Jump to content
Mark

The Politics Thread 2019

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Stadt said:

Adopting a more rehabilitation based approach is necessary but more police on the streets in the short-medium term is no bad thing. There's obviously a generational lag in the time it takes for community based policing to take affect. Youth centres and libraries aren't going to draw Albanian coke dealers in. 

Not with that attitude they won’t. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm generally a liberal thinking kind of guy but I'm going to disappoint some on here when I say that the liberal idea of rehabilitation of wrong doers is flawed. And I certainly don't agree with the idea that "non-physical aggression" crimes like robbery and B&E don't merit prison time.

 

I remember the years of worry and fear that my parents went through after their house was burgled whilst they were away on holiday. They like many others really suffer from these crimes.

 

I'm not saying that prison rehabilitates or stops people re-offending but there is no evidence that systems like the Norwegian system stop that either. Sure some people don't re-offend, many others do. In fact the only sentence that 100% stops re-offending is the death penalty, but I'm sure my liberal associates will not advocate that.

 

IMHO the only way to reduce crime is through community education and full time jobs. People need to have a higher understanding and then have a moral compass, people need to understand the harm it does to others and realise that they are not the centre of the universe and of top of that they need a job which will keep them physically and mentally occupied giving them remuneration that enables them to buy what they want (whilst having reasonable desires for what they want). THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.

 

Therefore I'm in the decidely non-liberal camp of happily locking these people up and basically giving up on rehabilitation as it simply isn't effective or efficient.

 

I think non-violent criminals should be made to do community service - those jobs that are not done (street cleaning everywhere) and those jobs that no-one wants to do. Violent criminals should be psychoanalysed and we should re-consider corporal punishment for them. I value one innocent child's life above the possibility of rehabilitating 100,000 violent criminals. We just don't have the money to spend on societal detriments, this money should be spent on education and health etc... THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN EITHER!

 

So we are stuck with imprisonment, release, reoffending ... People who don't respect others and the downward spiral of humanity towards it's own final destruction.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, FIF said:

I'm generally a liberal thinking kind of guy but I'm going to disappoint some on here when I say that the liberal idea of rehabilitation of wrong doers is flawed. And I certainly don't agree with the idea that "non-physical aggression" crimes like robbery and B&E don't merit prison time.

 

I remember the years of worry and fear that my parents went through after their house was burgled whilst they were away on holiday. They like many others really suffer from these crimes.

 

I'm not saying that prison rehabilitates or stops people re-offending but there is no evidence that systems like the Norwegian system stop that either. Sure some people don't re-offend, many others do. In fact the only sentence that 100% stops re-offending is the death penalty, but I'm sure my liberal associates will not advocate that.

 

IMHO the only way to reduce crime is through community education and full time jobs. People need to have a higher understanding and then have a moral compass, people need to understand the harm it does to others and realise that they are not the centre of the universe and of top of that they need a job which will keep them physically and mentally occupied giving them remuneration that enables them to buy what they want (whilst having reasonable desires for what they want). THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.

 

Therefore I'm in the decidely non-liberal camp of happily locking these people up and basically giving up on rehabilitation as it simply isn't effective or efficient.

 

I think non-violent criminals should be made to do community service - those jobs that are not done (street cleaning everywhere) and those jobs that no-one wants to do. Violent criminals should be psychoanalysed and we should re-consider corporal punishment for them. I value one innocent child's life above the possibility of rehabilitating 100,000 violent criminals. We just don't have the money to spend on societal detriments, this money should be spent on education and health etc... THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN EITHER!

 

So we are stuck with imprisonment, release, reoffending ... People who don't respect others and the downward spiral of humanity towards it's own final destruction.

 

I don't mean any offence, but there's been several links I've posted myself, and Buce has posted, regarding how Norway's system has seen it drop to the lowest reoffence rate in Europe. That is the evidence. It's been posted MANY times in the last few pages of this thread.

 

The Norwegian system is about community education and full time jobs. Again the links show that they're taught self responsibility in a household environment with no alcohol or drugs and taught real life skills tey can use to get real jobs. This is what the rehabilitation system is about.

Edited by Finnaldo
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, FIF said:

I'm generally a liberal thinking kind of guy but I'm going to disappoint some on here when I say that the liberal idea of rehabilitation of wrong doers is flawed. And I certainly don't agree with the idea that "non-physical aggression" crimes like robbery and B&E don't merit prison time.

 

I remember the years of worry and fear that my parents went through after their house was burgled whilst they were away on holiday. They like many others really suffer from these crimes.

 

I'm not saying that prison rehabilitates or stops people re-offending but there is no evidence that systems like the Norwegian system stop that either. Sure some people don't re-offend, many others do. In fact the only sentence that 100% stops re-offending is the death penalty, but I'm sure my liberal associates will not advocate that.

 

IMHO the only way to reduce crime is through community education and full time jobs. People need to have a higher understanding and then have a moral compass, people need to understand the harm it does to others and realise that they are not the centre of the universe and of top of that they need a job which will keep them physically and mentally occupied giving them remuneration that enables them to buy what they want (whilst having reasonable desires for what they want). THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.

 

Therefore I'm in the decidely non-liberal camp of happily locking these people up and basically giving up on rehabilitation as it simply isn't effective or efficient.

 

I think non-violent criminals should be made to do community service - those jobs that are not done (street cleaning everywhere) and those jobs that no-one wants to do. Violent criminals should be psychoanalysed and we should re-consider corporal punishment for them. I value one innocent child's life above the possibility of rehabilitating 100,000 violent criminals. We just don't have the money to spend on societal detriments, this money should be spent on education and health etc... THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN EITHER!

 

So we are stuck with imprisonment, release, reoffending ... People who don't respect others and the downward spiral of humanity towards it's own final destruction.

 

I’m not sure what makes you think you’re ‘a liberal thinking kind of guy’. 

 

You certainly don’t give that impression to me. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I’m not sure what makes you think you’re ‘a liberal thinking kind of guy’. 

 

You certainly don’t give that impression to me. 

 

He thinks only one hand should be cut off if you steal a loaf of bread, Rees-Mogg called him a liberal snowflake!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

I don't need any offence, but there's been several links I've posted myself, and Buce has posted, regarding how Norway's system has seen it drop to the lowest reoffence rate in Europe. That is the evidence. It's been posted MANY times in the last few pages of this thread.

 

The Norwegian system is about community education and full time jobs. Again the links show that they're taught self responsibility in a household environment with no alcohol or drugs and taught real life skills tey can use to get real jobs. This is what the rehabilitation system is about.

Statistics are not facts, they are ways to prove a point.

 

I see that re-offending has gone down in Norway and that's great.

 

My points are: 1. You and others are putting that down to a particular form of sentencing/incarceration whilst there are so many other factors that are relevant - none more so (imo) than the incredible

wealth in Norwegian society from raping the area of it's natural resources. Everyone in Norway became richer and had the possibility of gainful employment whilst community resources, health and education benefitted massively from the oil boom. 2. Re-offending isn't at 0% or anywhere close therefore it isn't working it's just doing better at the moment than other countries.

 

I'm 100% with you on the second paragraph, I just think you are skewing facts by trying to say that's the rehabilitation system. Education and jobs with community emphasis is about stopping offending in the first place and this is what Norway needs to be congratulated on and held as an example to the world.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I’m not sure what makes you think you’re ‘a liberal thinking kind of guy’. 

 

You certainly don’t give that impression to me. 

 

In my mind I'm a liberal thinking guy apart from in a couple of areas which includes Law and order. I guess my actions/words don't reflect my beliefs. It doesn't surprise me. I've always believed that we humans have the power to decieve both ourselves and others and the moral compass to do so without compunction.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

He thinks only one hand should be cut off if you steal a loaf of bread, Rees-Mogg called him a liberal snowflake!

 

Whereas you think that we should forgive the thief and perhaps invite him to the funeral of the child who died of starvation because he needed yet another loaf of bread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FIF said:

Statistics are not facts, they are ways to prove a point.

 

I see that re-offending has gone down in Norway and that's great.

 

My points are: 1. You and others are putting that down to a particular form of sentencing/incarceration whilst there are so many other factors that are relevant - none more so (imo) than the incredible

wealth in Norwegian society from raping the area of it's natural resources. Everyone in Norway became richer and had the possibility of gainful employment whilst community resources, health and education benefitted massively from the oil boom. 2. Re-offending isn't at 0% or anywhere close therefore it isn't working it's just doing better at the moment than other countries.

 

I'm 100% with you on the second paragraph, I just think you are skewing facts by trying to say that's the rehabilitation system. Education and jobs with community emphasis is about stopping offending in the first place and this is what Norway needs to be congratulated on and held as an example to the world.

 

 

 

In my mind I'm a liberal thinking guy apart from in a couple of areas which includes Law and order. I guess my actions/words don't reflect my beliefs. It doesn't surprise me. I've always believed that we humans have the power to decieve both ourselves and others and the moral compass to do so without compunction.

 

 

 

Whereas you think that we should forgive the thief and perhaps invite him to the funeral of the child who died of starvation because he needed yet another loaf of bread?

 

1) Hence why I've previously noted smaller population among various other differences between us &  Norway, and that there should at least be trials for it rather than sitting on a rotten prison system and hoping it miraculously comes good.

 

2) That was a light-hearted jibe but if you are genuinely defending medieval Middle Eastern punishments then I would actively reconsider considering yourself 'fairly liberal-minded'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, FIF said:

full time jobs.

I'm pretty sure there will always be people who feel that they can 'earn' more through crime with less time involved than a full time job on minimum wages. In fact it seems like a growing proportion of the population.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

1) Hence why I've previously noted smaller population among various other differences between us &  Norway, and that there should at least be trials for it rather than sitting on a rotten prison system and hoping it miraculously comes good.

 

2) That was a light-hearted jibe but if you are genuinely defending medieval Middle Eastern punishments then I would actively reconsider considering yourself 'fairly liberal-minded'.

1) Or simply accept that prison systems won't ever come good. The work has to be done to stop people offending not hoping that offenders will change from Wolves to Sheep.

 

2) Mine was also a joke - I'm surprised you didn't realise since yours clearly was a joke. I must be a sublimely subtle liberal minded guy.

 

Please forgive me if I don't comment further. I can't afford to use all my daily posts up chatting with you - even though it's an incredibly interesting topic and you're an educated, caring and polite communicator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FIF said:

1) Or simply accept that prison systems won't ever come good. The work has to be done to stop people offending not hoping that offenders will change from Wolves to Sheep.

 

2) Mine was also a joke - I'm surprised you didn't realise since yours clearly was a joke. I must be a sublimely subtle liberal minded guy.

 

Please forgive me if I don't comment further. I can't afford to use all my daily posts up chatting with you - even though it's an incredibly interesting topic and you're an educated, caring and polite communicator.

 

Well apologies if I didn't get your joke, and if you don't wish to comment anymore fair enough, but I'll leave you with this:

 

Regardless on your views on rehabilitation and your 'Wolves to Sheep' belief, do you not believe, purely from a pragmatic view if not from a humanitarian view, that basic trials of an extremely successful model is preferable to throwing money into an increasingly bloated sink and could allow us to properly funding prevention projects to fight the root causes?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, FIF said:

 

Whereas you think that we should forgive the thief and perhaps invite him to the funeral of the child who died of starvation because he needed yet another loaf of bread?

 

Or we could construct a society of equal opportunity and fair wealth distribution so nobody starves and none but the congenitally sociopathic need to steal. 

 

But then a liberal-minded guy like yourself will have already thought of that. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

Well apologies if I didn't get your joke, and if you don't wish to comment anymore fair enough, but I'll leave you with this:

 

Regardless on your views on rehabilitation and your 'Wolves to Sheep' belief, do you not believe, purely from a pragmatic view if not from a humanitarian view, that basic trials of an extremely successful model is preferable to throwing money into an increasingly bloated sink and could allow us to properly funding prevention projects to fight the root causes?

1. No problem. A lot of people don't get my jokes - I guess that says more about my jokes than you. And it's not that I don't wish to comment, it's that I know the dreaded red messgae will come up and I'll be unable to comment on anything else for hours.

 

2. I do believe that adopting a better model would be a good thing but I hold out that it is still a waste of money (buying Slimani was like paying for a successful alternative model but it didn't work and it the end just wasted more money) and a waste of time. We should put all that time and money into removing the root cause of offending - sadly at the expense of offenders as our resources are not limitless.

 

 

30 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Or we could construct a society of equal opportunity and fair wealth distribution so nobody starves and none but the congenitally sociopathic need to steal. 

 

But then a liberal-minded guy like yourself will have already thought of that. 

 

Buce, you've read me for years and you know that I AM all for a society of equal opportunity and fair wealth distribution so nobody starves, I want to go even further and not favour those genetically advantaged (whether through intelligence/looks/charm/strength ... genes or family hereditary over those thick, ugly, poor idiots :D) but I know that this isn't going to happen during my lifetime and I see not even the slightest evidence or hope that it will ever happen between now and the day that man becomes extinct. My comments in this thread concern the realistic here and now and how life can be better for MY children and grandchildren (selfishly at the expense of some others).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

:wes:

 

Why in God's name has that quoted me? I want no association with that suggestion lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

Why in God's name has that quoted me? I want no association with that suggestion lol 

 

Sorry, its because I used the quick quote mobile feature and it's lifted his quote out of your post and attributed it to you. That's interesting. 

 

@Mark

 

Anything that can be done about that or just how the feature works? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

What's that old saying? 'People tend to use statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost - for support rather than illumination.'

But the numbers themselves do not lie.

 

And in this seeming post-truth era, it seems that almost any scientific fact is up for question by anyone - rather that ones for which the numbers aren't quite so supportive - and that isn't really a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

:wes:

No point discussing with you, disagreeing with the protected inner circle just results in another ban.

 

 

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

But the numbers themselves do not lie.

 

And in this seeming post-truth era, it seems that almost any scientific fact is up for question by anyone - rather that ones for which the numbers aren't quite so supportive - and that isn't really a good thing.

 

Of course numbers don't lie - nor do they tell the truth. They simply are.

 

Statistics are not simply numbers though. When "statistics" are quoted they are being used in a context to support an argument (not in their own pure context). I'm sure you'll agree that "statistics" are used all the time by groups on the opposite sides of discussions to evidence their arguments. Sometimes it's the exact same numbers being used to credit or discredit an idea. 2 of my A levels (the two I enjoyed most and excelled in) were Statistics and Economics and I can promise you that the beautiful combination of the 2 were/are and will be used to create falsehoods and believers.

 

edit: if my memory isn't failing me I think it's simpson's paradox where the same stats/data are used to prove opposite arguments 

Edited by FIF
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Amber Rudd in March: "no deal would do generational damage to our economy and security”.

 

Gets job in Johnson's cabinet

 

Amber Rudd today: "risks of a no-deal Brexit are no more than a challenge that can be countered by government action..."

 

How the fvck do these people sleep at night?

Not the only one to boot. 

 

Next boss:

 

"We are a long way from disorder and chaos, the fact that HMRC has introduced these transition methods will make an enormous difference. I think the encouraging thing is that we are rapidly moving from the disorder and chaos camp to the well-prepared camp.

 

Even the dude in calais who was giving it the disaster speech just a few months ago has changed his tune. 

 

Despicable people one and all. :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Amber Rudd in March: "no deal would do generational damage to our economy and security”.

 

Gets job in Johnson's cabinet

 

Amber Rudd today: "risks of a no-deal Brexit are no more than a challenge that can be countered by government action..."

 

How the fvck do these people sleep at night?

 

Almost enough to make you cynical about politicians.

 

Likewise......

- 2016: "Vote Leave have no plans, we'd be stronger, safer & better off in the EU and Boris is not the bloke you want driving you home after a party"

- 2019: "I want to serve in Boris' cabinet, under the guidance of the Vote Leave guru and in pursuit of a No Deal Brexit"

 

 

Edited by Alf Bentley
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Almost enough to make you cynical about politicians.

Yeah about 25 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, FIF said:

I'm generally a liberal thinking kind of guy but I'm going to disappoint some on here when I say that the liberal idea of rehabilitation of wrong doers is flawed. And I certainly don't agree with the idea that "non-physical aggression" crimes like robbery and B&E don't merit prison time.

 

I remember the years of worry and fear that my parents went through after their house was burgled whilst they were away on holiday. They like many others really suffer from these crimes.

 

I'm not saying that prison rehabilitates or stops people re-offending but there is no evidence that systems like the Norwegian system stop that either. Sure some people don't re-offend, many others do. In fact the only sentence that 100% stops re-offending is the death penalty, but I'm sure my liberal associates will not advocate that.

 

IMHO the only way to reduce crime is through community education and full time jobs. People need to have a higher understanding and then have a moral compass, people need to understand the harm it does to others and realise that they are not the centre of the universe and of top of that they need a job which will keep them physically and mentally occupied giving them remuneration that enables them to buy what they want (whilst having reasonable desires for what they want). THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.

 

Therefore I'm in the decidely non-liberal camp of happily locking these people up and basically giving up on rehabilitation as it simply isn't effective or efficient.

 

I think non-violent criminals should be made to do community service - those jobs that are not done (street cleaning everywhere) and those jobs that no-one wants to do. Violent criminals should be psychoanalysed and we should re-consider corporal punishment for them. I value one innocent child's life above the possibility of rehabilitating 100,000 violent criminals. We just don't have the money to spend on societal detriments, this money should be spent on education and health etc... THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN EITHER!

 

So we are stuck with imprisonment, release, reoffending ... People who don't respect others and the downward spiral of humanity towards it's own final destruction.

There are certain nonviolent offences which do in my mind warrant prison time, arson for example being one.

If the person is a danger to the public, even if their crime is nonviolent, then prison time is probably justified, but up to 2 years in prison for possession of a class C drug is, in my mind not only a waste of money for the taxpayer, but also likely to get that offender involved in worse crime as they associate in prison with the worst kinds of criminals.

 

I'm happy you bring up Norway, because they have some of the lowest reoffending rates in the world, at only 20%. Compare that to the UK at 46%, or the US at 54%. You'll never eradicate crime, but the goal is to reduce it as much as possible.

http://www.salve.edu/sites/default/files/filesfield/documents/Incarceration_and_Recidivism.pdf

Edited by Beechey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem on prisons is people framing anything but draconian measures as though they are focused purely on a better outcome for the offender. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, FIF said:

No point discussing with you, disagreeing with the protected inner circle just results in another ban.

 

 

 

Of course numbers don't lie - nor do they tell the truth. They simply are.

 

Statistics are not simply numbers though. When "statistics" are quoted they are being used in a context to support an argument (not in their own pure context). I'm sure you'll agree that "statistics" are used all the time by groups on the opposite sides of discussions to evidence their arguments. Sometimes it's the exact same numbers being used to credit or discredit an idea. 2 of my A levels (the two I enjoyed most and excelled in) were Statistics and Economics and I can promise you that the beautiful combination of the 2 were/are and will be used to create falsehoods and believers.

 

edit: if my memory isn't failing me I think it's simpson's paradox where the same stats/data are used to prove opposite arguments 

I'm not sure about Simpson's Paradox, but yes, I have seen numerous examples of statistics being used to push both sides of an argument.

 

However, the fact remains that despite that there are certain statistics that indicate conclusions so obvious they cannot be argued against with a straight face.

 

NB. I'm referring here to examples in what might be called the "harder" sciences as opposed to the social/political ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...