run one ? This easy way, letting them off , engaging with them (is anybody actually doing this engaging?) is doing the kids no favours as each time they’re left free to push the boundaries further each time - they’ll throw their prospects and life away - and guess who’s fault it will apparently be then

 

[polyphemus]

How did my avatar get attached to someone else’s post?[/QUOTE]

And how did my post get re-entered as yours.?

 

[polyphemus]

on the subject of 'rights'...i firmly believe they should be taken away once you cross that line between right and wrong, be a 'good citizen' and your rights are upheld, step onto the wrong side of the law and those rights can and will be removed, far too many times we see habitual law breakers hide behind their 'rights'.

as there should be punishment for wrong doers, there should be rewards for keeping on the right side of the law...for an example, something daft like 5 years of safe driving (no speeding, parking fines etc) and you can 'forget' your next speeding fine (pathetic example i know but you get the idea).

Far too much hiding behind The Human Right Act.
Hopfully now we out of the jurisdiction of The European Court, there will be rather less of that.

But I've long held the view that The Human Rights Act should be balanced by a Human Resposibilities Act.

So, for example, a burglar would have no rights if he is hurt while breaking into a property.
He would have lost any by not behaving in a responsible manor.

I believe that there are a whole raft of Barristers who make an excellant living, specialising in this Act.
So it's not likely to be changed is it???

 

[gelders pie]

Far too much hiding behind The Human Right Act.
Hopfully now we out of the jurisdiction of The European Court, there will be rather less of that.

But I've long held the view that The Human Rights Act should be balanced by a Human Resposibilities Act.

So, for example, a burglar would have no rights if he is hurt while breaking into a property.
He would have lost any by not behaving in a responsible manor.

I believe that there are a whole raft of Barristers who make an excellant living, specialising in this Act.
So it's not likely to be changed is it???

Agree entirely. Page one should read '' all citizens have the right to lead a peaceful unfearful life, without threat of harm to themselves or their property.'' Page two '' anyone who takes away page one from another person , shall immediately forfeit any rights in connection to the incident and with their punishment''
Anyone know how/where to read this ''book'' of human rights to see what they all are ? I can't find anything. Do the lawyers just sometimes pretend they've found something in the book and the judges take their word for it?

 

[Oldsandy]

How did my avatar get attached to someone else’s post?

And how did my post get re-entered as yours.?[/QUOTE]
Ah well, nothings lost that a friend gets.

 

[Oldsandy]

Far too much hiding behind The Human Right Act.
Hopfully now we out of the jurisdiction of The European Court, there will be rather less of that.

But I've long held the view that The Human Rights Act should be balanced by a Human Resposibilities Act.

So, for example, a burglar would have no rights if he is hurt while breaking into a property.
He would have lost any by not behaving in a responsible manor.

I believe that there are a whole raft of Barristers who make an excellant living, specialising in this Act.
So it's not likely to be changed is it???

I think the daftest part of our law is, if a person is trespassing on your property at night with the intent to burgle you, and he treads on say a rake that has been carelessly left lying around and injures himself, he can sue you. Unless this has been repealed.

 

[Oldsandy]

The current system of rehabilitation doesn't work, and hasn't worked since it's introduction years ago. The current prison system doesn't work due to under-staffing and prisoners who do want to be rehabilitated having to mix with those who don't.

Your proposal is an interesting one and could apply to convicted offenders, as long as ones who have been through this system and re-offended go to the punishment side for their new sentence, because clearly they won't have earned the right to be rehabilitated again. Some of them never learn.

Those on remand have different rights, which is why you see some offenders 'sacking their legal team' to delay a court appearance and a subsequent conviction. Implying your rules on unconvicted prisoners might be difficult to enforce, the way you propose to do it (ECHR and all that ****), but it could be introduced as a punishment for Remand prisoners who misbehave inside.

If there are marked differences between remand prisoners, convicts on punishment and convicts on rehabilitation then 3 different types of prison would need to be created.

A return of remand centres would deal with that part of it. Having huge punishment wings alongside re-hab wings would cause problems, so the two would be better being in separate locations. All punishment centres should revert back to closed visits, as they used to be years ago. The drug problem has become a lot worse since 'open visits' were introduced, and the powers that be were warned that this would happen at the time.

First-time offenders could receive an 2-week Induction, which is based on the punishment side, and would serve as a warning to what they have to look forward to if they **** about. If they pass their Induction, they go to the rehab side, because imo you have to give these people the chance to be rehabilitated. If the focus in these particular prisons is rehabilitation and they are not mixing with those who don't want to be rehabilitated, then it has more chance of success.

My post was directed at offenders that have been tried, convicted and sentenced. Those on remand awaiting trial have not been convicted and I agree are entitled to different treatment.

 

[samwise_new]

I think the daftest part of our law is, if a person is trespassing on your property at night with the intent to burgle you, and he treads on say a rake that has been carelessly left lying around and injures himself, he can sue you. Unless this has been repealed.

not too many years ago, some bloke was attempting to burgle from a building site, security spotted him and he legged it, only to break his ankle running over building rubble...you guessed it, he sued the company and did not get done for the burglary...too many loop-holes now and they know them all, this was the reason for my previous post, had he not been doing wrong he would never have hurt himself and would not have been able to make a claim.

 

[Smug in Boots]

not too many years ago, some bloke was attempting to burgle from a building site, security spotted him and he legged it, only to break his ankle running over building rubble...you guessed it, he sued the company and did not get done for the burglary...too many loop-holes now and they know them all, this was the reason for my previous post, had he not been doing wrong he would never have hurt himself and would not have been able to make a claim.

I recently hired a chainsaw which had a sticker on the blade, "Do not attempt to stop the blade with your hand."

 

[samwise_new]

I recently hired a chainsaw which had a sticker on the blade, "Do not attempt to stop the blade with your hand."

sure i posted this before but at college my tutor told me that black and decker had had to put a warning on all their drills telling people they were not to be used for oral/dentistry work after some bloke sued them after he wrecked his gob doing just that. (i have never actually checked it, to be honest, i thought it was too ridiculous)

it is time our judges were allowed to take common sense into the equation and where there is a complete lack of it, they can kick a case out of court, this 'blame claim' culture we have now is scary.