Author Topic: Crime and criminals  (Read 403001 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Merddin Emrys

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4426
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #255 on: July 27, 2012, 07:38:35 am »
I'd better not comment on this, I'm having enough trouble with the Olympic thread! _))*
A pigeon is for life not just Christmas

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 9130
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #256 on: July 27, 2012, 10:09:29 am »
Rhos.Rover:  an excellent first posting, BTW, and I hope you don't mind that I've moved it into an already existing  topic.

Quote
1)   Why do we put up with this scum ruining our area? Why don’t we do something other than voting for Government after Government that lie to us regarding Law and Order? Who cares?

I suspect everyone cares, but what ought to be done? I suspect it's been the relentless deterioration in family life, coupled with an increasing tendency to demand 'rights' as opposed to accepting 'responsibility' that's at the root of things, and this can be traced back to the end of the first world war.

Quote
2)   Isn’t this a time that we should be protecting the Earth from ‘Global Warming’ and find ‘Green Alternatives’ to industrial solutions? I hear this all the time, and I’m sure that natural, organic materials should help us all. Such as fertiliser for plants and a reduction in Oxygen theft. Think about it. How sad would you really be?

This point seems something of an aside, but - interestingly - a lot of problems of this sort could be avoided if glass were eliminated in the alcohol trade.

Quote
3)   I hate bleeding-heart do-gooders. They are as responsible for our country becoming a dirty toilet as much as the filth that causes the problems. Should we shuffle them over a cliff too?

I think you'd have to be more precise about what you mean. And here's something to consider: if someone has a dog, which they purposely deprive of affection, beat every day with a baseball bat, make sleep outside in all weathers and deprive it of food and water, do you put the dog down when it starts behaving badly? It was the labour government, under TB, which was the first administration in History, to argue for exceptionally early intervention in clearly identified problem families. The plans were shouted down, long and hard, by the Daily Mail and other right-wing papers.

This is one of those problems which almost everyone will agree exists but on which almost no one will agree as to what should be done.

« Last Edit: July 27, 2012, 03:28:09 pm by Ian »
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.


Offline Yorkie

  • Member
  • Posts: 5255
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #257 on: July 27, 2012, 11:32:34 am »
Rhos.point:  an excellent first posting, BTW, and I hope you don't mind that I've moved it into an already existing  topic.


I think you mean rhos.rover - better try that autism test again!   :D
Wise men have something to say.
Fools have to say something.
Cicero

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 9130
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #258 on: July 27, 2012, 03:28:35 pm »
Oops! Thanks, Yorkie :-))
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 #259 on: July 28, 2012, 01:58:00 am »
I have a very clear idea what needs to be done to sort this problem out.
In fact I outlined the answer to Dave R just the other night.

Sadly, where respect is lacking, only contempt replaces it... and I believe that 'fear' needs to be the alternative.
In my opinion it is clearly a case of strong decision making and clear management based on some transparent rules .
At the risk of being labelled a total fascist, let me explain.

Firstly you take every current crime listed in the statute books and categorise them into 5 bands.

Minor,  minor/medium,  medium.  medium/major,   major.
Then attribute, 1 point for minor,  5 points for medium.... etc... up to 10 points for the major ones.
Thus, along with the usual fine or prison sentence, the offender accumulates points.

Then.... (here we go)... decree that once set number of points is reached, say 10 or 15 .... the individual is euthanased.
Yes, done away with.... gone....!

It would cut down on crime, it would rid the world of the the most evil types, and help with scarce resources and the surplus population.

Many would cry fascist, or radical.... but radical change has been seen (for the worse)... and radical steps are needed to reverse it.  Thats what we all want don't we?

One thing for sure, as the habitual criminal edges towards 10 or 15 points, they will have a choice to make.
They can't say they weren't warned!!
Fester...
- Semper in Excretum, Sole Profundum Variat -

Offline born2run

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1792
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #260 on: July 29, 2012, 07:07:18 pm »
 :o :o Fester did the King's Arms fiasco cause you to have a bit of a meltdown!

I don't know where to start with this one!

I'll ask some questions

Where would drug taking be on your "hit" list? - because even if it was only worth a few points or so. Your state would have killed off the likes of Jagger, Clapton, Richards and even your hero Lemmy  &shake&

What is to stop somebody on 14 points - going mental and killing everyone because they have absolutely nothing to lose, because the next time they get a parking ticket that point is going to earn them a swift beheading!

Not sure this is one of your better ideasto be honest Fester :P



Offline Yorkie

  • Member
  • Posts: 5255
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #261 on: July 29, 2012, 07:39:10 pm »
I think the point Fester was trying to make was that we need much more effective deterrents.  Present system of fines and incarceration in a five star hotel at the pleasure of Her Majesty is totally useless!    Z**

Punishments nowadays do not seem to reflect the seriousness of the crime, too many slaps on the wrist and pleas of poor childhood, and deprivation.    :rage:

As in The Mikado by G & S, "Let the punishment fit the crime!"   Take a life , loose yours!   WWW
Wise men have something to say.
Fools have to say something.
Cicero

Offline born2run

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1792
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #262 on: July 29, 2012, 07:52:46 pm »
I think the point Fester was trying to make was that we need much more effective deterrents.  Present system of fines and incarceration in a five star hotel at the pleasure of Her Majesty is totally useless!    Z**

Punishments nowadays do not seem to reflect the seriousness of the crime, too many slaps on the wrist and pleas of poor childhood, and deprivation.    :rage:

As in The Mikado by G & S, "Let the punishment fit the crime!"   Take a life , loose yours!   WWW

"Take a life, loose yours" Or as the Americans do it, "unless you're rich enough to get a decent lawyer"  :laugh:

Offline Yorkie

  • Member
  • Posts: 5255
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #263 on: July 29, 2012, 08:29:42 pm »

As in The Mikado by G & S, "Let the punishment fit the crime!"   Take a life , loose yours!   WWW

"Take a life, loose yours" Or as the Americans do it, "unless you're rich enough to get a decent lawyer"  :laugh:

All trials are judged by the evidence presented, not by whom it is presented!   
If there is something wrong with the present Rules of Evidence then let them be revised.  :D

Also if you can't afford a decent lawyer - don't commit crime, is probably the answer for the Yanks.
Wise men have something to say.
Fools have to say something.
Cicero

Offline Fester

  • Ad Free Member.
  • *
  • Posts: 6660
  • El Baldito
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #264 on: July 29, 2012, 10:18:34 pm »
Thanks Yorkie, but actually I'll answer B2R's questions very directly and succinctly.
.... and because I believe in what I have said with great conviction, I will answer ANY questions on the subject.

Firstly,  Drug taking will feature wherever the 'powers that be' decide it features.... maybe 1 point, maybe 2... that will be up to competent people.

Secondly,  if Mick Jagger et al had been aware of their points racking up, they might have sought help for their 'problem' earlier.
It might also have prevented drugs being glorified and prevented thousands of gullible rock fans from taking the same course.

As concerns your last point, I can't see why a person on 14 points would suddenly decide to kill everyone.
It seems that people (on rare occasions) take those extreme actions anyway, (as in Norway or Colorado) ...without having the death penalty as a deterrent.

Sorry B2R, I have an answer for anything .... no matter how unpalatable you might find them.

Anyone who doesn't think that these measures are needed doesn't understand the urgency of the situation the world finds itself in.
Fester...
- Semper in Excretum, Sole Profundum Variat -

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 9130
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #265 on: July 30, 2012, 08:50:45 am »
Quote
Firstly,  Drug taking will feature wherever the 'powers that be' decide it features.... maybe 1 point, maybe 2... that will be up to competent people.

There's a very big problem there; the PTB aren't competent to decide about drug taking, and those that are find the PTB don't  listen to them.  There's a significant amount of evidence about this, but the ACMD (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) lost many of its members, who resigned over this very fact in 2010. If we're to have a policy on drug taking, who decides what that policy should be and what criteria should they employ? 
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline pentan

  • Member
  • Posts: 102
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #266 on: July 30, 2012, 09:00:15 am »

SDQ- I think you can see the beginnings of this before Maggie came to power. I think the 70s were when things really started to go down hill and you started to see behaviour like this starting (though on a far level than today), certainly in the cities.

Quite a bit of the groundwork was laid in the late 60s at a policy, educational and law and order level, but didn't really have much of an effect as despite the image of the 'swinging 60s', society in general was still very, very conservative in many aspects. It was only in the early/mid 70s that behaviour, morals and standards started to go downhill.

Watching Dominic Sandford's recent history of the 70s, with lots of stats and contemporary footage from that period really reminded me how coarse some people started to become at about that time, though in places like Llandudno that maybe was less evident at that time.


I can’t agree with your thought train on this 1 Ian in the 60s up to the 80s we did not have wanabee gangsters like we have today because they knew if they stepped out of line they would get a good slapping, basically they are cowards and bullies whose favourite saying is you can’t touch me
This state of affairs started in the 80s when teachers had their rights taken away it progressed to seeing  kids in infant classes hitting out at teachers and wrecking class rooms with no fear of any reprisals.
1 incident springs to mind in the early 90s 3 18 year olds were in my road drunk swearing and causing mayhem  I cut the off in the next road and beat the crap out of them never saw them again
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 10:20:07 am by Ian »

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 9130
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #267 on: July 30, 2012, 10:52:02 am »
The UK government drug policy is interesting, based - as it appears to be - on hearsay and misinformation.  In 2010, the ACMD locked horns with the Government on this issue.  Here's what transpired (It's long, but I've emboldened the crucial bits)

Professor David Nutt of the University of Bristol was Chairman of the ACMD until being relieved of his post on 30 October 2009 after criticising politicians for "distorting" and "devaluing" research evidence in the debate over illicit drugs.[18] David Nutt founded the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs on 15 January 2010. The goal of his new committee is to complement and eventually supersede the ACMD by providing independent advice that is untainted by government interference.[19]

In February 2009, the government was accused by Professor Nutt of making a political decision with regard to drug classification in rejecting the scientific advice to downgrade ecstasy from a class A drug. The ACMD report on ecstasy, based on a 12-month study of 4,000 academic papers, concluded that it is not as dangerous as other class A drugs such as heroin and cocaine, and should be downgraded to class B. The advice was not followed.[20] Jacqui Smith, then Home Secretary, was also widely criticised by the scientific community for bullying Professor David Nutt into apologising for his comments that, in the course of a normal year, more people die from falling off horses than from taking ecstasy.[21] Professor Nutt was sacked by Jacqui Smith's successor as Home Secretary Alan Johnson; Johnson saying "It is important that the government's messages on drugs are clear and as an advisor you do nothing to undermine public understanding of them. I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy and have therefore lost confidence in your ability to advise me as Chair of the ACMD."[22]

In his October 2009 paper (based on a lecture given in July 2009) Nutt had repeated his familiar view that illicit drugs should be classified according to the actual evidence of the harm they cause and pointed out that alcohol and tobacco caused more harm than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis. Alcohol should come fifth behind cocaine, heroin, barbiturates and methadone, and tobacco should rank ninth, ahead of cannabis, LSD and ecstasy, he said. He also argued that smoking cannabis created only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness.[23]

Explaining his sacking of Nutt, Alan Johnson wrote in a letter to The Guardian, that "He was asked to go because he cannot be both a government advisor and a campaigner against government policy. [...] As for his comments about horse riding being more dangerous than ecstasy, which you quote with such reverence, it is of course a political rather than a scientific point."[24] Responding in The Times, Professor Nutt said:
“    I gave a lecture on the assessment of drug harms and how these relate to the legislation controlling drugs. According to Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, some contents of this lecture meant I had crossed the line from science to policy and so he sacked me. I do not know which comments were beyond the line or, indeed, where the line was [...] [25]    ”

In the wake of Nutt's dismissal, Dr Les King, a part-time advisor to the Department of Health, and the senior chemist on the ACMD, resigned from the body.[26] His resignation was soon followed by that of Marion Walker, Clinical Director of Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust's substance misuse service, and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's representative on the ACMD.[27]

The Guardian revealed that Alan Johnson ordered what was described as a 'snap review' of the 40-strong ACMD in October 2009. This, it was said, would assess whether the body is "discharging the functions" that it was set up to deliver and decide if it still represented value for money for the public. The review was to be conducted by David Omand.[28] Within hours of The Guardian revealing this, an article was published online by The Times arguing that Nutt's controversial lecture actually conformed to government guidelines throughout.[29] The report of the review was published in February 2011.[30]

On November 10, 2009 three further members of the Council resigned following a meeting with Alan Johnson. They were: Dr John Marsden, Dr Ian Ragan and Dr Simon Campbell.[31] A sixth member, Dr Polly Taylor, resigned in March 2010, shortly before the decision to make the legal high, mephedrone illegal.[32] On April 1, 2010 Eric Carlin also resigned after the announcement that mephedrone would be made illegal, saying that the decision by the Home Secretary was "unduly based on media and political pressure".[33] He also stated "We had little or no discussion about how our recommendation to classify this drug would be likely to impact on young people's behaviour. As well as being extremely unhappy with how the ACMD operates, I am not prepared to continue to be part of a body which, as its main activity, works to facilitate the potential criminalisation of increasing numbers of young people."
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline pentan

  • Member
  • Posts: 102
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #268 on: July 30, 2012, 07:08:37 pm »
Nutt is a nutter meow meow is lethal I think his Scientific evidence is flawed

Offline Fester

  • Ad Free Member.
  • *
  • Posts: 6660
  • El Baldito
Re: Crime and criminals
« Reply #269 on: July 30, 2012, 10:15:47 pm »
Unfortunately we have got sidetracked away from the main point.... i.e. that something must be done about the appalling crime situation and lack of accountability, (and the over-arching issues of lack or resources and over population)

I'm afraid that the issue of who is competent to decide on drugs is just detail, and of little consequence compared to the overall principle.

The questions of 'who', 'what' , 'when' are just details to be agreed upon.... and then communicated VERY clearly to the population, so that no one can claim 'oh we didn't realise the consequences'

Scumbags are rife, and they just need sorting out, I think the vast majority are agreed on that.





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