Author Topic: Crime and criminals  (Read 243153 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Merddin Emrys

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4426
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #60 on: June 02, 2011, 07:48:52 am »

"Eighteen birds have been beheaded, a frog speared, fish poisoned and 130 windows smashed at a Manchester park.

The vandals broke into the aviary in Wythenshawe Park between 1630 BST on Saturday and 1000 BST on Sunday.

After beheading the birds, they threw the carcasses around. They then filled a pond with fertiliser, killing the carp. They also chopped down trees."


No doubt the lefty do-gooders will have an excuse for their behaviour....

I'm absolutely not a lefty do gooder so I'd happily behead the scum that did that  $angry$ $angry$
A pigeon is for life not just Christmas

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8953
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #61 on: June 02, 2011, 08:28:52 am »
Quote
I'm absolutely not a lefty do gooder so I'd happily behead the scum that did that

Wonder if they were severely learning-disabled?
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.


Offline DaveR

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 13712
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #62 on: June 02, 2011, 08:42:27 am »
What is perhaps of more concern is that people who harm animals at an early age often progress to violence against humans. John Venables and Robert Thompson tortured animals before doing the same to toddler James Bulger.

My prediction is the perpetrators will be as follows. 2 or 3 local lads, between 12 and 15 years of age. At least one of them will already be known to the Police for a succession of minor offences like vandalism and anti social behaviour.

Once they are caught, social workers will be trotted out to wring their hands and talk about 'poor family background' and various other excuses. So they will end up not being punished. A couple of years later, one of them will end up seriously injuring or killing someone and an Enquiry will have to be held to discuss the failings of Social Services. The Head of Social Services will get fired but will sue for wrongful dismissal and end up with loads of compensation for the distress caused in everyone assuming he/she might actually be held accountable for the actions of their department.

Offline Fester

  • Ad Free Member.
  • *
  • Posts: 6660
  • El Baldito
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #63 on: June 02, 2011, 11:28:54 pm »
Dave, you synopsis rings frighteningly true.

Which begs a related question.

Why don't we have much more swingeing cuts of the social services budget?    They don't seem to acheive very much...
Fester...
- Semper in Excretum, Sole Profundum Variat -

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8953
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #64 on: June 03, 2011, 10:00:34 am »
Quote
Once they are caught, social workers will be trotted out to wring their hands and talk about 'poor family background' and various other excuses. So they will end up not being punished.

That's not what happens. In fact, that's about as far from reality as the Daily Mail is from News.

Here's a point:  you catch them, then what would you do?

Quote
Why don't we have much more swingeing cuts of the social services budget?    They don't seem to acheive very much..

Well, if you can persuade Parliament to repeal the wads of legislation, the Children Act in particular, then you might be able to cut the already very restricted budget. Social Services mainly exist to meet the statutory duties imposed on them by parliament. 

The incredible pressures on Child Protection Social Workers already mean that few make it into their fifteenth year of service.

So here's another question: do you know exactly what it is the Social Services does?

If we take Child protection - the group Dave portrays as being "trotted out to wring their hands and talk about 'poor family background' and various other excuses" - their role is to assume the statutory responsibilities for the protection of children as laid down by parliament.  Now, if they tried to cover every child ever born in the UK - an aspiration which some of the tabloids suggest - then there would be screams of outrage against 'big brother'.   So they deal only with referrals.  Now, in another topic in here people were roundly condemning those who attacked and tortured the residents of the hospital. These residents were learning disabled and often - although not inevitably - from learning disabled parents, all of which means they could easily be displaying a wide range of what are euphemistically termed 'challenging behaviours', which can include vandalism, maiming and killing animals and a lot worse. I wonder if anyone is starting to see the irony?

Back to the referrals, and social services can only open a case when a complaint or notification is received. Once that happens, the system swings into operation, with case conferences, joint agency  meetings, school reports, medical reports - in short, the works.  What you might not realise is how many referrals are malicious.  Surprising that perhaps someone who's fallen out with a neighbour wants to bring a whole load of troubles down on their heads, and the easiest way to do that is an anonymous call to the egregious NSPCC.

If it does turn out that there is really a cause for concern, then case workers are assigned to a family and the formal assessment is made.  Now, strangely enough, bad parents don't see themselves as bad, so they protest strongly when social workers appear to question their methods, and the court will appoint a solicitor to defend their 'interests'.  This means court appearances, and the gathering of evidence - more time, expense and paperwork.  If the evidence doesn't hold water in court, the entire process has to restart.

Finally, whose fault is it if a ten year old vandalises?





Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline Fester

  • Ad Free Member.
  • *
  • Posts: 6660
  • El Baldito
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #65 on: June 03, 2011, 11:42:40 pm »
Some extremely erudite and thought provoking points made there by Ian.

Sadly, I am tempted to move even further to the extreme 'right wing' on this, as I see it as a never ending (and because of breeding) a growing spiral.

I would advocate that birth control should be a matter for the state, with strict criteria laid down for who can, and who cannot reproduce.
More learned people than I can lay down that criteria,

Perhaps one facet of this should be to ensure that no pregnancy will be allowed to continue, if the physical or mental disability identified by some form of scan is beyond a certain extreme level?    Once again, I would not consider myself expert enough to have a view on what that level is.

Radical thinking for some tastes, but totally pragmatic and overdue in the view of others I would suggest.
Fester...
- Semper in Excretum, Sole Profundum Variat -

Offline suepp

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 720
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #66 on: June 04, 2011, 01:50:20 am »
Elimination is actually routinely available for individuals identified prior to birth with certain disabilities

Not sure what percentage of serial killers/violent criminals apprehended are diagnosed with above disabilities, -  would be interested to know the answer


I also wonder what the statistics are for individuals with  disabilities who have had crimes committed against them ?

Offline born2run

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1792
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #67 on: June 04, 2011, 01:51:48 am »
Some extremely erudite and thought provoking points made there by Ian.

Sadly, I am tempted to move even further to the extreme 'right wing' on this, as I see it as a never ending (and because of breeding) a growing spiral.

I would advocate that birth control should be a matter for the state, with strict criteria laid down for who can, and who cannot reproduce.
More learned people than I can lay down that criteria,

Perhaps one facet of this should be to ensure that no pregnancy will be allowed to continue, if the physical or mental disability identified by some form of scan is beyond a certain extreme level?    Once again, I would not consider myself expert enough to have a view on what that level is.

Radical thinking for some tastes, but totally pragmatic and overdue in the view of others I would suggest.

This idea isn't exactly new Fester!

FORCED STERILIZATIONS

The "sterilization Law" explained the importance of weeding out so-called genetic defects from the total German gene pool:

    Since the National Revolution public opinion has become increasingly preoccupied with questions of demographic policy and the continuing decline in the birthrate. However, it is not only the decline in population which is a cause for serious concern but equally the increasingly evident genetic composition of our people. Whereas the hereditarily healthy families have for the most part adopted a policy of having only one or two children, countless numbers of inferiors and those suffering from hereditary conditions are reproducing unrestrainedly while their sick and asocial offspring burden the community.

Some scientists and physicians opposed the involuntary aspect of the law while others pointed to possible flaws. But the designation of specific conditions as inherited, and the desire to eliminate such illnesses or handicaps from the population, generally reflected the scientific and medical thinking of the day in Germany and elsewhere.

Nazi Germany was not the first or only country to sterilize people considered "abnormal." Before Hitler, the United States led the world in forced sterilizations. Between 1907 and 1939, more than 30,000 people in twenty-nine states were sterilized, many of them unknowingly or against their will, while they were incarcerated in prisons or institutions for the mentally ill. Nearly half the operations were carried out in California. Advocates of sterilization policies in both Germany and the United States were influenced by eugenics. This sociobiological theory took Charles Darwin's principle of natural selection and applied it to society. Eugenicists believed the human race could be improved by controlled breeding.

Still, no nation carried sterilization as far as Hitler's Germany. The forced sterilizations began in January 1934, and altogether an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 people were sterilized under the law. A diagnosis of "feeblemindedness" provided the grounds in the majority of cases, followed by schizophrenia and epilepsy. The usual method of sterilization was vasectomy and ligation of ovarian tubes of women. Irradiation (x-rays or radium) was used in a small number of cases. Several thousand people died as a result of the operations, women disproportionately because of the greater risks of tubal ligation.

Most of the persons targeted by the law were patients in mental hospitals and other institutions. The majority of those sterilized were between the ages of twenty and forty, about equally divided between men and women. Most were "Aryan" Germans. The "Sterilization Law" did not target socalled racial groups, such as Jews and Gypsies, although Gypsies were sterilized as deviant "asocials," as were some homosexuals. Also, about 500 teenagers of mixed African and German parentage (the offspring of French colonial troops stationed in the Rhineland in the early 1920s) were sterilized because of their race, by secret order, outside the provisions of the law.

Although the "Sterilization Law" sometimes functioned arbitrarily, the semblance of legality underpinning it was important to the Nazi regime. More than 200 Hereditary Health Courts were set up across Germany and later, annexed territories. Each was made up of two physicians and one district judge. Doctors were required to register with these courts every known case of hereditary illness. Appeals courts were also established, but few decisions were ever reversed. Exemptions were sometimes given artists or other talented persons afflicted with mental illnesses. The "Sterilization Law" was followed by the Marriage Law of 1935, which required for all marriages proof that any offspring from the union would not be afflicted with a disabling hereditary disease.

Only the Roman Catholic Church, for doctrinal reasons, opposed the sterilization program consistently; most German Protestant churches accepted and often cooperated with the policy. Popular films such as Das Erbe ("Inheritance") helped build public support for government policies by stigmatizing the mentally ill and the handicapped and highlighting the costs of care. School mathematics books posed such questions as: "The construction of a lunatic asylum costs 6 million marks. How many houses at 15,000 marks each could have been built for that amount?"


Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8953
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #68 on: June 04, 2011, 09:05:36 am »
Quote
Perhaps one facet of this should be to ensure that no pregnancy will be allowed to continue, if the physical or mental disability identified by some form of scan is beyond a certain extreme level?

As Suepp points out, abortion is offered to any woman whose foetus displays as abnormal.  But no;  the scan don't detect potential anti-social behaviours, possibly because it's believed that most stem from upbringing. However, compulsory sterilisation for all is an interesting option. For many years adding contraceptives to drinking water has been considered, with the individuals having to ask for the antidote, thus making child birth a thing of choice and not accident.  But in a civilised and free society, what would the criteria be for granting such a wish, and who would formulate that criteria?

And, chillingly, once you advocate the restriction of the freedom to become pregnant, it's highly likely that other freedoms would follow suit. 
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline Hugo

  • Management board member
  • *
  • Posts: 13928
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #69 on: June 04, 2011, 03:46:07 pm »
It's a very difficult one to solve Ian and I can see that the points you have put across to balance the discussion are very valid.
A working couple usually limit the amount of children they have to what they can afford so as to give those children a decent start in life.
Some others on benefits however seem to make a career out of having children without any thought for the long term future of the children.
Last year there was a couple who had had 13 children all of whom were taken off them when the child was at a very early age because it was considered that the child was at risk. At the time the woman was pregnant with her 14th child and she had already been told that when the baby was born it would be taken off her as she was an unfit mother.
This woman stated in the paper that this would not stop her from becoming pregnant again as she was determined to have a child that she should keep!
What do you do with people like that?     

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8953
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #70 on: June 04, 2011, 04:24:03 pm »
Quote
What do you do with people like that?     

That is a case where compulsory sterilisation might be sought, and granted. But Judges - rightly, in my view - take a pretty serious view of authorising what is, in effect, a serious assault, so the evidence for it has to be overwhelming.  With 13 kids having been removed, however, I would suggest that perhaps it is.
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline Fester

  • Ad Free Member.
  • *
  • Posts: 6660
  • El Baldito
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #71 on: June 04, 2011, 11:57:16 pm »
I believe that the solution is a little piece of lead, inserted into the left ear.............fired from a GUN.



Fester...
- Semper in Excretum, Sole Profundum Variat -

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8953
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #72 on: June 05, 2011, 08:21:12 am »
Quote
I believe that the solution is a little piece of lead, inserted into the left ear.............fired from a GUN.

Don't forget the smiley;  otherwise, people might get the impression you're being serious.
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline Trojan

  • Member
  • Posts: 3327
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #73 on: June 05, 2011, 03:23:41 pm »
Quote
I believe that the solution is a little piece of lead, inserted into the left ear.............fired from a GUN.

Don't forget the smiley;  otherwise, people might get the impression you're being serious.

I thought he was serious. I was just about to suggest a .50 caliber (the one on the left)

*Edit*  :)

Offline Merddin Emrys

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4426
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #74 on: June 05, 2011, 04:19:16 pm »
I was concerned that fired in the left ear it would fly out of the right ear with very  little to slow it down! WWW
A pigeon is for life not just Christmas